Severn Estuary Scrutiny Task Group
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 Severn Estuary 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 Gloucestershire 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 Parish councils – Alvington, Arlingham, Elmore, Frampton-on-Severn, Fretherne with Saul, Longney and Epney, Minsterworth 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 England o Stroud District Council o Gloucester 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 Forest of Dean 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 Slimbridge 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 parishes 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 Lydney, the Gloucester to Sharpness canal, power lines, pylons, sewage systems and water supplies.