Coordinating New Approaches to Watercourse Management in Rural Catchments Is there a Case for a New Internal Drainage Board in Oxfordshire?

National Farmers Union South East May 2015

Page 1 NFU Report

Abstract – Key Messages This report is the culmination of a 6-month study, presenting the results of a series of questionnaires, interviews and stakeholder engagement events focussing on the River Ray (Oxfordshire); a small rural catchment with frequent rural flooding problems.  Our study indicates that there is already a strong commitment to maintenance spending in the River Ray catchment and that higher levels of maintenance spending are associated with more favourable attitudes towards environmental objectives (i.e. entry into agri-environment schemes, favouring sediment control and habitat creation). This indicates that enabling watercourse maintenance may also generate more positive environmental outcomes in rural catchments.  Our data suggest that there is financial justification for creating a formalised management group as there is a substantial level of cumulative spending power within the catchment that could achieve outcomes that are not possible for individual holdings or landowners. We estimate a potential cumulative contribution from farmland in this catchment of up to £221,173 per year for watercourse maintenance. This figure excludes potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy.  The study has also shown that there is willingness to participate in a collaborative scheme, such as the creation of local management groups or the creation of a new internal drainage board. The creation of two new management groups in Oxfordshire during this project, as well as several already in existence demonstrate the willingness of local communities to come together to manage flood risk issues.  The public stakeholders that have contributed towards this study have also indicated willingness to participate in a collaborative management organisation, subject to there being a balance of priorities between nature conservation, protection of people and property alongside protection of productive agricultural land.  One of the primary drivers behind interest in collaborative management is the perceived increasing flood risk from catchment urbanisation. Respondents to our survey identified management collaboration as a possible way to span the interaction between urban and rural flooding.  The other primary drivers for management collaboration identified by our survey were to improve the frequency and coverage of conveyance management service provision and to decrease the duration/ extent of farmland flooding to retain agricultural productivity.  There is only a low level of interest amongst land owners for catchment flood storage. Of the minority (12%) that see this in a favourable light, these tend to have land that already floods and may potentially consider enhancing that function. It is also clear from these favourable responses that any enhanced flood storage that is promoted would be more favourably accepted if it is designed to mitigate the growth of urban development. Survey responses also indicated that there should be a payment mechanism established where farms are flooded as a result of development.  Feedback from the new management groups indicates that there is a need for better access to specialist machinery and better training to allow riparian landowners to manage their own watercourses.  This work is only a first step towards understanding whether there are better ways to coordinate watercourse maintenance in rural catchments, however further work is required to work on the feasibility of management delivery mechanisms, to work up a detailed design and then deliver a robust partnership management organisation that would be able to self-finance management delivery within the catchments of Oxfordshire.

Point of Contact and Main Contributor Tom Ormesher MCIEEM Environment and Land Use Adviser NFU South East Rotherbrook Court Bedford Road Petersfield GU32 3QG [email protected]

Contributors: Tom Keen (NFU), David Clifford (NFU)

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Professor Joe Morris for guidance during this project. Also Peter Collins and Barry Russell at the Environment Agency, Kevin Rillie (NFU Mutual) and the helpful participation from the numerous individuals with an interest in the River Ray catchment.

Cover Photo: Courtesy of Environment Agency (www.flickr.com) Page 2 NFU Report

Executive Summary This report is the culmination of a 6-month study, presenting the results of a series of questionnaires, interviews and stakeholder engagement events focussing on the River Ray (Oxfordshire); a small rural catchment with frequent flooding issues. This largely rural catchment has national and international wildlife interest and at the same time has major pressure from development, particularly around Bicester, which the Oxfordshire LEP has identified as “a growth town that will play a key role in the economic growth of the County”i. The provision of rural flood risk management services is limited in the catchment; and a new way of delivering this maintenance service may now be required to balance the competing pressures from rural and urban flood water management. This report aims to investigate the opportunities for more collaborative working amongst local landowners and public stakeholders, to provision greater levels of spending power and make the catchment more resilient to future flooding. We consider some of the background issues relevant to whether new models of funding and maintenance delivery can address this market failure; and whether better collaboration between stakeholders can bring out closer coordinated activity to allow any limited local spending power to go further. Background Flood management priorities have shifted in focus in England and Wales since the food shortages and rationing experienced at the end of the Second World War, such that many lowland rural catchments do not receive the same level of river maintenance service provision compared to previous decades. The Environment Agency now prioritises maintenance expenditure towards areas where the probability of flooding, economic damage and risk to life are greatest and this tends not to favour productive farmland. In most rural catchments this puts the focus for any required river maintenance work onto individual riparian landowners, who must navigate through the complexities of flood defence consenting, avoidance of criminal liability under UK law (e.g. the Wildlife and Countryside Act), plus the technical challenge of completing maintenance work to the required design standards within a safe working environment. Previously the skill sets required to complete these activities has largely been provided by the public sector but this option is increasingly less available; and maintenance delivery has largely stalled in many lowland rural catchments. The cleaning of watercourses from obstacles and vegetation to allow faster flows is particularly crucial for the maintenance of productive arable and livestock systems; however farmers in the Thames Basin have reported that they are often inundated for much longer than necessary during flood events. This comes at a time when floodplains previously protected for agriculture have been under review where a change (or relaxation) in management could enhance their flood storage potential; however the circumstances under which such a change in management might be brokered is relatively unchartered territory. This report also therefore considers the attitudes of farmers towards flood storage as this may be of relevance to future policy making decisions. Data on Cost of Flooding and Maintenance Expenditure Respondents from our questionnaire reported up to 2,541 acres of flooding (10.3km2), approximately 4% of total farmland area in the Ray catchment or up to 13% of all flood affected land within the catchment. 65% considered that the character of flood events had changed in living memory in terms of duration, extent and frequency. There was a broad correlation between the length of watercourse network within the farm holding and the area of reported flooding; such that the data indicates how watercourse network function plays a determining factor for those areas that experience frequent flooding. At least 85% of respondents report some level of spending on annual watercourse maintenance, with the majority evenly distributed between the ‘up to £500’ (30%), £501-1000 (32%) and £1001-5000 (21%) intervals. Roughly 15% (9 respondents) spent nothing. This amounts to approximately £137 per km or £3.73 per acre already committed on maintenance spending. This spending is influenced slightly by the area flooded, but more so by the lengths of watercourse within the holding and the type of farming practice, with arable farms spending more on average compared to livestock farmers. Assuming a total farmed area of 59,284 acres or 462km of watercourse within the Ray catchment, the figures suggest a potential “catchment spending power” of £221,173 per year on an acreage basis; and £63,300 per Page 3 NFU Report year on a per length of watercourse basis. These figures exclude potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy. Forty eight respondents reported approximately £109,322 of flood damage during the winter 2013/14 event, much of which was uninsured. This has been calculated as a broad cost of between £71 and £165 per hectare averaged across all land use types in all parts of the catchment. Attitudes towards Catchment Management We investigated the attitudes of Comparison of Attitudes Towards Catchment farmers towards five catchment Management management ‘themes’ of which the most important was identified 80 Catchment Storage as urbanisation with 70% either 70 agreeing or strongly agreeing that this is having a major effect on 60 Collaboration flood risk within the catchment. 50 This view on the effect of Environmental 40 urbanisation is strongly correlated Objectives with those that report extensive 30 Conveyance flooding during 2013/14. Those 20 Management with a less strong view on urbanisation tend not to have 10 Urbanisation Effect been so badly flooded. %of Scored ResponseAgreement in 0

Attitudes towards Sediment and Blockage Removal 78% agreed or strongly agreed that areas downstream of their holding needed better watercourse management; and 67% of all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that targeted maintenance would improve flood risk for the entire catchment. Those with less favourable view of conveyance management tend to be less affected by flooding (Figure 3.3.13). 77% of the respondents ‘in agreement’ with conveyance management (27 out of 36 respondents) were correlated with the higher bands of maintenance spending (i.e. over £500 per year). This indicates that those with a positive view on conveyance management also follow this up with management activity (Figure 3.3.12). Arable holdings are markedly more in favour of conveyance management (78% agree or strongly agree) in comparison to mainly grassland holdings (59% agree or strongly area Figure 3.3.14). Attitudes towards Flood Water Storage A relatively low number of respondents (13%) were in agreement with measures to increase catchment flood storage. 34% were neutral on the matter and 53% were either inclined to disagree or disagreed. It is nonetheless of interest, that for those in agreement with the concept of upstream storage (7 in total), 3 report 51-100 acres of flooding and 2 reports 21-50 acres of flooding in 2013/14 so it seems that there are a minority of farms where flooding takes place already that see the benefit of more enhanced flood storage. The feedback we received in relation to questions of flood storage identified two major themes within the comments:  Flood storage measures should be designed in relation to urban development; and  There should be a mechanism put in place to allow allocation of funds from urban development to areas of flood storage. Attitudes towards Collaboration Responses to the questionnaire are clearly in favour of either starting or joining a local management group; or to pay towards a drainage board. Enthusiasm towards these activities is magnified if you consider just the farms that are over 500 acres, where 67% were in favour of a local management group and 58% would pay towards a drainage board. Page 4 NFU Report

Willingness to Take Specific Actions

Give over more land to conservation in return for 32% 37% 25% 7% EA maintenance In favour Start/join local management group 53% 23% 19% 5% Unsure Pay toward a drainage board 40% 23% 32% 5%

Carry out work outside of your farm to improve Against 30% 33% 33% 4% flood risk in the catchment as a whole No comment Pay for an upstream farm to hold water 5% 30% 61% 4%

Store water on holding 25% 14% 58% 4%

74% of those that are ‘somewhat Attitudes Towards Collaboration and Urbanisation willing’ or ‘very willing’ to pay 30 towards a drainage board spend in Strongly Agree 25 excess of £500 per year on maintenance activity; indicating 20 Agree that those with a favourable view 15 of collaboration also have a track Neutral 10 record of committing to maintenance activity. The largest 5 Inclined to

NumberofResponses proportion that are either disagree 0 ‘somewhat willing’ or ‘very willing’ Disagree Inclined Neutral Agree Strongly to be part of an IDB, report to Agree spending within the £500-1000 per disagree year on their own maintenance Attitude Towards Urbanisation (Figure 3.3.16), indicating that there is likely to be an upper limit that individuals are willing to commit to a collaboration scheme. In comparing the range of attitudes on collaboration with attitudes towards urbanisation and channel maintenance activity we identified a strong combination of preferences between the groupings:  All of those that agree or strongly agree with the potential for collaborative management also agree or strongly agree that urbanisation is increasing farmland flood risk; and  The large majority that responded positively to questions of collaborative management also responded positively to questions on maintenance and blockage removal (92% 12 out of 13 responses). We therefore conclude that concern over the effects of urbanisation on flooding is one of the driving factors behind farmer’s willingness to collaborate. This grouping is also primarily interested in collaboration because of the enhanced conveyance improvements it could bring to their farms. Environmental Objectives Those spending over £1000 per year on watercourse maintenance (i.e. the two highest spending brackets) showed a preference towards prioritising environmental objectives, with 78% (7 out of 9) responding that these are fairly important or important. The implication is that the level of engagement involved in undertaking a regular maintenance schedule gives rise to a more informed opinion and higher valuation of wildlife, habitat and sediment control objectives. We believe this could have far reaching consequences for the design of environmental policy i.e. active engagement and management gives rise to more informed land managers and may potentially lead to more favourable environmental outcomes. We have also found that those reporting the greatest extents of farm flooding (i.e. 51-100 acres) tend towards favouring environmental objectives (62%, 5 out of 8 responses important or fairly important), whilst less Page 5 NFU Report extensive areas of flooding are more evenly distributed across the attitude spectrum. This indicates that those more extensively affected by flooding tend to take a more ‘holistic view’ of catchment management. Engagement Activity and the Start of Two Management Groups In the process of our stakeholder engagement activity we have established two small management groups: one involving several farmers from the lower Ray and Cherwell catchment; and one involving farmers around Abingdon, River Thames and River Ock. The main considerations raised by these management groups are:  There is a need for specialist machinery and training to deal with maintenance tasks; and this is a barrier to riparian landowners undertaking work themselves, particularly where there are large backlogs of maintenance required (e.g. no trees managed for 30 years plus)  The historical neglect of maintenance meant that work on many stretches was beyond “routine maintenance”.  De-silting and willow management were identified as the two main tasks, with the locations involved also recorded further information is needed on the cost of contracting this work.  To aid assessment of this work, EA have indicated that their biodiversity officers would be able to visit sites and provide advice on the methods of working required.  For both groups a package of works needs to be fully costed in order to characterise the problem and and seek partnership funding (e.g. through potential enhancement of recreational and navigation access to generate revenue and the use of wood products as a marketable commodity.  EA were in the process of updating a map of trees along the Thames that are impeding flow and/or dangerous. They would welcome landowner input into this to identify riparian owner for specific trees. Main Points of Conclusion and Recommendation  Our study indicates that there is already a strong commitment to maintenance spending in rural catchments and that higher levels of maintenance spending are associated with more favourable attitudes towards environmental objectives. This indicates that the enabling of watercourse maintenance may also generate more positive environmental outcomes in rural catchments.  Our data suggest that there is a financial justification for creating a formalised management group as there is a potentially substantial level of cumulative spending power within the catchment that could achieve outcomes that are not possible for individual holdings or landowners. We estimate a potential cumulative contribution from farmland in this catchment of up to £221,173 per year for watercourse maintenance. This figure excludes potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy.  Feedback has indicated that there is a view that maintenance on a catchment scale is likely to provide more effective drainage compared to the more localised and sporadic intervention, more typically within the capabilities of an average riparian landowner.  The study has also shown that there is willingness to participate in a collaborative scheme. The creation of two new management groups in Oxfordshire, as well as several already in existence demonstrate the willingness of local communities to come together to manage flood risk issues.  The public stakeholders that have contributed towards this study have also indicated willingness to participate, subject to there being a balance of priorities between nature conservation, protection of people and property alongside protection of productive agricultural land.  There is only a low level of interest amongst land owners for catchment flood storage. Of the minority that see this in a favourable light, these tend to have land that is already flooded and may potentially considering enhancing that function. It is also clear from these favourable responses that any enhanced flood storage should be to mitigate the growth of urban development and there should be a payment mechanism established where farms are flooded as a result of development. This work however is only a first step towards understanding whether there are better ways to coordinate watercourse maintenance in rural catchments, however further work is required to work on the feasibility of management delivery mechanisms, to work up a detailed design and then deliver a robust partnership management organisation that would be able to self-finance management delivery within the catchments of Oxfordshire. Page 6 NFU Report

Contents 1 Introduction 7

1.1 Background 7 1.1.1 River Maintenance Policy in England 7 1.1.2 The Costs of Farmland Flooding 7 1.1.3 Food Security 8 1.1.4 Land Drainage and Mitigation of Farmland Flood Risk 9 1.1.5 The Environment Agency River Maintenance Pilot Project 9 1.1.6 Coordination of River Maintenance Work 10

1.2 Wider Project Outline 12

1.3 Purpose of this Report 12

2 Methods 13 2.1 Catchment Characterisation 13 2.2 Detailed Questionnaire and Follow up Telephone Survey 13 2.3 Targeted Engagement 15

3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Catchment Characterisation of the River Ray - Desk Study Results 19

3.2 Questionnaire Results and Discussion 21 3.2.1 Response Rates 21 3.2.2 Area Flooded 21 3.2.3 Maintenance Expenditure 21 3.2.4 Cost of Flooding 23 3.2.5 Attitudes towards Catchment Scale Management 23

3.3 Targeted Engagement 28

4 Conclusions and Recommendations 31 Is there a Case for a New Internal Drainage Board in Oxfordshire? 32

Main Points of Conclusion and Recommendation 32

Figures 34

Appendix A Public Stakeholder Organisations Contacted Appendix B Environment Agency 2015/16 Maintenance Programme Appendix C Management Group Minutes of Meetings

Page 7 NFU Report

Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 River Maintenance Policy in England Flood management priorities have shifted in focus in England and Wales since the food shortages and rationing experienced at the end of the Second World War; responding to changes in societal values, government priorities and major flood eventsii. During the post-war period until the early 1980’s, publically funded investments were made to protect farmland against flooding and enable land drainage to enhance agricultural production. Such land drainage improvement schemes were “designed to help meet the policy objectives of reliable food supply at reasonable prices and allow fair rewards to those engaged in farming and support to the rural economy”iii Few new agricultural land drainage schemes have been implemented since the early 1980’s, a point in time that coincides with the large surpluses of agricultural commodities created during that period. Alongside this, increases in urban development, especially in floodplains, has meant that over time, priorities have switched from protecting rural to urban environments. During the same period the focus of rural policy has shifted from agricultural production towards environmental non-market based objectivesiv; exemplified through the de- coupling of income support to farmers from commodity prices and production as part of the Common Agricultural Policy reform in 2005; as well as through the requirement to implement the Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive in all EU member statesv. From the 1980’s ‘defence’ against fluvial and coastal flooding for the urban sector became the main policy objective, however the sustainability of this ‘hard, engineered’ approach was questioned following urban flooding in 1998 and 2000. Policy then switched to ‘flood risk management’ alongside recognition of a need to adapt to an increased probability of flooding under climate change as outlined in the ‘Making Space for Water’ policyvi. This more recent policy means that floodplains previously protected for agriculture have been under review where a change (or relaxation) in management could enhance their flood storage potentialvii. Current priorities on river maintenance are set out in the Environment Agency ‘Maintenance Protocol’viii, which states: “In the past, many flood defence schemes primarily provided drainage and other support for farming. Our need to prioritise investment of public money in FCRM has led to a shift of focus to locations where the probability of flooding, economic damage and risk to life are greatest. The shift means that we are no longer able to justify maintaining assets which predominantly drain land and provide little flood risk benefit. In some areas it is no longer possible for the Environment Agency to provide some or all of the funds for the long-term management of those assets.” Current policy therefore does not prioritise river maintenance in many lowland rural catchments and so these watercourses do not receive the same level of service provision or investment compared to previous decades. This now puts the focus for any required river maintenance work onto individual riparian landowners, who must navigate through the complexities of flood defence consenting, avoidance of criminal liability under UK law (e.g. the Wildlife and Countryside Act), plus the technical challenge of completing maintenance work to the required design standards within a safe working environment. Previously the skill sets required to complete these activities has largely been provided by the public sector but this option is increasingly less available. 1.1.2 The Costs of Farmland Flooding It is estimated that since the turn of the century, farming in the UK has suffered significant financial losses as a result of a number of extreme events including £1.2 billion in 2012, £66 million in 2007, and £603 million in 2000-01 from flood events; and across the EU, the heat wave in 2003 cost European farming €13.1 billionix. The impact of flooding on agricultural land varies considerably according to crop tolerance or land use activity tolerance; combined with the frequency, duration and seasonality of the event. For example a relatively short duration flooding event in winter may have limited effect on grassland and cereals; however a brief summer flood can completely destroy a crop of grass or cereals ready for harvest as was the case in 2007 and 2012x. In their assessment of the summer floods of 2007 in England, Posthumus et al (2009) observed very high agricultural damage costs, averaging over £1000 per hectare, ranging from over £6000 on horticultural crops, to £600 on grassland where farmers incurred high costs for the purchase of replacement animal feedxi. The assessment observed that over 80% of damage costs were associated with (mostly uninsured) loss of crop Page 8 NFU Report output or extra costs such as animal feeds, whilst the remainder involved further costs to the farmer, through the replacement or repair of damage to buildings, contents and machinery; cost of repairs to farm tracks, field boundaries, field drainage, ditches and culverts; and the cost of debris removal and clean-up.xii The same research identified that in 2007, average insurance and charitable donations amounted to just £4720 per farm compared with average losses of £89,415 per farm, although most farmers received nothing. In strict monetary terms the figure of £1000/ha as the average flood damage cost per unit area (£/ha) for agricultural damage is low in comparison to flood damage costs on over 60 000 households flooded averaged of about £30,000 per household. It is on this basis that Chatterton et al (2010)xiii calculate that flood damage on agricultural land typically account for less than 5% of total damage costs; however these headline figures overlook the cumulative “per holding” cost of circa £90,000 per farm during the summer flood event of 2007, which represents a major cost, threatening the ongoing viability of those individual businesses affected by a specific event. Analysis of possible future flood scenarios for the UKxiv estimated that in the absence of measures to mitigate and adapt to flood risk, average annual flood costs could increase twenty fold by 2080 for the worst case scenarios. Faced with such potential constraints on farm incomes and further potentially significant costs to society as a whole, the ability to actively manage flood flows on agricultural land is seen by farmers as one of the few options available to mitigate the risk under conventional cropping scenarios. 1.1.3 Food Security The UK is currently 68% self- sufficient in foods which can be produced here but there has been a steady decline in this level over the last 20 yearsxv. The NFU estimates that if current trends continue, by 2030 the UK self-sufficiency rating could fall to just 54%; an estimate based upon a population trend forecasting moderate life expectancy, moderate fertility and moderate immigration. This estimate does not take into account the potential effects of climate change and increased protein demand from developing countries, which could further restrict the overseas supply of cheap food as well as the availability of livestock feed protein such as soybean within the UK. A 54% self-sufficiency rating was last recorded in the UK in 1963, just a decade after the end of rationing; and consequently it has been recognised by the Efra committee that “UK food security may continue to deteriorate unless decision makers plan now for future changes in our weather patterns and the changing global demand for food.” Concerns about food security may reinstate the policy prioritisation of agricultural production in rural areas; however under present circumstances there is a risk that the observed declining trend is simply compounded by policy decisions that operate to increase flood risk on productive farmland. Commentators have observed that “global food shortages in 2007 and associated high and volatile agricultural commodity prices have put food security back on the political agenda. Simultaneously, summer floods in the same year caused extensive agricultural damage in England”xvi. An observation that highlights both the inherent volatility of UK food supply alongside a coincidental and potentially exacerbating environmental risk. Within this context, joint working to achieve better river maintenance service provision is seen as a potentially valuable rural flood risk management tool that requires further investigation.

Page 9 NFU Report

1.1.4 Land Drainage and Mitigation of Farmland Flood Risk Within living memory, farmers often cite that regular maintenance activities undertaken by the National Rivers Authority (a precursor, now superseded by the Environment Agency) were an example of best practice that conferred great benefit to farm productivity. As such, personal observations from landowners have stated that the floods of 1947 and 1953, despite their extreme magnitude, were considered to be relatively benign to many farms in the Thames catchment. The report from many such riparian landowners is that frequent maintenance activity was an essential component of retaining agricultural productivity on riparian land. With reference specifically to the River Thames system; Bell et al (2012)xvii observe that management in recent times (i.e. channel straightening, bed re-profiling, and improvements to the efficiency of weirs) has led to greater channel storage and conveyance, which has resulted in fewer floods in the lower Thames. At Kingston, for example, they observe that an increase of around 30% in the channel capacity over the last 70 years means that flows that would have caused significant flooding in the 1930s can now be accommodated within-bank. This observation gives an indication that channel management activity has the capability of mitigating some of the risk of flooding on agricultural land. River maintenance trials undertaken by the Environment Agency in 2011xviii showed that maintenance work reduced flood risk locally through:  Increasing the watercourses’ carrying capacity;  Allowing water flows faster in the section where the work was carried out;  Reducing the water level for flows that stay within the channel; and  Allowing flood water to be evacuated more quickly in some circumstances. The same study also identified however that when the capacity of the channel is exceeded and flooding occurs, the modelled differences in water level and flow due to river maintenance are small; and consequently the study found limited evidence that the cost of maintenance work was justified in terms of protecting people and property from flooding. Despite this the pilots also showed there were positive benefits in working more closely with communities; and it was possible to avoid localised impacts on environmental receptors, in two case providing a positive benefit to the conservation status of two SSSI’s. 1.1.5 The Environment Agency River Maintenance Pilot Project The NFU receives frequent feedback from many of its members that there are substantial technical, financial and regulatory obstacles for individual riparian landowners to achieve the required drainage conditions for the production of food. This feedback is echoed by a series of seventy eight farmer interviews completed by Posthumus et al (2009)xix where improvements in river maintenance, that is the cleaning of watercourses from obstacles and vegetation to allow faster flows, was particularly mentioned as crucial by farmers operating mixed arable and livestock systems. Farmers in the Thames Basin also reported that they are often inundated for much longer than necessary during flood events within that same study. In recognition that there are a number of regulatory and technical obstacles for riparian landowners to undertake their own river maintenance and that “landowners play… [a key role]… in working to reduce flood risk by managing and maintaining the watercourses on their land sustainably”; Defra and the Environment Agency have undertaken a River Maintenance Pilot Project in seven pilot catchments across the UK . This project piloted the trial relaxation of Main River consenting to allow sediment removal without the need for formal flood defence consent, under the provision that landowners intending to work within the pilot catchments notify the Environment Agency and adhere to the requirements of an Environmental Good Practice Guidance document. A report on the findings of this project has yet to be published, but there is early indication that five out of seven of the initial pilot catchments have been successful in completing work or developing a locally achievable work programme. The NFU has observed that the enabling factor in the more ‘effective’ pilot catchments appears to have been the influence of a coordinating organisation, such as an Internal Drainage Board or farmer’s association with the technical capability and resources to focus and drive forward activity. Such formal coordination did not take place in the Upper Thames catchment; however the NFU and Environment Agency did work closely together in communicating the details of the project to some forty NFU members within the pilot catchment. Despite a good communications campaign there was only limited take up of the pilot scheme, with just two out of approximately forty riparian landowners showing an interest in the project. This is despite the area being one Page 10 NFU Report of the worst affected during the 2007, 2012 and 2013/14 flood events. From personal communications with landowners in the Upper Thames pilot catchment the reasons for not participating in the project were variable, but centred on the following key themes:  Flows within tributaries of the River Thames are largely dictated by the Thames. Landowners have observed tributaries, such as those included in the pilot area, flowing backwards during rising flood events, indicating a need to take a catchment wide approach to flood management as individual holding management cannot be undertaken at a scale proportionate to the problem.  Some regular maintenance work has historically been achieved in the pilot catchment through an existing “engaged” and communicative approach to consenting led by Environment Agency in the West Thames Area, alongside the willingness of individual landowners to commit to undertaking works on their own holdings.  Many farmers consider that in undertaking localised, holding specific maintenance work, there is limited benefit to that holding if downstream reaches continue to act as a blockage. River conveyance management is considered necessarily a catchment scale activity, requiring entire systems to be considered rather than individual sections. This limited uptake also indicates that the environmental risk from this limited relaxation in consenting regulations is very limited and manageable if the EA is resourced to maintain good working relationships with riparian landowners. The project that we report on in this document was scoped specifically in response to the above feedback from the River Maintenance Pilot as well as in response to the more general historic changes in maintenance service provision. Namely there is an indication that effective models of maintenance provision have involved formalised, collaborative groupings of riparian landowners with technical support from a competent agency and good working relationships with their regulator. In addition NFU member feedback has indicated that maintenance on a catchment scale is likely to provide more effective drainage compared to the more localised and sporadic intervention, more typically within the capabilities of an average riparian landowner. 1.1.6 Coordination of River Maintenance Work Faced with an absence of river maintenance service provision in lowland agricultural floodplains, further work is required to identify whether there may be new models of funding and maintenance delivery that can address this market failure? In the absence of public funds to support more frequent river maintenance, there is a need to investigate how better coordination between stakeholders can bring out closer coordinated activity and allow any limited local spending power to go further. A recent review undertaken by Royal Haskoning DHVxx provides a comprehensive overview of collaborative flood risk management work currently being undertaken in England and Wales. The report considers the relative merits of measures such as Public Sector Co-operation Agreements, new Internal Drainage Boards, landowner and local authority led maintenance, offender rehabilitation programmes, Community Infrastructure Levy payments, social enterprise companies (such as River Stewardship Companies) and public private partnerships. The project we report on in this document has been scoped with this preceding work in mind: As an investigation into some of the influencing factors on how locally led partnership funding and delivery mechanisms might operate in rural areas. Page 11 NFU Report

Box 1 Examples of Existing Locally Led River Maintenance Projects

The River Perry Group The River Perry Group, Shropshire is a group of seven farmers with a shared concern over a lack of maintenance on sections of the river. The group identified a number of significant channel obstructions to flow in the form of fallen trees and overgrown trees. There was clear evidence that lack of routine work on the channel was resulting in a progressively worse drainage situation; shortening the workable season on adjacent farmland and damaging soil structure due to prolonged standing water. The group coordinated costs to commission clearance work on the main channel, as well as the required consenting arrangements. In order to ensure cost effectiveness, farmers were asked to clear their sections of watercourse of obstacles prior to mobilisation of the nominated contractor. The contracting work cost approximately £1.70 per metre along a 2800 metre stretch and was paid for by farmers on the basis of their length of river frontage. The consent received will enable the Bromley Brook farmers to maintain the brook over the next 5 years at a total cost of £4760. Further details provided in Appendix A

The Hanneys Flood Group This local flood group in Oxfordshire was set up following the flooding that occurred in East and West Hanney in 2007. It consists of volunteers who work to reduce the risk of flooding, including undertaking basic maintenance activities on local watercourses including a main river (Letcombe Brook). This has included vegetation removal such as fallen trees, soil removal to increase the capacity of drainage ditches, litter removal from watercourses and rodding of road drains. In the past they have also been assisted by offenders serving community payback sentences (previously known as community service).

Internal Drainage Boards An Internal Drainage Board (IDB) is a public body that has been established under statute in areas of special drainage need in England and Wales. It holds permissive powers to undertake work to deal with matters affecting water levels, land drainage and flood risk within a defined boundary. Much of their work involves the maintenance of rivers, drainage channels, outfalls and pumping stations, facilitating drainage of new developments and advising on planning applications. They also have statutory duties with regard to the environment and recreation when exercising their permissive powers. IDBs are expected to make a significant contribution to the sustainable use of areas of special drainage need and provide water level management on a daily basis to the catchments they serve. It is important to note that the boundaries of IDBs are not determined by local authority or political boundaries, but by consideration of the hydrological catchment within a given area. There have been no entirely new IDB’s created in England and Wales for over 30 years and yet they represent an approach to drainage maintenance activity which shares cost between both public and private agencies and therefore represents an existing and proven maintenance delivery method.

Page 12 NFU Report

1.2 Wider Project Outline The investigations reported in this document are part of a wider project entitled the Upper Thames Rural Flooding Project being undertaken by the NFU to consider the major factors affecting farm business viability as a result of historic flooding, or increased flood risk attributable to land use and climate change. The over-arching project aims to provide background information and case studies, to assist in unlocking the answers to some of the following questions: 1. What is the real cost of flooding farmland and how is this predicted to increase? 2. How much of an improvement in flood risk will a regular programme of river maintenance achieve? 3. Is there a schedule of management interventions that can be designed to protect farm businesses and reduce flood risk for the entire catchment at the same time? 4. What is the monetary value of the flood risk service provided by rural areas and can this be enhanced for the benefit of all? 5. Is there a market or partnership based approach to improving flood risk services? 6. What collaboration is required amongst landowners and other stakeholders to achieve: a. A programme of river maintenance; and b. Beneficial floodplain/upstream storage? 7. What is the willingness of farmers towards measures to make their own businesses more resilient to flooding and does this extend to other areas in the catchment?

1.3 Purpose of this Report This report is the culmination of a 6-month study that builds on existing engagement work started by NFU in The River Ray (Oxfordshire) catchment over several preceding years. Through a series of questionnaires, interviews and stakeholder engagement events focussing on a small rural catchment with frequent flooding issues; this report aims to provide a snapshot of attitudes to rural flooding and drainage maintenance, including an overview of existing costs and investment in drainage maintenance. The report also aims to identify whether there is any appetite to achieve more collaborative working amongst local landowners. The purpose of this report therefore aims to provide supporting information to Questions 5, 6 and 7 above; to seek baseline information to investigate the possibilities of partnership or collaborative working arrangements in the rural catchments of the Upper Thames.

Page 13 NFU Report

Section 2 Methods

2.1 Catchment Characterisation To provide information on catchment land use and the identity of key stakeholders within the study area a ‘catchment characterisation’ exercise was completed between October and December 2014. 2.1.1 Stakeholder Identification The stakeholder identification exercise involved in the first instance obtaining details of landowners from local NFU office records. This was combined with a study of Ordinance Survey 1:10,000 scale maps and catchment boundary information, which enabled identification of the major landholdings within the catchment. The initial search identified more than 130 records however in attempting to make contact via emails and telephone calls, it was confirmed that there were 118 active records with farming or land owning interests in the catchment. The database compiled from this exercise is considered to provide near complete coverage of all landowning interests in the catchment. A detailed web search was undertaken in combination with the search of NFU records; focussing on all tiers of local government (i.e. County, District and Parish), local businesses, infrastructure providers and land-based or community groups. The information was used to compile a database of 63 potential non-landowning “public stakeholders” within 42 relevant organisations, who were considered to have a possible interest in the management and flood characteristics of the River Ray catchment (listed in Appendix A). This non-land owning group of stakeholders has henceforth referred to as ‘public stakeholders’ within the remainder of this document. 2.1.2 Catchment Land Use Characterisation A web based search and brief literature review was undertaken in order to provide a broad overview of the physical, topographic, major land use activities, statutory designations and land based schemes associated with the River Ray catchment. The information used during this desk based exercise was obtained from the following sources:  MAGIC the Government online portal providing information on land use designations and agri- environment schemesxxi  Centre for Ecology and Hydrology National River Flow Archive Informationxxii  Existing studies on the River Ray catchment

2.2 Detailed Questionnaire and Follow up Telephone Survey A questionnaire was sent to all of the land owners and land managers found through the stakeholder identification exercise. The questionnaire was designed to provide both qualitative and quantitative data on attitudes to river maintenance, collaborative management, flood risk management (including ‘natural flood management’) and other environmental objectives. The questionnaire was also designed to provide information on the costs experienced by direct stakeholders due to recent flooding, the levels of investment in land drainage already allocated and the willingness of those stakeholders to collaborate or contribute towards collaborative catchment intervention. As shown in Table 2.1 the questionnaire was designed both to obtain “real life” known quantities of information on land management activity, cost and severity of flooding and existing expenditure on maintenance activity. As shown in Table 2.2 the questionnaire also asked a series of grouped questions on attitudes towards five catchment management themes:  Attitudes towards conveyance management (sediment and blockage removal)  Attitudes towards catchment/ upstream storage  ‘Warmth’ towards environmental objectives/ favourable environmental outcomes  Attitudes towards collaborative catchment management  Attitudes towards catchment urbanisation

Page 14 NFU Report

Table 2.1 Questions on Farm Watercourse Maintenance and Flooding Theme Survey Questions Response Intervals Known quantities of on- 2.1 Area of land holding within the River Ray 50 or less, 51-100, 101-500, 501-1000, 1001+ acres farm watercourse catchment? maintenance and flooding 2.2 Do you hold an agri-environment scheme Yes/ No agreement? 2.3/ 2.5 Farming enterprises arable/ grassland proportion

2.6 Length of Main River Less than 1km, 1-5km,6-10km, 11-25km, 26km+ 2.7 Length of Ordinary Watercourse (i.e. total ditch Less than 1km, 1-5km,6-10km, 11-25km, 26km+ network) 2.1 How much of your farm floods? No flooding, Less than 1 acre, 2-5 acres, 6-20 acres, 21-50 acres, 51-100 acres 3.3 How frequently does your farm flood Less than 1 week, 1-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks, 1-2 months, 3 Approximate duration of flood events on your holding in months + 2013/14, 2012, 2007/08, 2000/01? Estimated cost of last flooding event to your business? £51-100, £101-1000, £1001-5000, £5001-10000, £10,000+

Do you undertake regular main river management Never, 1-3 yrs,4-5 yrs, 6-10 yrs, 11-20 yrs work?

Do you undertake ditch management work? Never, 1-3 yrs,4-5 yrs, 6-10 yrs, 11-20 yrs

How much do you spend on watercourse maintenance £0, Up to £500, £501-1000, £1001-5000, £5001+ each year?

Table 2.2 Questions on Attitudes towards Catchment Management Themes Theme Survey Questions Attitudes towards 4.4 My farm requires significant conveyance management conveyance management 4.5 Conveyance management has caused a detriment to my holding (sediment and blockage 5.2 Do you consider that overgrown vegetation has increased the risk of flooding on your farm? removal) 5.3 Do you consider that lack of de-silting has increased the risk of flooding on your farm? 5.4 Do you consider that debris in the river has increased the risk of flooding on your farm? 6.1 Areas downstream of my farm need better management 6.4 Targeted maintenance at specific locations will improve flood risk throughout the entire catchment 6.8a Is managing vegetation along and in watercourses important for improving flood risk? 6.8b Is de-siltation important for improving flood risk? 6.8f Is clearing watercourses of debris… important for improving flood risk?

Attitudes towards 5.6 Do you consider that lack of storage for excess water has increased the risk of flooding on your farm? catchment/ upstream 6.2 Areas upstream of my farm could hold water and benefit those downstream storage 6.6 There are locations on my farm that could be adapted to hold more water 6.7 There are areas in the catchment that can be designed to hold more water (i.e. not on my farm) 6.8c Is building small and numerous water storage facilities for times of flooding important for improving flood risk? 6.8d Is investing in one or two large capital projects for water storage for the whole catchment … important for improving flood risk?

‘Warmth’ towards 2.2 Is your farm in an agri-environment scheme? environmental objectives/ 6.6 There are locations on my farm that could be adapted to hold more water favourable environmental 6.8e Is building sediment traps… important for improving flood risk? outcomes 6.13 If the Environment Agency enabled works to improve conveyance in main rivers to help reduce flooding would you be willing for targeted options to be implemented along watercourses on your land to help provide fish spawning areas, reedbed and wetland in return? 7.4/ 7.9 Picture of Sediment Trap (strongly agree, agree, inclined to disagree, disagree) 7.6 Picture of flow barrier 7.10 Picture of detention basin with mature habitat

Attitudes towards 4.7 I would spend outside of my holding if it had a beneficial effect collaborative catchment 6.9 If an upstream farm was able to store water on your behalf would you be willing to pay for this service? management 6.10 Would you be willing to pay towards work outside of your farm, to improve flood risk in the catchment as a whole? 6.11 Would you be willing to pay an annual contribution to a catchment wide collaborative maintenance scheme, to be managed by an elected “drainage board”? 6.12 Would you be willing to start a local group to find ways in which you and your neighbours can work towards improved flood management together?

Attitudes towards 5.1 Do you consider that urbanisation has increased the risk of flooding on your farm? catchment urbanisation 6.8d Is better managing urbanisation in the river catchment … important for improving flood risk?

Page 15 NFU Report

The postal questionnaire was followed up by a telephone survey conducted by the NFU market research department. The telephone survey used a similar format to the postal questionnaire but asked a smaller range of questions. All of the telephone questions had a directly comparable question in the postal version, which allowed the answers to be inserted into the original postal dataset. The telephone survey was targeted at those direct stakeholders who did not return the initial questionnaire. This ensured that the responses to the questionnaire added to the total response data, rather than duplicating any results from enthusiastic participants. 2.2.1 Questionnaire Analysis The questionnaire was designed to obtain quantitative/ semi-quantitative data in the form of reported costs and expenditure, and via the use of the Likert scale, which allows a scored number to be derived from allocated degrees of opinion (i.e. “strongly agree” scores 5, whilst “strongly disagree” scores 0). The allocation of a numerical score to each question response allowed simple comparisons to be made between question themes, by comparing the groups that answered favourably or negatively to each. Through this process it has been possible to identify some of the grouped characteristics of responses to specific questions. For example the data allowed comparison of the range of environmental attitudes in comparison to the range of respondents that have a favourable view of collaborative, catchment scale management; potentially highlighting some of the defining characteristics of that group. In this way the data was used to compare all of the themes with each of the other themes considered in the questionnaire; allowing us to report on any major patterns or trends. There were several additional questions within the questionnaire on river channel condition, flooding and attitudes towards mitigation, however not all of these allowed for a quantitative analysis of the results and have subsequently not been reported. These questions did however provide context and assisted in interpolating the views of individual respondents.

2.3 Targeted Engagement A programme of targeted engagement was completed following receipt and in response to the river maintenance questionnaire results. This engagement comprised a series of one to one interviews with landowners alongside a series of stakeholder meetings. 2.3.1 One to One Interviews Fifteen interviews were undertaken by NFU between October 2014 and March 2015. Interviewees were selected from farmers within the Ray catchment who indicated or were known to have particular land drainage concerns or were already undertaking relevant land management activities. The interviews had no set format, but discussions were focussed under the following key themes:  Perceived historical changes in river characteristics, land drainage and flooding;  Previous river maintenance and any perceived difference it made;  The condition of the river at present through the holding. If any changes were felt to necessary, what they would be;  How flooding affects the operation of the enterprise beyond financial costs and how sustainable this is in the future; and  What the interviewee would be willing and/or able to commit to in terms of : - River maintenance; or - Other flood alleviation measures. 2.3.2 Stakeholder Group Meetings After identifying the group of public stakeholders (Appendix A), letters and emails were sent to these organisations throughout November and December 2014. The communications sent to those organisations asked for a response on the following questions:  What impact does rural flooding and flood risk management have on your organisation?  What influence does your organisation have on rural flood risk management and the impacts of flooding?  Is your organisation geared to cope with an increase in flood risk, frequency and duration? Page 16 NFU Report

 Does your organisation have a responsibility to deal with the impacts that its operations might have on flood impact and risk?  Can your organisation offer services to the wider community to mitigate rural flooding?  Would your organisation enter into agreements with those higher in the catchment to alleviate flooding downstream?  Is your organisation willing to engage with the wider community in seeking ways to manage flooding at a local level? The questions were asked in a general, open ended manner, to encourage comment on rural flooding and flood risk management, how flooding affected them, how their operations might affect flooding and if they had a desire to work towards solutions. In the majority of cases the responses were relatively limited, so to improve feedback further phone calls and meetings were arranged as detailed below. 2.3.3 Engagement Meetings A series of engagement fifteen meetings were either organised or attended both with landowning stakeholders and key public stakeholders. Most of the meetings were focussed on the River Ray catchment, with the exception of three meetings, which involved farmers and landowners from the Ock catchment, near Abingdon where there are similar problems of land drainage and rural flooding. Table 2.3 provides details of the engagement meetings undertaken in this catchment. The key attendees at those meetings were farmers and landowners, Berkshire Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT), RSPB, Oxfordshire County Council, Environment Agency, Horton-cum-Studley Parish Council and Islip Parish Council.

Table 2.3 Details of Stakeholder Engagement Meetings Meeting/ Date Attendees Purpose/ Discussion Meeting with BBOWT at Meadow Farm, BBOWT –Judith Hartley (Oxfordshire The aims of BBOWT in the area. Past Blackthorn. Wildlife Projects Assistant) Cathie relationships with the farming Hasler, (Upper Ray Living Landscape community, with particular reference to 11/11/14 Manager), Mark Valance (Reserves modification of the river. Manager – Buckinghamshire). The possibility of overlap between NFU NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee) project & BBOWT objectives.

Visit to Upper Ray Meadows reserve BBOWT – Judith Hartley (Oxfordshire Understand how the modification of the with BBOWT Wildlife Projects Assistant) Cathie river had changed. Hasler, (Upper Ray Living Landscape Understand the effect of BBOWT’s land 03/12/14 Manager), Mark Valance (Reserves management. Manager – Buckinghamshire). Improve NFU and therefore member NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee), knowledge of BBOWT activities. Kevin Rillie (Local NFU Group Secretary)

Meeting with RSPB at NFU office at RSPB – Charlotte Kinnear The aims of the RSPB in the NFU Eynsham, Oxfordshire. (Conservation Officer – Oxfordshire & project area. Buckinghamshire), Jack Rhodes (Water 12/01/15 Policy Officer) Water policy of the RSPB and how this sits with interim questionnaire findings NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee), and NFU position. Annie Vernon (BB&O County Adviser)

Cherwell and Ray Catchment Cathie Hasler BBOWT Discussion of outline proposals for Partnership Meeting Charlotte Kinnear RSPB “water management organisation” Giles Strother BBOWT proposed by NFU. 19/1/15 Judith Hartley BBOWT Matt Pook Thames Water Mike Hall Banbury Town Council Richard Bloor BBOWT Stuart Malaure EA Sue Marchand Cherwell DC Tom Ormesher NFU Tom Sherwood EA Page 17 NFU Report

Meeting/ Date Attendees Purpose/ Discussion

Islip Parish Council meeting, Islip, Islip parish councillors. Understand how flooding affects the Oxfordshire. NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee) village and surrounding farmers in the parish. 13/01/15 Explore ways of collaborative working between village and landowners to improve flood risk for all.

Meeting at RSPB Otmoor Reserve RSPB – Charlotte Kinnear Aims of RSPB on Otmoor. Office, Beckley, Oxfordshire (Conservation Officer – Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire), David Wilding Past and current relationship with local 26/01/15 (Otmoor Reserve Manager) farming community.

NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee), Further explanation of NFU project Tom Ormesher (Regional Environment findings and aims. & Land Use Adviser)

Oxfordshire flood risk and landowner OCC – Cllr. Rodney Rose (Deputy Agree upon an appropriate landowner/ engagement meeting at Oxfordshire Leader of the Council) RMA engagement strategy County Council Offices, Oxford Environment Agency – Peter Collins Identify local areas for future 11/02/15 (Operations Management Team engagement Leader) Consider ways in which coordinated NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee), river maintenance can be implemented Tom Ormesher (Regional Environment in the Upper Thames catchment & Land Use Adviser)

Horton-Cum-Studley Parish Council Horton-Cum-Studley parish councillors Understand how flooding affects the meeting, Horton-Cum-Studley, NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee) village and surrounding farmers in the Oxfordshire. parish.

12/02/15 Explore ways of collaborative working between village and landowners to improve flood risk for all.

EA/Landowner engagement meeting EA - Peter Collins (Operations Make clear the role of the EA and (River Ray and Cherwell catchment) Management Team Leader), Richard landowners Dale (Field Operations Team Leader) 13/04/15 For landowners to state their specific NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee) problems with regard to river Tom Ormesher (Regional Environment maintenance and flooding & Land Use Adviser), Kevin Rillie (Local NFU Group Secretary) Discuss possible solutions and suggest ways forward, with an emphasis on OCC – Chris Brown (Strategic Flooding collaborative working. Group Co-ordinator)

Three representatives from Islip Parish Council & Village.

Six local riparian farmers and landowners. EA river maintenance demonstration EA representatives from Operations For farmers and landowners to see river day (River Ray catchment) Management, Fisheries, Biodiversity, maintenance guidelines in practice. Agriculture and Field Teams, including 15/04/15 Barry Russell FCRM Area Manager, An exchange of views between farmers, Peter Collins Operations Team Leader local residents and the EA.

NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee), Discussion of how river maintenance Tom Ormesher (Regional Environment issues can be addressed. & Land Use Adviser), Kevin Rillie (Local NFU Group Secretary)

Fifteen local farmers. Three representatives from two parish councils.

Page 18 NFU Report

Meeting/ Date Attendees Purpose/ Discussion EA/Landowner engagement meeting EA - Peter Collins (Operations Five local riparian farmers and (Abingdon/ Ock/ Thames catchment) Management Team Leader), Chris landowners. Make clear the role of Bridges (Technical Adviser, Operations the EA and landowners 22/04/15 Management) For landowners to state their specific NFU – Tom Keen (Graduate Trainee), problems with regard to river Tom Ormesher (Regional Environment maintenance and flooding & Land Use Adviser), Andrew Forsyth (Local NFU Group Secretary) Discuss possible solutions and suggest ways forward, with an emphasis on OCC – Gordon Hunt (Oxfordshire collaborative working. County Drainage Engineer)

Page 19 NFU Report

Section 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Catchment Characterisation of the River Ray - Desk Study Results The River Ray catchment and its nine tributaries cover an area of 287 km2 discharging into the River Cherwell at Islip in north Oxfordshire. There is 189km of designated main river and 273km of ‘other river’ (i.e. ordinary watercourse) giving a combined total of 462km of watercourse within the Ray catchment. The catchment is relatively flat rising from a minimum altitude of 50m AOD at Islip to a maximum of 106.5m AOD. In a study of water level gradients within the catchment, Lamberth (2014) reported very shallow gradients varying between 57.4m AOD to 59.2m AOD a typical range of 1.8m. Lamberth (2014) observes that the River Ray shows a typical 'flashy' urban response to rainfall; however the downstream water levels are largely controlled by the stronger River Cherwellxxiii. It is estimated that 37km2 of the catchment is within Flood Zone 31 and 44km2 within Flood Zone 22 within the catchment, so that approximately 28% of the catchment is at risk of flooding. The catchment forms part of the Upper Thames Clay Vales National Character Areaxxiv, which characterises such tributaries of the Thames as “Low-lying clay-based flood plains coursed by the River Thames and its dense network of tributaries and ditches, often lined by willow and reed”. Land use statistics from CEH indicate that the Ray catchment area comprises 11.3% woodland, 42.6% arable/ horticulture, 40.1% grassland and 2.1% urban. The only major conurbation being Bicester with numerous villages scattered across the area. There are approximately 15 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within the catchment, central to which is Otmoor SSSI. These predominantly contain areas of neutral floodplain grasslands, consisting of both herb-rich meadows and wet grasslands important for waders. The area has been targeted for ecological protection and restoration, with both the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Berkshire, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) having reserves within the catchment3. The drainage characteristics of the catchment are influenced to a large extent by the impermeable Oxford clay geology, which predominates throughout much of the area, particularly to the south of Bicester. Approximately 67% of the soils within the catchment are predominantly Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade 4 (Poor) “slowly permeable, seasonally wet, slightly acidic but base-rich loamy and clayey soils” and given over largely to livestock grazing. These areas are predominantly located to the south of Bicester. In local areas, the soils are Grade 5 (Very Poor) “loamy soils with naturally high groundwater” and it is here that several floodplain meadows and designated wildlife sites are situated. Approximately 33% of the catchment, mainly to the west and north of Bicester have ALC Grade 3 (good to moderate) “freely draining lime-rich loamy soils” with local areas of ALC Grade 2 (very good) soilsxxv. It is within these areas of better more free draining soils that land management is predominantly used for combinable crops. The flashy nature of the catchment, combined with the relatively impermeable nature of the soils has historically prompted much land drainage improvement work; and whilst the floodplain still floods readily, watercourses have been historically deepened nature to allow for the quicker evacuation of floodwaters. This enables agricultural practices which would otherwise not be viable. In this context the Catchment Management Plan (2012) notes that “the River Ray is a highly modified catchment which has been subject to considerable alteration to facilitate land drainage and, to a lesser extent, flood defence. There are approximately 35 flood defence structures, 5 raised defences and 4 flood storage areas within the catchment”xxvi. Water Framework Directive Status Located towards the north-west of the Thames river basin, the catchment has 13 surface water bodies (12 river waterbodies and the Otmoor SSSI waterbody) with one classed as a heavily modified waterbody (Town Brook at

1 Zone 3 – High Probability of Flooding “Land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding” 2 Zone 2 – Medium Probability of Flooding “Land having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding” 3 Hydrological monitoring undertaken by Lamberth (2014) indicates that a great proportion of Otmoor SSSI is becoming 'wetter’, which is adversely affecting the conservation status of the site. As a consequence Lamberth makes a number of recommendations to improve summer drainage within the system to prevent over-wetting during spring and summer through maintaining ditch systems within Otmoor to allow close control of water levels; and to remove the constraint of having minimum summer ditch levels by assisting farmers that do not have piped water for livestock. In this context it is evident that the ability to manage both high and low water levels is not just an issue for agricultural management; and closer control may well also be of value in delivering the special interest of nature conservation sites in the catchment. Page 20 NFU Report

Bicester to the north of the Catchment). All of the waterbodies have been classified as less than “good ecological status” (GES) or “good ecological potential” in the River Basin Management Plan (RMBP due to low diversity/ poor invertebrate communities, low dissolved oxygen (i.e. slow flow) and high phosphate levels. Urban Development The Upper Thames National Character Area is ranked eighth nationally in terms of its share of development outside urban or urban fringe areas. Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership has identified Bicester as a growth town that will play a key role in the economic growth of the County and so the pressures of development are set to continuexxvii. The total population of Bicester wards in 2011 was 30,854 residents including 62 people living in communal establishments. Since 2001 Bicester has grown by 2,182 residents (7%)xxviii The Local Plan predicts further economic growth to be achieved through the development of approximately 122 ha of employment land and between 4,200 to 6,000 further new homes in Bicester by 2031; primarily through creation of the North West Bicester Eco-town (390 hectares as defined by development area for North West Bicester in the CLP Policy Bicester). It has been the site of substantial growth and that growth is set to continue.

Source: Bicester Development Plan 2014

River Maintenance River maintenance on the Ray was historically undertaken by Thames Conservancy (TC) until its responsibilities were first handed over to the National Rivers Authority in 1990 and then to the Environment Agency in 1996. The majority of respondents to the questionnaire reported that the last major river maintenance work was carried out by TC in the 1980s, though some did also report some work undertaken by the EA albeit not to the same specification. Appendix B summarises the maintenance programme proposed by the Environment Agency for the River Ray during 2015/16. A programme of selective vegetation control and sediment removal is proposed at eight main river locations in the catchment comprising a total length of approximately 10km within this system (i.e. 5% of the total main river network).

Page 21 NFU Report

3.2 Questionnaire Results and Discussion 3.2.1 Response Rates The initial questionnaire was completed either online or in paper form by 37 farmers, with an additional 19 completing the telephone survey. This represents a relatively high response rate of approximately 47% of all catchment landowners (i.e. 56 out of a possible maximum of 118 respondents). We estimate that the sample size provides results that are accurate to a 95% confidence level within a plus or minus 10% margin of error (i.e. were this procedure to be repeated on multiple samples, the results would be accurate to within ±10% of the true population mean for 95% of the time)xxix. Referring to the ‘Area of Holding’ information requested in the questionnaire we estimate that this represents between 24% and 44% of the entire area of arable and grassland holdings in the catchment, which broadly amounts to approximately one third of the total farmed area (i.e. approx. one third of 59,284 acres). With reference to Figure 3.2.1 most respondents (57%) hold between 101 and 500 acres within the catchment, and there are broadly even proportions of respondents within the 50 acres or less, as well as the 51-100 and 501- 1000 acre categories (13%, 13% and 11% respectively). In broad terms approximately 70% of responses were associated with grassland holdings, whilst 30% relate to arable farmland. This represents a weighting of responses towards grassland in comparison to overall catchment proportions where there is a more even (52% grassland/ 48% arable) split between the two land uses. It is probable that there are solid reasons for the weighting of this response, i.e. arable areas of the catchment may simply be at less risk of flooding than areas retained or reverted to grassland, and this may have had an influence on the stakeholders’ perceived need to respond, but this is only our inferred assumption. 3.2.2 Area Flooded As shown in Figure 3.3.1, respondents reported a relatively even distribution of areas flooded during the last flood event, ranging from no flooding (4% of responses) to over 100 acres of flooding (7% of responses). The largest number of respondents (27%) typically reported flooding of between 21 and 50 acres. By extrapolation we estimate that the 56 respondents can account for up to 2,541 acres of flooding (10.3km2), approximately 4% of total farmland area in the Ray catchment. The combined area of Flood Zones 2 and 3 within the Ray catchment comprises some 81km2, so the questionnaire response accounts for approximately 13% of all flood affected land within the catchment. Out of the total number of respondents 65% considered that the character of flood events had changed in living memory in terms of duration, extent and frequency; a response which is likely to be heavily influenced by the preceding decade of adverse weather. Figure 3.3.2 shows the proportion of grass and arable land flooded under each of the “area flooded” categories. It shows that roughly equal proportions of grass and arable land are reported to have flooded under each category except for the “no flooding” category, where there is proportionately more “no flooding” reported on arable land in comparison to grassland. As shown in Figure 3.3.3 the data suggests a broad correlation between the length of watercourse network within the farm holding and the area of reported flooding. 66% of respondents (10 out 15) that reported flooding of between 21-50 acres have 6-10km of watercourse network on their farms. For those reporting 51- 100 acres of flooding a high proportion (60%) have a watercourse network of 11-25km or 25km+. Whilst this may not come as a surprise, the data suggests that watercourse network function plays a determining factor for those areas that experience frequent flooding. 3.2.3 Maintenance Expenditure At least 85% of respondents report some level of spending on annual watercourse maintenance, with the majority evenly distributed between the ‘up to £500’ (30%), £501-1000 (32%) and £1001-5000 (21%) intervals. Roughly 15% (9 respondents) spent nothing. Some of the comments we received to this question were:  “We do our own maintenance in our own time and do not cost it, this may be an under estimate”  “Every system needs management. We maintain internal drains and ditches annually as part of a progressive plan”  “The money is well spent but the problems are further downstream from me, as soon as the water starts moving we drain quite quickly” Page 22 NFU Report

 “Cost is usually for digger hire” As shown in Table 3.1 the survey indicates that the 56 respondents spend between £26,146 and £91,500 per annum on watercourse maintenance (median £58,823.50). Through comparing the range of declared maintenance spend with the range of total acreage and range of channel network lengths it has been possible to generate a very broad per acre and per kilometre range of spending on watercourse maintenance:  £99.60/ km to £174.49/ km (median £137/ km); or  £1 per acre to £6.46 per acre (median £3.73 per acre) Assuming a total farmed area of 59,284 acres, the figures above suggest a potential “catchment spending power” between £59,000 and £383,000 on watercourse maintenance per year, with a median of £221,173 per year. Whilst it is considered unlikely that all watercourses would be managed/ maintained in any given year, if a hypothetical charge were to be levied against all 462km of watercourse within the Ray catchment (both Main and Ordinary Watercourse), this could raise between £46,000 and £80,600 (median £63,300) for maintenance activity on an annual basis. Table 3.1 Reported range of acreage, channel network and declared maintenance spend Range of declared Range of Channel Network Length on Respondent Holdings Range of declared maintenance acreage (Cumulative for both Main and Ordinary Watercourse) spend 26,129 acres 262.5km £26,146 14,161 acres 524.4km £91,501

We found no correlation between declared annual maintenance spend and flood frequency, primarily because the majority of respondents reported some level of flooding every 1-2 years (68% - Figure 3.3.4). There does however appear to be a broad trend between maintenance spending and length of watercourse network (Figure 3.3.5); and a similar trend with proportion of arable land (Figure 3.3.6). In both of these cases the data indicates that greater lengths of watercourse and greater proportions of arable land are broadly linked with higher bands of maintenance spending. Figure 3.3.5 demonstrates that farms with greater lengths of watercourse (i.e. over 11 km) are predominantly linked with higher spending bands of £501-1000, £1001-5000 and £5000+. Figure 3.3.5 is also of interest as it shows the wide range of spending on broadly similar lengths of Ordinary and Main watercourse. For example respondents reporting watercourse lengths of both 1-5 km and 6-10km exhibit a range of spending from £0 up to £5000 per annum. The implication is that a minority (13% of respondents – 7 in total, in the 1-5km and 6- 10km categories) account for a greater share of the total maintenance spend, whilst a much higher proportion within those categories (41% of respondents, 24 in total) spend nothing or spend less £500 per annum. With reference to Figure 3.3.6 the indication is that 67% of arable holdings spend within the upper three spending intervals (£501-£5000+). This is in comparison to 51% of grassland holdings that spend within two of those categories (but not the highest). Put another way, a higher proportion of grassland farmers are linked with the lower bands of maintenance spending with 49% of grassland farmers within the £0 and “less than £500” spending bands, compared to just 34% of arable farmers in those same bands. With reference to Figure 3.3.7 there is also a very broad indication within the data that maintenance spend has a broad positive association with reports of area flooded i.e. 75% of respondents spending £1001-£5000 per annum report flooding in excess of 21 acres; and a single respondent reported spending in excess of £5000 on a farm which has experienced 51-100 acres of flooding. Despite this observation the most common spending intervals of ‘up to £500’ and £501-1000 are evenly distributed across all reported bandings of area flooded (i.e. from no flooding up to 100 acres of flooding), indicating that these mid-range levels of maintenance spending are the default level of spend regardless of perceived flood risk, potentially influenced by the time that can be spared on the farm and the “justifiable expense” for each farm holding (although these comments are only inferred assumption). The data indicates that there is a range of spending that most holdings will consider is justified on annual basis, which lie mainly within the £500-1000 interval. This spending is influenced slightly by the area flooded, but more so by the lengths of watercourse within the holding and the type of farming practice (i.e. grazing or arable). Page 23 NFU Report

3.2.4 Cost of Flooding According to 48 out of 56 respondents who reported flood damage, the winter 2013/14 event cumulatively cost within the range of £48,943 and £169,700 (median £109,322). When compared with the range of reported acreage flooded (cumulatively between 1,693 and 2,541 acres or between 685 and 1,028 hectares), respondents report broad costs of between £29 and £67 per acre (or £71 to £165 per hectare). This range is averaged out across both arable and grassland holdings and does not take account the frequency and duration of single flood events, all of which are likely to substantially vary the cost of flood events. Figure 3.3.8 summarises the range of reported costs, showing that the majority of respondents report flood costs in the £100-£1000 (37%) and £1001-£5000 range (23%) range. These reported costs showed a broad linear correlation with reported area of flooding. Figure 3.3.9 demonstrates that arable holdings report proportionately higher levels of flood costs compared to grassland holdings, with proportionately 40% of arable area reporting costs in the upper three intervals (i.e. £1001 to £10,000+) in comparison to just 26% of grassland holdings. Figure 3.3.10 separates out the reported costs of those with acreages over 500 acres. It demonstrates that 50% of this group reported costs between £1,001 and £5000, whereas the most frequently reported cost for smaller acreages was within the £101 to £1000 bracket. This group with acreages over 500 acres is comprised of 12 farmers, four of whom had areas of holding greater than 1001 acres in the catchment. As well as spending more on maintenance, these larger holdings exhibit some differing characteristics:  Nearly all are chiefly arable enterprises or have significant parts of their businesses relying on an arable operation.  Flooding costs are larger both financially and in terms of land affected (i.e. of the 4 respondents that lost more than 100 acres to flooding, 3 of them are from this group).  They are on average more in favour of collective working compared to the overall mean. 3.2.5 Attitudes towards Catchment Scale Management Within the questionnaire, respondents were asked five series of multiple questions to measure their attitudes towards a broad range of catchment management themes (see Table 2.2). For example the questionnaire asked several questions in relation to conveyance management such as “do you think that lack of de-silting in river beds is a reason for flooding?” and “do you agree that targeted maintenance will improve flood risk throughout the entire catchment?” to assess attitudes towards sediment and blockage removal as a management technique. The answers to these groups of questions were averaged out for each respondent, giving an overall attitude score for five different aspects of catchment management.

Figure 3.3.11 shows the overall ranking of attitude scores towards the five catchment management themes. The most important theme identified by respondents was the degree of urbanisation within the catchment, with 70% either agreeing (11/56, 20%) or strongly agreeing (28/56, 50%) that urbanisation is having a major effect on flood risk within the catchment. 64% (36 respondents) had a favourable attitude towards undertaking conveyance management and at the same time also showed mainly positive attitudes towards environmental objectives (57%). Much lower numbers had an overall favourable response to collaborative management and catchment storage (23% and 13% respectively).

Page 24 NFU Report

Figure 3.3.11 Comparison of Attitudes Towards Catchment Management

80

70

60 Catchment Storage 50 Collaboration 40 Environmental Objectives Conveyance Management 30 Urbanisation Effect

20 %Agreement Scored of in Response

10

0

3.2.5.1 Attitudes towards Sediment and Blockage Removal As shown in Table 2.2 twelve questions measured the respondents’ strength of agreement with questions such as:  Do you consider that overgrown vegetation has increased the risk of flooding on your farm?  Do you consider that lack of de-silting has increased the risk of flooding on your farm? Considering just some of the questions in isolation, 78% agreed or strongly agreed that areas downstream of their holding needed better watercourse management; and 67% of all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that targeted maintenance would improve flood risk for the entire catchment. Considering the combined scores to all questions on conveyance, the scores from a high proportion (64%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with both there being a need for conveyance management within the catchment, or on their holding; and that this activity would improve flood risk on their farms. 23% provided generally neutral responses, whilst 13% disagreed, or were ‘inclined to disagree’. 77% of the respondents ‘in agreement’ with conveyance management (27 out of 36 respondents) were correlated with the higher bands of maintenance spending (i.e. over £500 per year). This indicates that those with a positive view on conveyance management also follow this up with management activity (Figure 3.3.12). As shown in Figure 3.3.13 views on the benefits of maintenance are held relatively independently of how much of their farms flooded in 2013/14. The only exception is for the subset that disagree with conveyance management, as they all experienced either no flooding, or flooding of less than 1 acre. It is likely that these three respondents come from locations that are well away from the floodplain, but this is only our inference. As shown in Figure 3.3.14, it is of note that responses from arable holdings were markedly more in favour of conveyance management (78% agree or strongly agree) in comparison to mainly grassland holdings (59% agree or strongly area), consistent with the need to maintain better drainage for production on arable farmland. 3.2.5.2 Attitudes towards Flood Water Storage A relatively low number of respondents (13%) were in agreement with measures to increase catchment storage. 34% were neutral on the matter and 53% were either inclined to disagree or disagreed. To a large degree this spectrum of views is held independently of maintenance spending commitment and the area of land flooded in 2013/14 (Figure 3.3.15). It is nonetheless of interest, that for those in agreement with the concept of upstream storage (7 in total), 3 report 51-100 acres of flooding and 2 reports 21-50 acres of flooding in 2013/14. The views expressed on this theme seem to be made from very independent positions, but it seems that there are a minority of farms where flooding takes place already that see the benefit of more enhanced storage. Page 25 NFU Report

The table below summarises the comments made in relation to questions of flood storage, selected from the respondents in agreement with the concept. It is of note that there are two major themes that emerge:  Flood storage measures should be designed in relation to urban development; and  There should be a mechanism put in place to allow allocation of funds from urban development to areas of flood storage. Table 3.2 Comments on Flood Water Storage Are there locations on your farm that could be adapted to hold more water? “Yes, with financial support from urban councils who need this to happen” “Yes if done correctly” “Yes. Farmers should be encouraged with this if they want to build resevoirs/holding areas.” “Possible” There are locations in the catchment that can be designed to hold more water? “I'd have thought in urban areas as part of planning regs” “Merton lake” Are there any other concerns that should be addressed if local landowners are to find a pragmatic solution? “Given vast number of ditches silted up and grants for trees and field borders make a grant possible for extra water areas. e.g. Laking on oxbow” “BBOWT” “Bicester expansion should have a managed drainage and sewer system to reduce flooding and pollution”

3.2.5.3 Attitudes towards Collaboration Whilst only 23% of respondents were in agreement with broad questions on collaboration, the majority (39%) were undecided or neutral on the matter, albeit a high proportion said that they were ‘inclined to disagree’ (31%), leaving just 7% that wholly ‘disagreed’. The mainly neutral response indicates that most are likely to require more information on the nature of a collaborative scheme before making a decision. The result also indicates that the current level of consensus may only allow local, small scale groups to be initially established. Despite this overall neutral attitude, which has been generated through averaging the response to five questions, the answer to a more direct question on paying annually towards a drainage board gave a more positive result. As shown in Figure 3.3.16 a high proportion of responses (41%) were ‘somewhat willing’ or ‘very willing’ to pay an annual contribution to a drainage board, whilst 23% were indifferent (i.e. requiring more information) and 30% were unwilling or opposed. These views are distributed relatively evenly over all levels of maintenance spending, except that 74% of those that are ‘somewhat willing’ or ‘very willing’ spend in excess of £500 per year on maintenance activity. This indicates that those with a favourable view of collaboration also have a track record of “putting their money where their mouth is” and independent committing to their own maintenance activity. The largest proportion of respondents that are either ‘somewhat willing’ or ‘very willing’ to be part of an IDB, report spending within the £500-1000 per year on their own maintenance. The indication is that there may be a limitation in the amount that individuals are willing to spend; however this could indicate recognition that cumulative, in combination spending could have more of an effect. Figure 3.3.17 summarises the combined responses to questions on collaboration in comparison to maintenance spending. It shows that maintenance spending commitment is equally distributed across all the whole range of attitudes towards collaborative working. This probably means there are several factors other than “willingness to spend on maintenance” influencing answers to these questions, such as affordability, time commitment and views on potential effectiveness. This even distribution of views is nearly replicated when considering attitudes towards collaboration in relation to the reported areas of flooding (Figure 3.3.18). Questions of collaboration have only limited correlation with reports on how much land has been flooded, with large and small areas of flooding reported across all the range of attitudes. This may indicate that as there is only limited correlation, area of flooding is unlikely to be a limiting factor in terms of brokering a collaborative project i.e. there are other unidentified factors determining the attitudes towards collaboration rather than simply if the farm is inundated regularly. Despite this however, there is a broad weighting where the farmers that are ‘inclined to agree’ or ‘agree’ with the potential for collaboration, have reported 21-50 or 51-100 acres of flooding (10 out of 13 responses, 77%). The response is more mixed for those that disagree with collaboration, and they report a more evenly distributed range of flooded areas. Page 26 NFU Report

It is of interest that respondents reporting that they already hold an agri-environment scheme agreement show a greater affinity towards collaborative maintenance in comparison to those that do not. As shown in Figure 3.3.19, 32% of respondents who hold an agri-environment scheme agree or strongly agree with the concept of collaborative maintenance. This is in comparison to just 12% in agreement that do not hold an agri-environment scheme. In comparing the range of attitudes on collaboration with attitudes towards urbanisation and channel maintenance activity we identified a strong combination of preferences between the groupings. As shown in Figure 3.3.20 all of those that agree or strongly agree with the potential for collaborative management also agree or strongly agree that urbanisation is increasing farmland flood risk. It is therefore likely that this attitude towards urbanisation is a determining factor in why groups of farmers are willing to work in collaboration. As shown in Figure 3.3.21, the large majority that responded positively to questions of collaborative management also responded positively to questions on maintenance and blockage removal (92% 12 out of 13 responses). This perhaps gives quite a strong indication that where there is interest in collaboration this view is held because of the conveyance improvements it could bring. 3.2.5.4 Attitudes towards Wider Environmental Objectives Urbanisation There was a very strong response (70%) that urbanisation is causing an increased flood risk. Out of the themes investigated the area of land flooded was the major factor determining whether people consider that urbanisation is having an effect on their farm. As shown in Figure 3.3.22 100% of respondents reporting 51-100 acres of flooded farmland strongly agree, whilst 93% (13 out of 14 responses) reporting 21-50 acres of flooding either agree or strongly agree that urbanisation is having an effect. The 30% that are neutral, inclined to disagree, or disagree are evenly distributed across all of the lower flooding categories (i.e. no flooding up to 21- 50 acres flooding). Environmental Objectives Considering just one of the questions in isolation, 68% provided a positive response to a picture of constructed detention basin surrounded by mature habitat. Considering the combined scores to approximately eight questions, which gave an overall impression of the respondents ‘warmth’ towards environmental objectives, 57% of responses placed high value on environmental objectives such as sediment control, habitat creation and agri-environment scheme participation? 27% were generally neutral in their response, whilst 16% did not consider environmental objectives as a priority in their responses. As shown in Figure 3.3.23 those spending over £1000 per year on watercourse maintenance (i.e. the two highest spending brackets) showed a preference towards prioritising environmental objectives, with 78% (7 out of 9) responding that these are fairly important or important. The implication is that the level of engagement involved in undertaking a regular maintenance schedule gives rise to a more informed opinion and higher valuation of wildlife, habitat and sediment control objectives. We believe this could have far reaching consequences for the design of environmental policy i.e. active engagement and management gives rise to more informed land managers and may potentially lead to more favourable environmental outcomes. Figure 3.3.24 is also of interest as it indicates that the greatest extents of farm flooding (i.e. 51-100 acres) tend towards favouring environmental objectives (62%, 5 out of 8 responses important or fairly important). Less extensive areas of flooding are more evenly distributed across the attitude spectrum. 3.2.6 Summary on Willingness for Participants to Take Action Whilst the averaged attitude scores reported above provide a relatively mixed picture on whether landowners are willing to participate in collaborative management, to a certain degree this overlooks the straightforward answers given within the questionnaire. Figures 3.3.25 provides a summary of those more direct answers to questions, showing that there is a very clear indication to either start/join a local management group; or to pay towards a drainage board. The enthusiasm towards these activities is magnified if you consider just the farms that are over 500 acres, where 67% were in favour of a local management group and 58% would pay towards a drainage board. Views are split evenly on willingness to undertake work outside of your farm. Personal communications with those in the catchment indicates that cost, coordination, legislative risk/ liability and time availability are all contributing factors likely to affect this decision. However the comparison of responses on this question point Page 27 NFU Report towards respondents favouring an agency for decision making and action, such as a drainage board or management group, rather than individuals simply taking action on a wider scale than just their own holding. The responses are much less favourable in terms of willingness to store water on farms, indicating that it is only likely to be a small number of individuals likely to be interested in this measure, rather than the majority.

Figure 3.3.25 Willingness to Take Specific Actions

Give over more land to conservation in return for 32% 37% 25% 7% EA maintenance In favour Start/join local management group 53% 23% 19% 5% Unsure Pay toward a drainage board 40% 23% 32% 5%

Carry out work outside of your farm to improve Against 30% 33% 33% 4% flood risk in the catchment as a whole No comment Pay for an upstream farm to hold water 5% 30% 61% 4%

Store water on holding 25% 14% 58% 4% Page 28 NFU Report

3.3 Targeted Engagement Table 3.3 summarises key outcomes from discussions with public and direct stakeholders during the project.

Table 3.3 Summary Stakeholder Comments Group Main comments . The effective functioning of land drainage to improve the productivity and profitability of ground is the main driver for river maintenance for most farmers. . It was generally found that many riparian owners were unclear of their rights and responsibilities. Some were unwilling to accept this, believing that river maintenance should be the responsibility of a government authority. . Some smaller holdings felt they had a “disproportionate” amount of riparian ownership and financing maintenance was beyond the profitability of the holding. . Many had a negative view of the EA, believing that they were ineffective and communicated poorly. This underlined the lack of understanding between the two groups. . Many farms have adapted their operations to deal with poorer land drainage and increased waterlogging rather than spend on river maintenance. Arable reversion or shifting from winter sowing to spring sowing are common adaptations. However, this has implications on costs of changing enterprise and concentrating workloads. Farmers . Some raised the point of view that there must be a financial incentive for carrying out maintenance. This cannot necessarily be justified for all. If the expenditure cannot be justified on farming terms, it would need to be justified in terms of paying for flood risk services. . Some attendees at meetings indicated willingness towards better maintenance co-ordination. Some are concerned that there is no point in undertaking maintenance on their stretches of river if others up and downstream were not doing the same. . One to one interviews indicated maintenance coordination has the potential to reduce costs and provide clear accountability when spending funds. . There should be a balance between drainage and habitat management priorities. Habitat needs managing to have good status, but most farms consider that there is a weight of opinion against undertaking any management activity at all – this balance needs to be redressed. . Better communication needed between all groups to try and achieve the aims of all.

. All parish councils want to do more about flooding and river maintenance, but believe they do not figure in decisions by the district and county authorities. . Fencott and Murcott parish council in particular are wary of being too vocal of flooding issues as this can damage property values. . The EA have conducted a feasibility study for Wendlebury parish council looking into upstream storage to protect residents; although the funding for such a scheme is uncertain/ Parish Council unlikely. Despite this, our understanding is that PC’s would still be open to possibility of entering into agreements with upstream landowners to provide such a service. . Islip and Fencott and Murcott parish councils in particular have funds that they are willing to spend on river maintenance work or flood alleviation measures, but are unsure of how to approach these issues effectively.

. One main tension is that both the RSPB and BBOWT wish to retain water in the landscape through wetland features, whereas farmers wish to see land drained effectively. . Both the RSPB and BBOWT stated that they do not design wildlife features that negatively affect the farming community and welcomed any farmer to visit in an effort to improve understanding. . BBOWT believe that their long terms aims in the area depend on having a good relationship with the farming community and would welcome more engagement. Moreover they would RSPB and BBOWT welcome input from farmers in delivering their strategic aims. . The RSPB stressed the importance of the local area for breeding waders. It was one of the most successful areas in the South East for such wildlife and they would be continuing efforts to increase this success. . The aims of both groups have direct implications for agriculture and land drainage in the catchment.

. A discussion with UK Highways revealed that maintenance of balancing ponds was generally minimal and not a priority given budgetary constraints. . There was however the possibility for a discussion about augmenting these assets to have a flood alleviation role for a wider area. Infrastructure . Conversations with Network Rail brought up the possibility of a memorandum of providers understanding that landowners could clear blockages in culverts under railway embankments without concern of liability. . County Highways Authorities explained how issues with bridges and culverts could be prioritised through putting pressure on district councillors.

Page 29 NFU Report

3.3.1 Management Group Meetings Following a meeting with MP Liz Truss (Secretary for Environment Food and Rural Affairs), MP Nicola Blackman (Oxford West and Abingdon), NFU members (Mr Frearson and others), Cllr Rose (Deputy Leader Oxon CC), in January 2015; needs were identified for better coordination between risk management authorities (RMA’s ) and landowners so that watercourse maintenance works can be delivered in a coordinated way. Subsequent to this a meeting was held between Oxfordshire County Council, Environment Agency and National Farmers Union to discuss ways in which local coordination could be achieved to deliver watercourse maintenance in under-served areas. The minutes from that meeting are included in Appendix C; however the outcomes of that meeting generated the following agreed actions:  NFU and EA will identify local small groups of 10-20 farmers to enable local engagement and “joined up” working, so that riparian landowner activities can work alongside existing EA maintenance programmes.  Where there is flexibility in EA schedules and there is a known list of priorities for rural management, there may be scope for local flexibility.  Landowners to identify maintenance schedule/ requirements, which can then to be reviewed by EA to identify where joint working will be an option. Following this meeting, two small management groups have been established by NFU: one involving several farmers from the lower Ray and Cherwell catchment; and one involving farmers around Abingdon, River Thames and River Ock. At the time of writing both of these groups had met once, and the actions from those meetings are included in Appendix C; however the main points raised at the two management group meetings are summarised below. 3.3.1.1 Ray Management Group  Landowners made the point that there is a need for specialist machinery and training to deal with maintenance tasks; and this is a barrier to riparian landowners undertaking work themselves, particularly where there are large backlogs of maintenance required (e.g. no trees managed for 30 years plus)  The historical neglect of maintenance meant that work on many stretches was beyond “routine maintenance”.  EA indicated that the planned yearly maintenance programme can be “tweaked” to support landowner works.  Some farmers present were tenants and felt that the cost of any work should be partly met by their landlord.  De-silting and willow management were identified as the two main tasks, with the locations involved also recorded. An action from that meeting was to cost the work involved in resolving legacy issues, an activity which was being undertaken at the time of writing.  As the willow management was seen as a more immediately achievable aim, the EA suggested that the work be scoped, costed and “packaged” as a project to seek funding from local sources and possibly the Thames Rural Flood and Coastal Committee (TRFCC)  To aid assessment of this work, EA biodiversity officers would be able to visit sites and advise on the methods of working required.

3.3.1.2 Abingdon Management Group  Willow management on the Thames was identified as an immediate priority and a package of works was proposed to fully cost the issue and identify sources of revenue, including from potential enhancement of recreational access along the Thames and use of wood products as a marketable commodity.  The EA were in the process of updating a map of trees along the Thames that are impeding flow and/or dangerous. They would welcome landowner input into this to identify riparian owner for specific trees.  Farmers suggested that the general public needed to be educated on the importance of river maintenance to farming and urban areas. Specifically with regard to vegetation management, it needed publicising that plants grow back well even if it may seem excessive and damaging immediately afterward.  It was suggested that this group be formalised as it would help attract funding and attention of authorities. Page 30 NFU Report

3.3.2 EA River Maintenance Demonstration Day All parties were appreciative of the chance to understand and discuss each other’s views, roles and positions. There were some key points from the day that provide guidance for further action: . All parties agreed that more regular communication between all would be beneficial. . Furthermore, farmers asked for a list of relevant, local agency staff and their direct contact details. The EA welcomed this idea and agreed to make it possible. . Simply having access to specialist machinery, such as that present at the event, was not the only issue – there would also need to be an operator with relevant training. Further discussion on this subject raised the suggestion of collaborative funding for the training of one local farmer as an operator. . Local EA biodiversity officers agreed to on farm meetings to walk sections of river to scope works. This would provide clear guidance on how maintenance tasks should be carried out and would ease the consenting process. Such advice would also aid cost estimates as the exact amount of work allowed or required would be known.

Page 31 NFU Report

Section 4 Conclusions and Recommendations This report is the culmination of a 6-month study, presenting the results of a series of questionnaires, interviews and stakeholder engagement events focussing on rural flooding on the Upper Thames in general and the River Ray (Oxfordshire) in particular. We estimate a total response rate to our questionnaire of approximately 47%, which provides a 95% confidence level within a plus or minus 10% margin of error4. At least 85% of respondents report some level of spending on annual watercourse maintenance, which averages out to approximately £137 per km or £3.73 per acre already committed to maintenance in the catchment. This figure is slightly influenced by the area flooded within each holding, but more so by the lengths of watercourse within the holding and the type of farming practice (i.e. grazing or arable). It is also of interest that of those that spend within the highest tiers (over £1000 per year) on watercourse maintenance, this group also showed a strong preference towards prioritising environmental objectives. This implies that the level of engagement involved in undertaking a regular maintenance schedule may give rise to a more informed opinion and higher valuation of wildlife, habitat and sediment control objectives to those undertaking the work. This could have far reaching consequences for the design of environmental policy i.e. enabling more active management of watercourse may give rise to more informed land managers and may potentially lead to more favourable environmental outcomes. Assuming a total farmed area of 59,284 acres or 462km of watercourse within the Ray catchment, the figures suggest a potential “catchment spending power” of £221,173 per year on an acreage basis; and £63,300 per year on a per length of watercourse basis. These figures exclude potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy. The combined figures do however indicate that there is capacity to fund a catchment wide management group or internal drainage board. Forty eight respondents reported approximately £109,322 of flood damage during the winter 2013/14 event, much of which was uninsured; a broad cost of between £71 and £165 per hectare averaged across all land use types in all parts of the catchment. This is substantially lower than previous reported costs of over £1000 per hectare; however our survey did not request robust financial information so the previous reported figure is likely to be more accurate. Our survey on attitudes towards catchment management has demonstrated that urbanisation is viewed as by far the most significant risk to flooding in the catchment. In light of the forecast growth of Bicester these impacts are set to become of increasingly great concern to downstream landowners. The majority of questionnaire responses (87%) did not view the potential for increased catchment flood storage very favourably; however of the 13% that did, many were already affected by flooding and could potentially see the benefit of enhancing storage on flood prone land. Favourable attitudes towards enhanced flood storage were however predicated by views that there should be payment mechanisms established with urban centres where farmland is accommodating increased flood flows from urban development. Is there a Case for a New Internal Drainage Board in Oxfordshire? The questionnaire found evidence to suggest that there is enthusiasm for landowners to join local management group; and/ or to pay towards an elected drainage board. The enthusiasm towards these activities is magnified if you consider just the farms that are over 500 acres, where 67% were in favour of a local management group and 58% would pay towards a drainage board. The large majority that are willing to collaborate (92%) have strongly favourable attitudes towards sediment and blockage removal and largely unfavourable attitudes towards ‘catchment/ upstream storage’, so the creation of a management group would necessarily need to entail conventional watercourse maintenance (i.e. sediment and blockage removal) to ensure farmers are willing to participate. Most of the farms that are willing to pay towards a drainage board already spend in excess of £500 per year on watercourse maintenance activity and so have already demonstrated commitment to this maintenance service. The views on collaboration were however predicated by strong views on catchment urbanisation, with 100% of those with favourable attitudes towards collaboration also agreeing that urbanisation is increasing farmland flood risk and this concern is one of the primary driving factors behind farmer’s willingness to collaborate.

4 i.e. were this procedure to be repeated on multiple samples, the results would be accurate to within ±10% of the true population mean for 95% of the time Page 32 NFU Report

In the process of our stakeholder engagement activity we have established two small management groups: one involving several farmers from the lower Ray and Cherwell catchment; and one involving farmers around Abingdon, River Thames and River Ock. Working closely with the Environment Agency, Oxfordshire County Council and Parish Councils the attendance at these meetings has shown a genuine desire to work together to find pragmatic solutions to the current limits on maintenance service provision.

Main Points of Conclusion and Recommendation  Our study indicates that there is already a strong commitment to maintenance spending in rural catchments and that higher levels of maintenance spending are associated with more favourable attitudes towards environmental objectives. This indicates that the enabling of watercourse maintenance may also generate more positive environmental outcomes in rural catchments.  Our data suggest that there is a financial justification for creating a formalised management group as there is a potentially substantial level of cumulative spending power within the catchment that could achieve outcomes that are not possible for individual holdings or landowners. We estimate a potential cumulative contribution from farmland in this catchment of up to £221,173 per year for watercourse maintenance. This figure excludes potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy.  Feedback has indicated that there is a view that maintenance on a catchment scale is likely to provide more effective drainage compared to the more localised and sporadic intervention, more typically within the capabilities of an average riparian landowner.  The study has also shown that there is willingness to participate in a collaborative scheme. The creation of two new management groups in Oxfordshire, as well as several already in existence demonstrate the willingness of local communities to come together to manage flood risk issues.  The public stakeholders that have contributed towards this study have also indicated willingness to participate, subject to there being a balance of priorities between nature conservation, protection of people and property alongside protection of productive agricultural land.  One of the primary drivers behind interest in collaborative management is the perceived increasing flood risk from catchment urbanisation and that management collaboration is required to span the interaction between urban and rural settlements.  The other primary drivers are to improve the frequency and coverage of conveyance management service provision and to decrease the duration/ extent of farmland flooding to retain agricultural productivity.  There is only a low level of interest amongst land owners for catchment flood storage. Of the minority that see this in a favourable light, these tend to have land that is already flooded and may potentially considering enhancing that function. It is also clear from these favourable responses that any enhanced flood storage should be to mitigate the growth of urban development and there should be a payment mechanism established where farms are flooded as a result of development. This report has not considered in detail the scientific evidence behind the magnitude of predicted effects from urban development and climate change, and the level of management intervention that would be required to be proportionate to the scale of those risks. Our second report in this project, will involve hydrological modelling work to characterise these risks in more detail. This will provide a broad scientific prediction on the potential scale of risks to the catchment from urbanisation and climate change. This work however is only a first step towards understanding whether there are better ways to coordinate watercourse maintenance in rural catchments. Further work is required to identify the feasibility of management delivery mechanisms, to work up a detailed design and then deliver a robust partnership management organisation that would be able to self-finance management delivery within the catchments of Oxfordshire. Further funding would be required to build on this project, taking into account the identified risks and opportunities identified in this work to broker a robust management mechanism for the future. Figure 3.2.1 - Reported Size of Total Holding of Figure 3.3.1 Reported Area of Flooding Questionnaire Respondents in The Ray Catchment 30% Zero acres (5 responses)

2% Zero acres (1 response) 25% 1 acre or less (7 responses) 5% 50 or less acres (7 responses) 11% 13% 20% 2 to 5 acres (10 responses) 51-100 acres (7 responses) 6 to 20 acres (8 responses) 13% 15% 101-500 acres (32 responses) 10% 21 to 50 acres (15 501-1000 acres (6 responses) responses) 51 to 100 (6 responses) Percentage ofResponses 5% 57% 1000+ acres (3 responses) 101 or more (4 responses) 0%

Figure 3.3.2 Areas of Flooding by Land Use Figure 3.3.3 Channel Network and Area Flooded

100 16 17 20 14 80 51-100 acres 12 26km+ 27 10 26 21-50 acres 11-25km 60 8 6-20 acres 6 6-10km 13 16 4 40 2-5 acres 1-5km 19 14 2 20 8 Less than 1 acre 0 Less than 1km 14 No flooding No Less than 2-5 acres 6-20 21-50 51-100 9 16 0 flooding 1 acre acres acres acres

%Respondents Grass in or Arable Grass Arable

Page 1 NFU Report

Fig 3.3.4 Flood Frequency Compared to Declared Spend Fig 3.3.5 Channel Network Length Compared to Declared on Annual Maintenance Spend on Annual Maintenance

20

40 26km+ £1001-5000 15 30 11-25km £501-1000 20 10 6-10km Up to £500 10 1-5km £0 5 Less than 1km

0 NumberofResponses NumberofResponses Never 16+ 11-15 6-10 3-5 years1-2 years 0 years years years Frequency of Farm Flooding

Fig 3.3.6 Declared Annual Maintenance Spend in Fig 3.3.7 Area Flooded Compared to Declared Spend on Comparison to Proportion of Arable Land Annual Maintenance 100 16 6 90 18 14 80 31 12 70 £5001+ £5001+ 33 10 60 £1001-5000 £1001-5000 8 50 30 £501-1000 £501-1000 40 6 30 34 Up to £500 4 Up to £500

22 NumberofResponses 2 20 £0 £0 0

ProportionofResponses (%) 10 15 12 0 No Less than2-5 acres 6-20 21-50 51-100 Grass Arable flooding 1 acre acres acres acres

Page 2 NFU Report

Figure 3.3.9 Declared Cost of Flooding Compared to Land Figure 3.3.8 Proportion of 2013/14 Cost Reported Per Use Holding 100 4% 90 £0 80 £10,000+ 6% 16% 70 £100 or less £5001-10000 60 23% 14% £101 to £1,000 50 £1001-5000 £1,001 to £5,000 40 £101-1000 30 £5,001 to 10,000 £51-100 20 37% £10,001 to £20,000 £0 ProportionofResponses (%) 10 0 Grass Arable

Figure 3.3.10 Cost of 2013/14 Flood for 500 acres or More Figure 3.3.12 Attitudes Towards Sediment and Blockage Removal Compared to Declared Maintenance Spend 50%

20

18 37% 16 14 12 Strongly Agree 24% 10 Agree 17% 16% 14% 8 6 Neutral 8% 8% 8% 6% 4% 4 2 Inclined to disagree 0% NumberofRespondents 0 Disagree 0 £51-100 £101 to £1,001 to £5,001 to £10,001 + £1,000 £5,000 £10,000

500+ Group All Respondents

Page 3 NFU Report

Figure 3.3.13 Attitudes Towards Sediment and Blockage Figure 3.3.14 Attitudes to Sediment and Blockage Removal Compared to Area Flooded in 2013/14 Removal Compared to Proportion of Grassland and 16 Arable Land 14 100

12 Strongly Agree 10 80 Strongly Agree 8 Agree 6 60 Agree Neutral 4 40 Neutral 2 Inclined to disagree declaredacreage Inclined to disagree 0 Disagree 20 No Less 2-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 Disagree flooding than 1 acres acres acres acres 0

acre Grassland/arable proportion oftotal Grass Arable

Figure 3.3.15 Attitudes Towards Increased Catchment Figure 3.3.16 Willingness to Pay Annual Contribution to Storage Compared to Acreage Flooded During 2013/14 Drainage Board Compared to Declared Spend on Annual

25 Maintenance 51-100 acres 20 25 21-50 acres 20 15 6-20 acres £5001+ 15 10 2-5 acres £1001-5000 10 5 Less than 1 acre £501-1000 No flooding 5 Up to £500

NumberofRespondents 0 NumberofResponses Disagree Inclined Neutral Agree Strongly 0 £0 to Agree Opposed Unwilling Indifferent Somewhat Very disagree Willing Willing

Page 4 NFU Report

Figure 3.3.17 Attitudes Towards Maintenance Figure 3.3.18 Attitudes Towards Maintenance Collaboration in Comparison to Declared Maintenance Collaboration in Comparison to Area Flooded in 2013/14 Spend

25

25 20 51-100 acres 20 21-50 acres £5001+ 15 15 6-20 acres £1001-5000 10 2-5 acres 10 £501-1000 5 Less than 1 acre

5 NumberofResponses Up to £500 0 No flooding £0 Disagree Inclined Neutral Agree Strongly NumberofRespondents 0 Disagree Inclined to Neutral Agree Strongly to Agree disagree Agree disagree

Figure 3.3.19 Attitudes Towards Maintenance Figure 3.3.20 Attitudes Towards Collaboration and Collaboration for Agri-Environment Scheme Holders Urbanisation

Strongly Agree 100 30 25 Agree 80 20 Strongly Agree Neutral 60 15 Inclined to disagree Agree 10 40 Disagree Neutral 5 0 20 Inclined to disagree

NumberofResponses Disagree Inclined Neutral Agree Strongly 0 Disagree to Agree

Proportionofresponses (%) Yes No disagree Do you hold an agri-environment scheme? Attitude Towards Urbanisation

Page 5 NFU Report

Figure 3.3.21 Comparison of Attitudes to Collaboration Figure 3.3.22 Attitudes Towards the Effects of and Blockage Removal Urbanisation Compared to Area of Farmland Flooding

40 30 35 Strongly Agree 30 Agree 25 25 51-100 acres 20 20 Neutral 21-50 acres 15 Inclined to disagree 15 10 6-20 acres 10 5 Disagree

0 5 2-5 acres NumberofResponses Disagree Inclined Neutral Agree Strongly NumberofResponses 0 Less than 1 acre to Agree Disagree Inclined Neutral Agree Strongly No flooding disagree to Agree Attitudes Towards Blockage Removal/ Conveyance Management disagree

Figure 3.3.23 Attitudes Towards Environmental Figure 3.3.24 Attitudes Towards Environmental Objectives Compared to Declared Spend on Maintenance Objectives Compared to Area Flooded 2013/14

18

16 20 14 12 15 51-100 acres 10 £5001+ 10 8 21-50 acres 6 £1001-5000 5 4 6-20 acres 2 £501-1000 0 0 2-5 acres

Up to £500 NumberofResponses NumberofRespondents Less than 1 acre £0 No flooding

Appendix A – List of Public Stakeholder Organisations Contacted

A2Dominion - Bicester developers Agrivert Allerton scheme BBOWT Bicester Chamber of Commerce Bicester Heritage ltd. - Bicester airfield Bicester Vision Blenheim Estate BT Buckinghamshire Chamber of Commerce Catchment Partnerships CLA Cotswold AONB Board Countryside Properties Developers around Bicester Environment Agency Foundation for Water Research Freshwater Habitats Trust FWAG Highways Agency Ministry of Defence/ MoD Hydrologist National Grid Natural England Network Rail OpenReach Otmoor Conservation Group Oxford Brookes Oxford Uni - Environmental Change Institute Oxford University Estate Oxfordshire Chamber of Commerce Oxforshire LEP Oxon Local Nature Partnership Oxon rural community council River Thame Conservation Trust RSPB Scottish and Southern Electric SGN Thames Water UK Highways Wildlife Conservation Research Unit - University of Oxford

Page 1 NFU Report

Appendix B – Environment Agency Proposed Maintenance Programme in the Ray Catchment

Watercourse When Length/Location Works

Wendlebury May 2015 700 metres between A41 & village hall  In channel weed control

Brook (Brook through village)  Cut overhanging branches

 Removal of woody debris

 Cut grass along banks

 Remove obstruction

Murcott Dyke July 2015 1.9 km between Inner Circle and Marlake  Cut overhanging branches

ditch  Removal of woody debris

 Remove obstruction

 Selective de-silt

Ludgershall August 2015 1.2 km between Rookery Farm and  Cut grass along banks

Brook Brooklands farm. (Brook through village)  In channel weed control

 Cut overhanging branches

 Removal of woody debris

 Remove obstruction

 Selective de-silt

Piddington August 2015 1.4 km between Pump house and Church.  Cut grass along banks

Brook (Most of brook through village)  In channel weed control

 Cut overhanging branches

 Removal of woody debris

 Remove obstruction

September 1.3 km between M40 and Murcott Dyke  Cut overhanging branches

Marlake Ditch 2015  Removal of woody debris

 Remove obstruction

 Cut grass along banks

 In channel weed control Page 2 NFU Report

River Bure October 1.9 km between Pingle Stream and  Cut grass along banks

2015 Railway line north of Graham Road. (The  In channel weed control Main River section through Bicester)  Cut overhanging branches

 Removal of woody debris

 Remove obstruction

Blackthorn October 1.1 km between Weir Lane and Thame  Cut 1 m width of grass on Brook 2015 Road. (most of brook through village) bank. (From summer water level up).

 In channel weed control – cut 80% width of channel (remaining 20% either side left)

 Cut overhanging branches

 Removal of woody debris

 Remove obstruction

River Ray March 2016 800 metres between Chipping Farm  Cut overhanging branches

Stream and Cherwell (Stretch through  Partially remove woody Islip) debris (leave some)

 Remove obstruction

Page 3 NFU Report

Appendix C – Minutes and Actions from Stakeholder Meetings

Page 4 NFU Report

References i North West Bicester Supplementary Planning Document (Cherwell District Council) December 2014 ii Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment “Agriculture’s Role in Flood Adaptation and Mitigation: Policy Issues and Approaches” 1-3 July 2009, OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France iii Morris, J. 1992. Agricultural land drainage, land use change and economic performance; experience in the UK. Land Use Policy (July 1992): 185-198 iv Posthumus et al. (2010) A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floods in England v Defra. Appraisal of flood and coastal erosion risk management: Defra policy statement. June 2009. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 2009. vi Making space for water: A Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England Defra 2004 vii Posthumus et al 2010 viii Environment Agency (October 2013a) ‘Protocol for the maintenance of flood and coastal risk management assets (England only) Version 2 – Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297893/Protocol_for_AM.pdf ix Food security: Second Report of Session 2014–15 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee July 2014 x Morris et al. (2013) in Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: A Manual for Economic Appraisal xi Posthumus et al (2009) xii Morris et al. (2009) Agricultures Role in Flood Adaptation and Mitigation – Policy Issues and Approaches OECD Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment xiii Chatterton J., Viavattene C., Morris J., Penning-Rowsell E. & Tapsell S. The costs of the summer 2007 floods in England. Science Project SC070039. Environment Agency. 2010. xiv Foresight Future Flooding (2004) xv Efra 2014 xvi ibid xvii Bell, V.A.; Kay, A.L.; Cole, S.J.; Jones, R.G.; Moore, R.J.; Reynard, N.S. 2012 How might climate change affect river flows across the Thames Basin?: an area-wide analysis using the UKCP09 Regional Climate Model ensemble. Journal of Hydrology, 442-443. 89-104. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.001 xviii Environment Agency (2011) “Dredging pilot studies report: A report on our work to consider dredging and associated watercourse maintenance at six locations.” Accessed from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk xix Posthumus et al (2009) “Impacts of the summer 2007 Floods on Agriculture in England” Journal of Flood Risk Management CIWEM xx Royal Haskoning DHV June 2014 “Funding Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Maintenance: Learning from Existing and Past Practice” Draft Final Report PB1718 on behalf of Defra accessed from http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID =19107 xxi www.magic.gov.uk/home.htm accessed May 2015 xxii www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/data/spatialdata.html?39140 Accessed May 2015 xxiii Lamberth, K (2014) Otmoor SSSI Eco-hydrological Study 2013-14 with reference to the Water Level Management Plan. Prepared for Ministry of Defence xxiv NE570 Upper Thames Clay Vales NCA http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5865554770395136?map=true&category=587130 xxv TIN049 edition 2 - Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land, Accessed from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35012?cache=1431939585.93 xxvi Oxon Ray Catchment Management Plan June 2012 xxvii Bicester development plan May 2014 xxviii www.oxford.gov.uk/Library/District%20Data/Bicester%20Census%202001%20to%202011%20profile.pdf Bicester Profile 2011 Census xxix www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html