SEVERN ESTUARY SCRUTINY TASK GROUP

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The task group was set up following concerns raised by Councillors Tony Blackburn, Basil Booth and Martin Quaile at the Environment Scrutiny Committee in September 2011. They highlighted the concerns of the local community at proposals published by the Environment Agency as part of its Flood Risk Management Strategy in January 2011.

1.2 The role of the task group was to contribute to the Environment Agency’s emerging plans for managing flood risk on the Severn Estuary to ensure that they:

a) Provided a balance between the strategic land use priorities of farmland and wildlife habitat.

b) Considered the practical issues for communities (including farmers and local residents) relating to insurance and marketability and how these can be mitigated.

1.3 The group also considered critical infrastructure issues, particularly relating to roads and schools, relevant to County Council.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Membership of the task group

2.1.1 Councillors Tony Hicks (chairman), Tony Blackburn, Dr John Cordwell, Bill Crowther and Martin Quaile.

2.1.2 Councillors Dr Cordwell and Quaile declared personal interests as members of the Severn Estuary Partnership.

1

2.2 Who did we speak to?

2.2.1 After holding an initial scene setting meeting, a day long session was held on Tuesday, 29 November. The following organisations and groups were represented on the day: o Environment Agency o County councillors – Cllr Basil Booth (Berkeley Vale) and Cllr Phil Awford (Severn Vale) o councils – Alvington, , Elmore, Frampton-on-Severn, with Saul, and , and Westbury-on- Severn o Severn Voice – association of Severnside parish councils (on the Stroud side of the estuary) o National Farmers’ Union o Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board o Natural o Council o City Council

2.2.2 They were asked questions on the concerns of local residents and what they would like to happen next.

2.2.3 Councillor Phil Awford declared personal interests relating to membership of the Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board, the Midlands Region Flood and Coastal Committee and the National Flood Forum. He also declared an interest because his partner owned land alongside the river in Minsterworth.

2.2.4 Councillor Martin Quaile represented the interests of the District Council as he is the Cabinet Member for the Environment at that council as well as being a county councillor.

2.2.5 A number of other interested groups and individuals were asked to provide their views in writing. These included MPs with constituencies bordering the estuary, the Association of British Insurers and councillors with a particular interest in the estuary.

2.2.6 The members would like to thank all of the people who attended meetings for the open and honest way in which they provided information to the task group.

2

3 WHAT DID WE LEARN?

3.1 Roles and responsibilities

3.1.1 The Environment Agency has statutory responsibility for the management of flood risk from ‘main’ rivers and the sea. Gloucestershire County Council is consulted on the Environment Agency’s plans for the estuary. Government Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding for flood risk management is administered by the Environment Agency. This funding may be used to compensate landowners in respect of flood risk management works being carried out on their land.

3.1.2 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is responsible for matters relating to farmland.

3.1.3 Gloucestershire County Council is responsible for managing the flood risk from surface water, ground water and ‘ordinary’ watercourses (but not ‘main’ rivers). The main concern of the county council relating to the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy is the protection of homes and critical infrastructure such as roads and schools.

3.1.4 The Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board has responsibility for maintaining adopted drainage channels on land adjacent to the estuary (below the 10 metre contour). It also operates a number of pumping stations as some areas are unable to drain via gravity into the estuary.

3.2 Ecology

3.2.1 The Severn Estuary has a number of important conservation designations. These include: a) Special Area of Conservation – designated under the EC Habitats and Species Directive b) Special Protection Area – designated under EC Birds Directive c) Ramsar site (wetland of international importance) – designated under the Ramsar Convention d) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

3.2.2 The Wildlife and Wetlands Trust covers a large area of low lying wetland alongside the estuary at and this provides an internationally recognised habitat for migrating birds.

3.2.3 The key habitats affected by the proposals in the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy are salt marsh, intertidal mudflats and rocky shores. The

3

rising sea levels reduce the areas of salt marsh and mudflat in front of the tidal defences. This process is known as ‘coastal squeeze’.

3.2.4 EU and UK law indicates that the loss of habitat should be avoided or compensated by the creation of habitat elsewhere in the Severn Estuary. Compensation outside of the Severn Estuary would be difficult to achieve but there might be opportunities for areas of land downstream of Gloucestershire on the estuary to be used for this purpose.

3.3 Environment Agency

3.3.1 The Environment Agency published a document in January 2011 outlining its proposed strategy for managing flood risk on the Severn Estuary. This was based around a presumption that local communities should plan for a rise in sea level of approximately 1 metre over the next 100 years.

3.3.2 The strategy proposes that flood defences are maintained or improved in some areas but provides for a managed realignment in others. This may mean that some flood defences are not maintained and are left to lapse over time. Most communities would not see a significant impact until 2060 or later.

3.3.3 Responses to the strategy identified a number of concerns. These included food security, loss of livelihood, falling value of land and property, rising insurance premiums and compensation. Particular concerns were also highlighted relating to the lack of stakeholder consultation, poor presentation of the strategy and inaccurate information.

3.3.4 The Environment Agency has subsequently accepted that the process it had followed was flawed. It intends to begin a community engagement exercise with all the stakeholders, paying particular attention to those communities where concern has been raised about the current proposal for managed realignment. This will not be based on a revised strategy but a fresh approach. Two community engagement officers have recently been employed to undertake this work.

3.3.5 A new strategy will be produced once the community engagement exercise has been completed and will be subject to further consultation. It was not expected that the strategy would be available before April 2012 and it might be later as the Environment Agency is anxious that the process is not rushed.

3.3.6 The Environment Agency recognised that actions in the estuary should be timed to address actual rises in water levels and not be carried out at specific future dates based on predicted rises through climate change.

4

3.4 Parish councils including Severn Voice

3.4.1 Parish councillors expressed serious concern at how the process had been managed by the Environment Agency. Specific concerns included: a) Residents first learned of the strategy with a card through the post, but not all residents received the card. b) Short consultation period for such an important issue which is already affecting the day-to-day lives of local people and their ability to plan for the future. This ran from January to March 2011. c) Why had only one option been put forward? This was based on inaccurate maps and data. The lack of figures and evidence made meaningful consultation impossible. d) In certain areas the proposed ‘managed’ flooding may mean not just loss of farmland and homes. Amenities such as schools and village halls will be put out of use resulting in the gradual abandonment of whole communities. e) Local details relating to watercourses, gradients, pumping stations and road access not taken into account. Local stakeholder engagement would have identified these issues. f) No calculation provided of habitat loss versus habitat creation, so there is no basis for consultees to assess the rationale for the proposals. Where does the cost-benefit of farmland versus wildlife habitats get spelt out? g) No consideration of the impact of the loss of many existing wetland and other wildlife habitats already created on farmland which currently provides both food and habitat. h) No proper evidence based assessment provided of how rising sea levels and associated risks are assumed to develop. How could understand the decision making process when supporting data was not available? i) Reference to the protection of listed buildings in some areas but not others j) No mention of compensation for the reduction in the value of homes left unprotected. The values of homes would also be reduced by inadequate access to roads and sewage systems. k) No firm proposals on how farmers will be compensated for the loss of land l) No reference to the relationship between the strategy and UK food security m) Loss of confidence in senior officers at the Environment Agency following their failure to respond to questions asked during the consultation. n) Failure to take proper account of the potential impact on critical infrastructure such as the A48, the railway line south of , the Gloucester to canal, power lines, pylons, sewage systems and water supplies. o) Inaccurate flood lines on the current Environment Agency flood management strategy maps. This had caused difficulties for some people in obtaining insurance and in at least one case a person had been refused a mortgage application.

5

3.4.2 Severn Voice had raised its concerns with the government minister responsible for flooding, senior officials at the Environment Agency and Julie Girling MEP. There was recognition that the process had been flawed and urgent steps need to be undertaken to engage properly with local communities.

3.4.3 The Environment Agency had not yet been able to quantify the area of intertidal habitat that will need to be replaced and this was a fundamental issue for the strategy.

3.4.4 Severn Voice pointed out that farmland due to be flooded under the present strategy represented a wildlife habitat where there had been a significant investment of public money over the years.

3.4.5 Particular concerns were also expressed regarding contamination of soil through flooding of land alongside the estuary. In one particular case in Alvington a farmer had lost stock and analysis of the soil indicated the presence of high levels of toxic elements such as zinc. The representative from the Environment Agency at the meeting indicated that they would refer this matter to the area office for further investigation.

3.5 National Farmers’ Union (NFU)

3.5.1 The Gloucestershire Chairman of the NFU echoed the concerns expressed by the parish councils. He said that he had been frustrated that the Environment Agency would not engage with the NFU. The NFU had raised its concerns with the government minister responsible for flooding.

3.5.2 Some of the information published in the strategy had been inaccurate. No background evidence had been given for the predicted sea level rise and flood lines on maps which were based on the 1947 flood levels had caused confusion. The position regarding the replacement of intertidal habitats was unclear and needed further clarification.

3.5.3 It was clear that there had been a breakdown in confidence with certain individuals at the Environment Agency and a fresh start is needed. In future, the person responsible for the strategy should be identified with their contact details shown on all papers produced. Members believed that a ‘helpline’ to assist those with insurance or mortgage problems might be especially useful.

3.5.4 It was essential that there was a dialogue between public sector agencies before responding to the Environment Agency. This was particularly important for Gloucestershire County Council and the district councils.

6

3.6 Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board (IDB)

3.6.1 The IDB had concerns regarding the intrinsic value of flood defences. Currently these assets require relatively little maintenance but protect infrastructure worth millions of pounds. In some areas the IDB’s own pumping stations will effectively become redundant as the areas become flooded for long periods of time with tidal waters. The Environment Agency strategy appeared to take little account of the need for pumping stations to clear water that could not drain by gravity into the estuary.

3.6.2 The IDB was levied around £200,000 by the Environment Agency for work undertaken in the area and ratepayers will be receiving no benefit in some areas. There is concern regarding potential reductions in land value and very little information had been provided on levels of compensation.

3.6.3 The strategy refers to the need for habitat creation but fails to identify how this will reduce flood risk. There is concern that an agenda for habitat creation is being pursued through a flood risk management strategy and future funds for flood risk works may be diverted away from protecting local communities.

3.6.4 There is considerable disquiet amongst people living in the affected areas regarding the way in which the strategy had been presented. The IDB believes that it is important that the Environment Agency takes steps to ensure local communities are engaged in the process as it moves forward.

3.7 District councils

3.7.1 Stroud District Council had serious concerns regarding the consultation process and the information supporting the strategy. The process was one of old style consultation based on a single option without any stakeholder input into the early development of the strategy.

3.7.2 There were a number of factual inaccuracies that effective community engagement would have identified. Information requested by local communities had not been provided.

3.7.3 Stroud District Council believe that the Environment Agency should start the process again in a collaborative manner. There should be proper engagement by the Environment Agency. It should publish and agree a document production process with stakeholders that gives local political and democratic accountability. Reasonable alternatives produced by local communities and stakeholders could then be evaluated with technical input from the Environment Agency.

7

3.7.4 Gloucester City Council recognises the concerns expressed regarding poor community engagement. It supports the broad thrust of the strategy involving the managed retreat of flood defences south of Gloucester. It is important that steps are taken to protect Gloucester from flooding with its much higher concentration of homes and businesses.

3.7.5 The Council is anxious that the Environment Agency engages with the agricultural communities affected by the proposals before coming to a conclusion on the strategy. Clarification on the rights, opportunities and responsibilities of landowners is urgently needed. In view of the social and economic importance of the Gloucester to Cardiff railway line, the strategy should address how this will be protected.

3.8 Association of British Insurers (ABI)

3.8.1 The ABI is the voice of insurance, representing the general insurance, protection, investment and long-term savings industry. It provided the following written submissions in response to specific questions:

3.8.2 How do you measure the impact of proposals such as those put forward in the EA consultation?

Insurers are unlikely to measure the potential impact of flood management activity at the ‘proposal’ stage. Property insurance contracts are almost exclusively renewed on an annual basis, meaning that insurers do not tend to take potential changes in the level of risk into account well in advance. Insurers want to be able to understand the current level of risk to a property as accurately as possible. To help make this judgement, different insurers use a wide variety of information including the Environment Agency flood maps, national flood risk assessment data, data purchased from private modelling and mapping companies and their claims experience in a given area.

We always recommend that individuals share any localised information on community defences or property-level actions to reduce risk with potential insurers, as this may allow them to review their decisions on cover.

3.8.3 Is there an immediate effect on premiums?

We cannot answer this question with certainty because pricing is a competitive issue, and individual insurers have to be free to set premiums as they see fit. However, in general, insurers want to be able to reflect the true risk of flooding faced by a property in the premium paid. This means that if the risk goes up, we would expect to see premiums rise. If the risk

8

goes down then we would expect to see premiums adjust to the correct level.

The Environment Agency plans do not seem to suggest that properties will see an instant increase in flood risk, but that the flood risk will be allowed to increase over time. The plans indicate that the Environment Agency will work with residents to help them in making their properties more resilient to flooding. Again, we recommend that individuals share information on property-level actions to reduce risk with potential insurers, as this may allow them to review their decisions on cover.

4 WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

4.1 Recommendations to the Environment Agency

4.1.1 The task group welcomes the fresh approach to developing the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy and requests that the Environment Agency takes note of the specific issues raised during the scrutiny hearing.

4.1.2 In particular, the Environment Agency is recommended:

a) To provide a named contact for all issues relating to the strategy and ensure that in future all documents include their contact details. b) To ensure that all relevant stakeholders are engaged by being given an opportunity to be involved in the community engagement exercise before a new strategy is developed. This should include residents, landowners, parish councils, district councils (including ward members), county council (including divisional councillors), the National Farmers’ Union, the Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board, the Country Landowners and Business Association, the Ramblers Association, Gloucester Harbour Trustees, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust. c) To make sure that the information presented is accurate and has a sound evidence base. Flood lines should follow the national flood zone maps and not be based on the indicative flood line from 1947 which has little or no relevance today. We support the Environment Agency’s intention to base options on the occurrence of actual sea level rise rather than stating timescales assessed using current sea level rise predictions. d) To ensure that there is a common understanding of the impact of the proposals on habitats in the estuary. The legal position regarding the protection and replacement of habitats should be made clear from the outset. e) To provide a ‘helpline’ for local residents in light of the difficulties already being experienced in obtaining insurance and applying for mortgages.

9

f) To make clear what levels of compensation will be available to residents and land owners either through EU grants or directly from the Environment Agency. g) To provide clarity on the rights, opportunities and responsibilities of landowners. h) To work closely with public sector agencies such as Gloucestershire County Council, the Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board, Network Rail, district councils and utility companies to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected. This includes roads, railway lines, schools, the Gloucester to Sharpness canal, electricity substations, water supplies and pumping stations. i) To always have in mind the importance of defending local communities against the need to create new habitats.

4.1.3 Following the loss of stock on farmland in Alvington, the Environment Agency is also recommended to undertake regular soil monitoring of land that has been flooded by the estuary to check for the presence of toxic elements such as zinc.

4.2 Recommendations to the Cabinet at Gloucestershire County Council

4.2.1 The task group recognises that there have been failings in the way that the county council responded to the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy. In particular there was a failure to keep councillors with divisions bordering the estuary informed of developments. It is therefore recommended that the views of divisional councillors are sought whenever the county council is responding to community engagement or consultation carried out by other public agencies relating to their area.

4.2.2 The council appoints members to outside bodies such as the Severn Estuary Partnership and the Midlands Region Flood and Coastal Committee. It is recommended that members who are appointed to these positions are also kept informed when consultation exercises relevant to their role are undertaken.

4.2.3 In an effort to strengthen responses to the Environment Agency, the Cabinet Member for Communities and the Cabinet Member for Planning, Economy and Environment are asked to work with colleagues from Stroud District Council, Forest of Dean District Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Gloucester City Council in making joint submissions. The task group recognises that this may not always be easy to achieve but in the case of the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy there appears to be some common ground between the councils.

10

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 We must be careful to ensure that the needs of the communities living alongside the estuary are taken into account in any plans that affect future flood management. The habitats in the estuary are important and they should be protected but this should not be at the expense of local communities.

5.2 The scrutiny process has provided an ideal opportunity to bring important stakeholders together. Paramount among these are the parish councillors who represent local communities. Everyone has been able to have their say and members of the task group have been able to have a fresh independent look at what has happened over recent months.

5.3 It is pleasing that the Environment Agency has been so willing to participate in this review. Steps are already being taken to engage more thoroughly with local communities and hopefully our recommendations will help make this process more effective.

5.4 We look forward to receiving from the Environment Agency an initial response to our recommendations and in order to support local communities we will seek progress reports after 6, 12 and 18 months. It may be helpful if the task group is reconvened during the consultation period on the strategy.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6.1 I would like to thank the members of the task group, Councillors Tony Blackburn, Bill Crowther, Dr John Cordwell and Martin Quaile for their efforts over recent weeks.

6.2 And finally I would like to thank Councillors Basil Booth and Phil Awford who with their wealth of knowledge relating to the estuary were able to guide us in making our recommendations.

Councillor Tony Hicks Chairman of the Severn Estuary Task Group

11