Draft Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2012 - 2016

www.surreycc.gov.uk

Making Surrey a better place Why is a strategy needed? Tell us what you think about

The Government has recently given local flooding authorities new powers to help manage local flood risk in a more coordinated way. These new Earlier this year, Surrey County Council used responsibilities relate primarily to ‘local’ flood feedback from residents to inform its strategy risk, namely from surface water, groundwater about flood risk. It now wants to know what you and ordinary watercourses (smaller rivers, think of it. streams and ditches). Flood risk from all other To give your views, visit www.surreycc.gov.uk/ rivers (known as main rivers) remains the floodriskstrategy or call 03456 009 009. responsibility of the Environment Agency. The closing date for all responses is 30 November Surrey County Council now has a statutory duty 2012. to produce a strategy. The Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy: • Explains how partners are working together to reduce flood risk. • Provides an overview of the ongoing flood risk management work underway across Surrey. • Outlines which organisations are responsible for different types of flooding to ensure a common understanding of roles, responsibilities and priorities within the county.

Extreme weather, existing buildings in floodplains and limited funding mean we cannot stop flood incidents in Surrey. However, through the strategy we will coordinate our services so that flood risk is reduced and the aftermath of flood incidents is minimised. The strategy provides a real opportunity for us to work together with residents and businesses to reduce risk and prepare for the future. Draft Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Contents

Foreword 3 Our ambitions

1. Introduction 5 1.1 The purpose of the strategy 5 1.2 Structure 5 1.3 Why have we produced a strategy? 6 1.4 Who is the strategy aimed at? 6 1.5 Our objectives 6 1.6 Legislative context 7 1.7 Corporate plans and priorities 9 1.8 Surrey Flood Risk Partnership Board 9 1.9 Scrutiny and review 10

2. Flood risk in Surrey 11 2.1 Types of flood risk 11 2.2 Existing information on flood risk 13 2.3 Future changes to risk 24 2.4 How is information on flood risk currently communicated? 26

3. Roles and responsibilities 27 3.1 Surrey County Council (including Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority) 27 3.2 Environment Agency 32 3.3 District and borough councils 35 3.4 Internal drainage boards 37 3.5 Regional flood and coastal committees 38 3.6 Water companies 38 3.7 Highways Agency 39 3.8 Residents and businesses 40

4. Objectives and actions 43 4.1 Capital schemes 44 4.2 Maintenance 45 4.3 Sustainable drainage 46 4.4 Communication 47 4.5 Improving knowledge and skills 47 4.6 Partnership working on the implementation of the Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy 48 4.7 Developing a holistic response to flood risk 48 4.8 Actions 48

5. Flood risk management funding 49 5.1 National funding 49 5.2 Local funding 50 5.3 Additional funding sources 50

6. Sustainable development and environment 53 6.1 How will the strategy make a contribution to sustainable development? 53 6.2 The environmental impact of the strategy: strategic environmental assessment 54 1

6.3 The impact of the strategy on sites of European importance for nature conservation: Habitat Regulations Assessment 54 6.4 The Water Framework Directive 55 6.5 The environmental impacts of schemes: Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitat Regulations Assessment 56

7. Next steps 58

Annexes Annex 1: Glossary of terms 59 Annex 2: Technical annex 63 Annex 3: Action plan 69 Annex 4: Annual programme of schemes 2012/ 13 75 Annex 5: Public feedback from a survey to inform the strategy 78 Annex 6: Contact details 81

Boxes Box 1: Our objectives 6 Box 2: Our approach to catchments in the strategy 14 Box 3: What is a sustainable drainage system? 29 Box 4: Case study Guildford Borough Council, Flood Risk Reduction Measures, November 2012 36 Box 5: Case study Spelthorne Borough Council, Supplementary Planning 36 Document on Flooding, consultation draft April 2012 Box 6: Case study Chobham Community Resilience Action Group (CCRAG) 41 Box 7: Case study Farnham River Management Committee (FRMC) 41 Box 8: Case study community payback 46 Box 9: Case study HydroCast: Rainfall forecast and analysis system 48 Box 10: What is sustainable development? 53 Box 11: Case study The Moors Project, Redhill 57

Figures Figure 1: Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board 37

Maps (these are available at www.surreycc.gov.uk/floodriskstrategy) Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 1 - Lower Thames Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 2 - Lower Wey Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 3 - Mole Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 4 - South London Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 5 - Upper Wey Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 6 - Surrey overview Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 7 - Surrey flood alleviation schemes 2012/ 13

Tables Table 1: Surrey clusters 17 Table 2: Means of calculating the amount of Flood Defence Grant in Aid 49 Table 3: Communities at risk of fluvial flooding – National Flood Risk Assessment Data 63 Table 4: Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan – Policy unit areas 64 Table 5: Historic flooding incidents 65 Table 6: Current and potential future flood zones in Surrey’s main urban centres 66 Table 7: Water Framework Directive - ecological status or ecological potential 67

2

Draft Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Foreword

Recent Government legislation has provided local authorities with a number of new responsibilities in relation to flood risk management. It has also provided a timely opportunity to review the activities that we already carry out. This draft Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy marks the start of a new, more coordinated approach to the work that we all carry out in this important area.

The strategy draws in the work of other important risk management authorities within the county, such as water companies and the Environment Agency. This document is a first step in explaining how all these organisations plan to work together, what their priorities are, and who is responsible for what.

Under legislation, the strategy has to explain what is being done to manage ‘local flood risk’, namely flooding from groundwater, ordinary watercourses and surface water. However, it also provides a unique opportunity to provide information on all sources of flooding and to discuss the links between them.

It would not be possible to stop all flooding in the county, even with unlimited funding. The priorities identified represent the best way to manage the risk. They show how we are attempting to create a balance, between focusing on modelled risk, and the work needed to support areas that have already experienced flooding.

We are in a period of great change with the transfer of responsibilities. We are improving our understanding of the nature of local flood risk. Early priorities therefore include a focus on what needs to be done to meet new responsibilities. We are also committed to developing our knowledge and understanding through the use of innovative technology.

In April 2012, the way that the Government funds flood risk management projects changed. We are developing an understanding of areas in Surrey that have the highest eligibility for national funding to ensure that Surrey receives its fair share. Changes in national funding mean we also need to consider what local funding may be allocated to local flood risk priorities.

Set out below are our ambitions to 2017 (in no particular order):

1. Drainage strategy - We will develop a long term drainage asset management strategy, which covers highways and ordinary watercourse maintenance. As a result we will target high risk and high need areas in a joined up way.

2. Infrastructure - The relevant local authorities will work together with the Environment Agency to ensure the development and implementation of flood risk management strategies including the Lower Thames and Wey. This will bring tangible reductions in flood risk to some Surrey communities.

3. Sustainable drainage - We will develop an approach to sustainable drainage systems that is fully integrated with the planning system. Large development sites will be exemplars. We also want to see more retrofitting of sustainable drainage systems in high risk areas.

3

4. Resilience - Together we will promote flood resilience and resistance measures to ‘at risk’ households and businesses in Surrey. This will include the continued development and sharing of ‘self help’ opportunities.

5. Insurance - We will urge the Government to work with the insurance industry to guarantee the availability and affordability of flood insurance.

6. Funding - We will be ambitious in our approach to securing national flood risk management funding, and in exploring additional funding sources. We will assist, where possible, in supporting the funding of property level protection schemes in high risk areas.

7. Communications - We will continue to explain what work is underway to reduce flood risk, how this is prioritised and what role residents and businesses can play.

8. Technology - We will continue to promote and use innovative technologies, to better understand the nature of flood risk, and identify potential flood risk mitigation measures.

I hope you find the following document a useful source of information. Links to more detailed and technical information are provided throughout. This is our first step in ensuring that you are kept up to date with work that is underway or planned throughout the county and the role that you can play in this.

Councillor John Furey, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment, Surrey County Council

Jason Russell, Chairman, Surrey Flood Risk Partnership Board

4

1. Introduction

Surrey is a county with a high risk of flooding. It has experienced major flood incidents, including several in the last 10 years. Much of this has occurred in the floodplain of the Lower Thames and its tributaries. There are also many localised spots prone to surface water flooding or the emergence of groundwater.

The Government has recently given local authorities new powers to help manage local flood risk in a more coordinated way. These new responsibilities relate primarily to ‘local’ flood risk, namely from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses (smaller rivers, streams and ditches). Flood risk from all other rivers (known as main rivers) remains the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

This chapter outlines the purpose, structure and reasons for producing a local flood risk management strategy. It identifies the main target audiences and defines the objectives.

1.1 The purpose of the strategy

The Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (hereafter the strategy) aims to increase awareness of local flood risk issues. It also sets out how partners are working together to reduce flood risk. This document provides, for the first time, an overview of the ongoing flood risk management work underway across Surrey. The organisations in Surrey with responsibility for flood risk management have worked together to produce the strategy. The Surrey Flood Risk Partnership Board oversees the strategy.

Residents and businesses do not always distinguish between different types of flood risk; the impact is their key concern. The strategy will therefore illustrate levels of risk within the county from all sources of flood risk. This is broader than the types of flood risk for which Surrey County Council is strictly responsible.

We cannot stop flooding in Surrey. Extreme weather events appear to be on the rise, many of our existing homes and businesses are built in the floodplain and funding is limited. However, through the strategy we have an opportunity to coordinate our services so that the risk of flooding is reduced. Our intention is that the impact of flood incidents is as minimal as possible.

1.2 Structure

The strategy starts with an overview of the legislation that underpins flood risk management in Surrey. It is followed by chapter two, which provides a summary of flood risk in the county. This includes a review of the information that already exists. The information helps us to understand varying levels of risk and the priority geographical areas for action.

Chapter three provides clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the organisations involved in flood risk management. It also looks at the role residents and businesses can play in helping manage flood risk. This includes riparian owners and property owners.

Chapter four includes our objectives and actions for managing flood risk in Surrey. Linked to this is an overview of funding in chapter five. All the responsible bodies are working with at best the same or less government funding than has been available in previous years. The strategy looks at how opportunities might be sought for additional funding, both from individual bodies and in partnership.

5

In chapter six we outline how we will take environmental considerations into account in our flood risk management; and how it will contribute to sustainable development. Finally, chapter seven explains our next steps.

The annexes include a glossary of terms. The technical annex summarises data relevant to the strategy. Annex three provides the annual action plan. We complete the annexes with public feedback on a survey to inform the strategy and contact details.

We have also provided maps that show an integrated overview of flood risk across Surrey. These are available online at www.surreycc.gov.uk/floodriskstrategy

1.3 Why have we produced a strategy?

Surrey County Council has a statutory duty to produce this document. However, the county council and partners also view the strategy as a real opportunity to work together to reduce risk to residents and businesses and prepare for the future.

Flood incidents can seriously affect people’s lives and businesses. Its effects can be devastating. Surrey is a county with a high risk of flooding and evidence indicates that in future the damage caused by flood incidents could increase, due to the impact of climate change and further pressure for development in areas at risk of flooding.

1.4 Who is the strategy aimed at?

The strategy is a source of information for all those individuals, communities and businesses prone to flood risk. It is also of relevance to authorities with flood risk management responsibilities, and other partners, to ensure that there is a common understanding of roles and responsibilities and priorities within Surrey.

1.5 Our objectives

Our objectives reflect the requirements of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy, 2011. Our objectives have also been informed by informal consultation with risk management authorities.

Box 1: Our objectives Our objectives are: • We will make it easier for risk management authorities to work together. • We will clarify the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders. • We will provide a clear overview of levels of flood risk throughout the county, to enable wider understanding of those risks. • We will consider flooding issues at a catchment level. • We will reflect and action the concerns of residents and businesses. • We will provide a robust approach to the prioritisation of spending on schemes intended to reduce flood risk. • We will highlight how residents and businesses can help manage risk. • We will develop an annual action plan of priority actions based on the principles set out within the strategy. • We will ensure environmental consequences are taken into account in the design and implementation of any proposed flood risk management measures.

6

1.6 Legislative context

Sir Michael Pitt undertook a review of the serious flooding that occurred across England in the summer of 2007. Nationally its effects were significant. Of particular importance was the high proportion of flooding that came from surface water runoff, rather than rivers. There were impacts in Surrey.

The Pitt Review (June 2008) made 92 recommendations intended to change the way that local flood risk was managed. Many of these recommendations were based on upper tier local authorities, such as Surrey County Council, playing a greater role in the management of local flood risk. The roles and responsibilities of Surrey County Council and our partners in relation to flood risk management are principally defined by two key pieces of legislation: • Flood and Water Management Act 2010 • The Flood Risk Regulations 2009.

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 The Flood and Water Management Act aims to provide better, more comprehensive management of flood risk for people, homes and businesses1.

The Flood and Water Management Act identifies risk management authorities - bodies with an interest in flood risk management. They include: • Environment Agency • county councils and unitary authorities (lead local flood authorities) • district and borough councils • water companies • internal drainage boards.

Under the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act these authorities have specific responsibilities (see chapter three for further information).

Surrey County Council takes on the role of lead local flood authority, and has the ‘lead’ role in managing local flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses across Surrey. The Environment Agency has a national overview role in relation to flood and coastal erosion risk management.

The Flood and Water Management Act outlines the responsibility of the lead local flood authority to “develop, maintain, apply and monitor” a strategy for local flood risk management. It notes that the strategy must identify or outline the following: • the risk management authorities in the area • the flood and coastal erosion risk management functions that may be exercised by those authorities in relation to the area • the objectives for managing local flood risk (including any objectives included in the authority's flood risk management plan prepared in accordance with the Flood Risk Regulations 2009) • the measures proposed to achieve those objectives • how and when the measures are expected to be implemented • the costs and benefits of those measures, and how they are to be paid for • the assessment of local flood risk for the purpose of the strategy • how and when the strategy is to be reviewed • how the strategy contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives.

1 The Act is subject to a commencement timetable. The first stage of the Act was commenced on 1 October 2010. Some provisions have not yet commenced. 7

The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 The Flood Risk Regulations came into force in December 2009. They transpose the EU Floods Directive into UK law. Key provisions in the regulations include: • To require that preliminary flood risk assessments be prepared by the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities, by 22 December 2011. Those assessments should identify areas of significant flood risk. • To require that flood hazard and risk maps be prepared by 22 December 2013, to identify areas of significant flood risk. • To require that flood risk management plans be prepared, by 22 December 2015. The Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment is available on the Surrey County Council website.

The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (2011) Local strategies must be consistent with the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy (hereafter the national strategy). The national strategy sets out a national framework for managing flood risk and coastal erosion. Our strategy needs to be consistent with the following guiding principles outlined in the national strategy: • community focus and partnership working • a catchment and coastal “cell” based approach • sustainability • proportionate, risk-based approaches • multiple benefits • beneficiaries should be allowed and encouraged to invest in risk management.

The planning system The National Planning Policy Framework and the accompanying Technical Guidance were published and came into effect on 26 March 2012. They provide a single statement of national planning policy that all planning authorities must take account of in the exercise of their development control and forward planning functions. Paragraphs 99-108 of the National Planning Policy Framework deal with issues of flood risk management, and in combination with paragraphs 2-19 of the accompanying Technical Guide, replace Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk).

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that: • “Local Plans should be supported by Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources, taking account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management bodies, such as lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards. Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change!” (Paragraph 100, page 23). • “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that: o Within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and o Development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.” (Paragraph 103, page 24).

8

Other relevant legislation Surrey County Council and our partners also have a range of responsibilities in accordance with other pieces of domestic and European legislation, including: • The Reservoirs Act (1975) • The Civil Contingencies Act (2004) • The Ancient Monuments & • The Climate Change Act (2008) Archaeological Areas Act (1979) • The Planning Act (2008) • The Highways Act (1980) • The Local Democracy, Economic • The Wildlife & Countryside Act Development & Construction Act (1981) 2009 • The Building Act (1984) • The Localism Act (2011). • The Environmental Protection Act • The EU Wild Birds Directive (1990) (1979/409/EEC & 2009/147/EC) • The Town and County Planning • The EU Environmental Impact Act (1990) Assessment Directive • The Planning (Listed Buildings & (1985/337/EEC & 1997/11/EC) Conservation Areas) Act (1990) • The EU Habitats Directive • The Land Drainage Act (1991) (1992/43/EEC) • The Water Resources Act (1991) • The EU Strategic Environmental • The Water Industry Act (1991) Assessment Directive • The Environment Act (1995) (2001/42/EC) • The Countryside & Rights of Way • The EU Water Framework Act (2000) Directive (2000/60/EC) • The Water Act (2003) • The EU Floods Directive • The Planning and Compulsory (2007/60/EC). Purchase Act (2004)

1.7 Corporate plans and priorities

The strategy aligns with the following Surrey County Council corporate strategic plans and priorities: • Surrey County Council Corporate Plan; One County, One Team Corporate Strategy, 2012 to 2017 • Surrey County Council Environment and Infrastructure Directorate Vision.

1.8 Surrey Flood Risk Partnership Board

The Surrey Flood Risk Partnership Board (hereafter the partnership board) owns the strategy. The partnership board provides strategic leadership on flood risk management in Surrey. It includes all the relevant risk management authorities: • Surrey County Council • Environment Agency • Thames Water • Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority • Representatives from district and borough councils: o Epsom & Ewell Borough Council o Guildford Borough Council o Reigate & Banstead Borough Council o Runnymede Borough Council o Woking Borough Council. The named district and borough councils are ones we believe have the highest overall flood risk in Surrey. However, the inclusion and participation of all Surrey district and borough councils is sought through collaborative working arrangements and the requirement to share information.

9

1.9 Scrutiny and review

Overview and scrutiny Flooding falls under the remit of the Surrey County Council Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment.

Surrey County Council has provided a scrutiny role on flood risk management for many years. This includes the work of the Environment and Economy Select Committee, the Flooding Task Group and Pitt Review Monitoring Task Group. We have also held member seminars.

The Surrey County Council Environment and Transport Select Committee will continue to oversee and scrutinise strategic flood risk management activity in Surrey. It will receive the annual report from the partnership board.

Other risk management authorities will continue to review their own activities and plans through their governance arrangements.

Review We will refresh the action plan and annual programme of schemes annually. They will reflect, as far as possible, all the schemes and activities planned by risk management authorities and partners to address the objectives in the strategy.

The action plan will reflect the schemes planned by risk management authorities to address the objectives in the strategy. This will include: • schemes identified in surface water management plans • the Surrey County Council wetspots programme • schemes developed by Surrey district and borough councils • schemes that have secured funding from the Environment Agency • schemes/ projects that emerge from community flood plans • schemes included in other partner’s flood risk management work including the Highways Agency, the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board and water companies.

We will review the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, which is a key evidence base for this strategy, in 2016. At this stage there will be a full review of the strategy. However, given that our knowledge and understanding on flood risk will improve significantly in the coming years, there must be opportunities to update the strategy as new information becomes available. For this reason the strategy should be viewed as a ‘living document’.

Further information on our next steps is included in chapter seven.

10

2. Flood risk in Surrey!

Residents and businesses in Surrey have been affected by major flood incidents. In autumn and winter 2000/ 01 over 500 properties were flooded in Surrey. In winter 2002/ 03 the Chertsey area experienced severe fluvial flooding and in August 2006 two months of rainfall fell in six hours in north-west Surrey, flooding over 500 properties.

As recently as 2007, properties were flooded in Surrey during an event that caused widespread damage and disruption nationally. In the last two flood incidents, surface water flooding was experienced as drainage systems and soil became overloaded and unable to cope with the volume and intensity of rainfall.

This chapter will outline the nature of flood risk in Surrey. Flood risk is a combination of two components: the probability of a particular flood incident and the impact that the incident causes. These risks are made worse by the potential impact of climate change.

2.1 Types of flood risk

Surrey is potentially at risk of flooding from a number of sources:

River (fluvial) flooding A river bursting its banks is usually caused by prolonged periods of heavy rainfall. The resulting flood can be deep and fast moving.

The Environment Agency is responsible for main rivers and smaller watercourses of strategic drainage importance. This includes the rivers Thames, Wey, Blackwater, Mole, Colne and Rythe, Chertsey Bourne, Hale Bourne and Addlestone Bourne.

The Environment Agency maps and models flood risk on main rivers as the basis for predicting the likely impact of future flood incidents.

The Flood Map uses data from modelling and past flood events to map flood extents and is publicised to help increase awareness of flood risk. It is used by a range of organisations, including local authorities, insurers and developers. Property owners can view the information on the Environment Agency website, 'what's in your backyard?'

The Environment Agency's National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) shows the likelihood of flooding across England and Wales. It assesses the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea. It takes account of the location, type and condition of defences and maps the risks in three probability bands - significant, moderate and low.

Those communities in Surrey with the largest numbers of properties with a significant likelihood of fluvial flooding (up to a 1 in 75 year chance of flooding in any one year), as indicated by NaFRA data, have been identified in the technical annex (see table 3 in annex 2) and in maps 1-6. Those communities at greatest risk (over 500 properties with a significant likelihood of flooding) are Egham and Staines-upon-Thames, Chertsey and North and East Molesey.

The Environment Agency has produced catchment flood management plans for every river catchment in England and Wales. These aim to identify flood risk, the factors that contribute to flood incidents and the ways in which flood risk might be managed over the medium to long term. A range of policy options are outlined in the plans, which determine how flood risk should be managed in each area according to the type of flooding concerned.

11

There are three catchment flood management plans that apply to rivers within Surrey: • The Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan covers the majority of Surrey. Table 4 in annex 2 highlights the main built up areas relative to each policy option. • The Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan covers the headwaters of the River Arun, which rise within the district of Mole Valley. • The Medway Catchment Flood Management Plan covers the River Medway and its tributaries, which includes the River Eden. This contributes to flood risk in the district of Tandridge in the east of the county.

Surface water flooding Flooding as a result of surface water runoff usually happens when heavy rainfall overwhelms drainage capacity. It usually occurs rapidly, but can be relatively short lived. Surface water flooding is most problematic when catchments are already saturated or frozen, and in urban areas where a substantial proportion of the land surface is impermeable. This is due to the presence of houses and other buildings, roads and pavements.

Flooding associated with the highway network is the most common form of localised flooding and occurs during or immediately after heavy storms. It is most commonly caused by blocked gullies or the surcharging of outfall pipes, which take the water away from roads with tarmac-type surfaces.

Recent work on the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment has increased understanding of this type of flood risk. Based on figures from the Environment Agency, approximately 46,500 properties in Surrey are estimated to be at risk from flooding to a depth of in excess of 0.3 metres during a rainfall event with a 1 in 200 annual chance of occurring. That data, Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW), is shown on the area maps 1-5.

Surface water flood risk occurs throughout the county. The Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment identified five areas at greatest risk of surface water flooding: • Epsom and Ewell • Woking and Byfleet • Caterham and Warlingham • Guildford • Reigate and Redhill.

Groundwater flooding Groundwater flooding generally occurs in low-lying areas, as the result of groundwater rising above the surface of the land. The underlying geology has a significant influence on the risk of groundwater flooding. There can be substantial time-lags between the persistent or heavy rainfall events that lead to rising groundwater levels and flooding resulting from the emergence of groundwater. This is due to the relatively slow rate at which water percolates into and moves through permeable strata (a series of layers of rock in the ground).

Groundwater flooding in Surrey is most common in areas with chalk strata, such as the North Downs. It can occur in any area with underlying permeable deposits (for example sandstone, sands and gravels). Localised occurrences have been observed in low-lying areas throughout the county. The risk of groundwater flooding can be affected by development, which alters the natural flow patterns and pathways.

At present, our understanding of the risk of groundwater flooding is limited. We are buying additional data to improve local knowledge.

12

Reservoir, dam or canal breach or failure Although the safety record for reservoirs is excellent, if a situation did occur, flood incidents would be instantaneous with significant movement of debris. Reservoirs hold large volumes of water and the safe operation and management of reservoirs to reduce flood risk is vital. In Surrey there are eight reservoirs which are designated as ‘category A’ in terms of risk. This highest risk classification is due to size and location. Information about the areas within Surrey that could be affected by the failure of reservoirs can be found in the ‘What’s in Your Backyard’ section of the Environment Agency’s website.

There are also potential risks from other artificial sources such as the Basingstoke Canal. The Surrey Heath Flood Risk Assessment 2008, noted that Basingstoke Canal has now been fully restored. The Basingstoke Canal Authority maintains it. The assessment identifies the following areas in Surrey Heath as being at risk from breaching from the canal: Frimley Aqueduct; Deepcut flight of locks (between locks 15-19 and 25-28); the railway embankment between Guildford Road Bridge and Mytchett Place Road Bridge; and Mytchett Lake embankment.

The assessment noted that breaches at any of these locations will potentially impact upon the railway, surrounding residential properties and roads. The most serious breach could be the failure of the Mytchett Lake embankment, which could discharge approximately 100,000m3 of water. This risk is recognised and so the embankment is inspected twice yearly. The lake is also registered under the Reservoirs Act 1975. The flood risk from the canal is considered a Residual Risk (a low risk). The assessment explained this means that whilst new developments will be required to manage this risk, they may not be required to fully mitigate the risk. Therefore, it concluded, the sites identified at risk of flooding are still considered suitable for most development types.

The Woking Surface Water Management Plan, 2012, Volume 1 – Summary Report and Action Plan, 2012 reinforces that there is some risk of surface water flooding in depression areas south of the Basingstoke Canal.

Sewer flooding Flooding of sewer systems can occur for a number of different reasons. This includes lack of capacity in the network or blockage. The impact of a sewer flood incident is usually confined to relatively small areas. Flood incidents can be rapid and unpredictable when flooding is associated with blockage or failure of the sewer network. A flood from a sewer can pose a risk to health.

The following factors are increasing the risk of a sewer flood incident: • population growth - leading to increased housing and associated development • paving over of green spaces and undeveloped land - preventing natural infiltration and drainage • disposal of fat, oil and grease - which harden in the sewers • climate change - leading to more intense storms. Sewers are designed to cope with the majority of storms, but occasionally storms are so heavy that they overwhelm the system.

2.2 Existing information on flood risk

A large amount of information already exists on flood risk across Surrey in existing studies and strategies. These include: • Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009) • The Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy (2009) • Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009)

13

• River Medway Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009) • River Wey Flood Risk Management Draft Strategy (2010) • River Mole Flood Risk Strategy Study (2006) • River Hogsmill Integrated Urban Drainage Defra Pilot Study (2008) • Caterham Bourne Study (2002) • Chobham Flood Relief Study (2011) • Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (2011) • Epsom & Ewell Surface Water Management Plan (2011) • Woking & Byfleet Surface Water Management Plan (2012) • The Surrey wetspots flooding database, ongoing. There are also strategic flood risk assessments, multi-agency flood plans, water cycle studies, records of historic flooding and area flood risk maps.

Box 2: Our approach to catchments in this strategy At the end of this section, we provide area summaries that present the main flood risk issues in five broad geographical areas in the county: The Lower Thames, South London, Mole, Upper Wey and Lower Wey. This reflects a catchment-based approach, which is in keeping with the guiding principles of the national strategy. However, we have chosen to use the term ‘area summary’ instead of catchment in the strategy to avoid confusion. The Environment Agency already uses the term catchment to define specific areas in England and Wales that have several, interconnected water bodies.

Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan, Environment Agency The Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan focuses on flood risk from the River Thames. The report highlights that in Surrey most rivers are still in a largely natural state. In some urban areas, particularly along the Thames, there are no flood defences and the construction of flood embankments is impractical due to the geology.

London and the Lower Thames have the greatest total number of people and property at risk. Other concentrations of flood risk include the Blackwater Valley and Upper Mole. As the nature of risk is so diverse across the study area, the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan is divided into 45 policy unit areas, generally following river catchments or urban area boundaries. The Environment Agency has six policy options to reflect the approach to the future management of flood risk. One option has been applied to each policy unit. These are outlined in full in annex 2, table 4.

The Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy, Environment Agency The Lower Thames is at significant risk from fluvial flooding, with 15,000 properties between Datchet and Teddington having a 1% or greater risk of flooding in any one year. The Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy sets out the preferred approach for managing the risk in future. Proposals include: • An engineered component, which includes three flood diversion channels between Datchet and Shepperton and improvements to weirs at Sunbury, Molesey and Teddington. It is also proposed that the Desborough Cut be widened to accept greater volumes of water. • A floodplain management component which involves working more closely with local authorities to ensure future developments account for flood risk, routes for flood flow and the potential route of diversion channels. • Community-based flood protection measures including flood warning services and property-level protection. Due to changes in funding approaches, the Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy is no longer eligible for 100% Government funding. Projects are likely to be delivered in phases based on the availability of funding from Defra and external contributions.

14

Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan, Environment Agency The Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan focuses on flood risk from the River Arun and its tributaries. Only a small part of Surrey lies within the catchment of the Arun, falling within the Weald policy unit. The area concerned is mainly in the district of Mole Valley and encompasses the villages of Capel, Ockley and Walliswood.

The area, largely rural in character, is subject to relatively low fluvial flood risk, but is at greater risk of surface water flooding due to the rapid runoff rates that result from the clay soil. The proposed policy approach for the area is to: “Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits”. River Medway Catchment Flood Management Plan, Environment Agency The River Medway Catchment Flood Management Plan focuses on flood risk from the River Medway and its tributaries. Within Surrey a significant part of the district of Tandridge lies within the catchment of the Medway, falling within the Upper Medway policy unit. The area concerned encompasses Godstone, Oxted, Limpsfield, Tandridge, Lingfield, Dormansland, Blindley Heath, Hurst Green and South Godstone.

The area is largely rural in character and is subject to relatively low fluvial flood risk. The proposed policy approach for the area is to, “Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline)”.

River Wey Flood Risk Management Draft Strategy, Environment Agency The River Wey Flood Risk Management Strategy will contain the recommended options for sustainable flood risk management in the Wey catchment over the next 100 years.

The Environment Agency and its partners looked at options from doing nothing, continuing current maintenance to the construction of new flood defences, promoting flood resilience and resistance measures to individual householders and improving its flood warning service. The Wey strategy has ruled out any hard engineering structures in the reach to minimise flood risk on economic and environmental grounds. Hence the Environment Agency does not anticipate any flood defences will be built in the area in the future. It will however, work towards reducing the consequences of flooding by raising awareness to the residents of river and surface water flooding, improving its flood warning services and improving the responses to flood warning. The Environment Agency will do this by working closeley with the community and its professional partners.

In the long term, the Environment Agency will also promote improved flood resistance (preventing the entry of flood water) and flood resilience (minimising the damage done by floodwater) at property-level. They will achieve this through the opportunities of redevelopment and self help by the property owners.

The Wey strategy is still in draft form and is awaiting approval. The Woking Hoe Stream flood alleviation scheme was completed in March 2012. In the medium term (6-25 years) proposed actions include local flood protection at locations such as Brooklands Road and Brooklands Museum.

River Mole Flood Risk Strategy Study, Environment Agency The study considered the issue of fluvial flooding in the River Mole catchment and made recommendations, including feasibility studies, to reduce the level of flood risk in the Middle Mole.

15

Many of these recommendations were incorporated into the Mole Valley strategic flood risk assessment. The Upper Mole flood alleviation scheme is underway and will provide an improved level of flood protection to the people of Crawley, Horley, and to Gatwick Airport.

River Hogsmill Integrated Urban Drainage Defra Pilot Study The River Hogsmill catchment lies in south-west London, covering areas in the Greater London Authority and north-east Surrey. The Hogsmill has been heavily engineered, flowing mainly in an open concrete channel from Ewell to Kingston-upon-Thames. The study concluded that 30% of the flood risk in the catchment came from surface water. The River Hogsmill Integrated Urban Drainage Defra Pilot Study brought together bodies with responsibilities for flood risk management in the area, with the aim of better understanding overall flood risk and identifying potential ways of dealing with the risk. The study is an early form of surface water management plan. Through the project, catchment sustainable drainage system guidance, and a flood risk tool that enables authorities to assess integrated flood risk at a site-specific level were produced.

Caterham Bourne Study, ArupWater The study noted that the Caterham Bourne had flooded on a number of occasions. The most substantial recorded flood incident was in December 2000. A large area of land was flooded from Caterham to Purley, which is a distance of about four miles. The flooding problems observed along the course of the Bourne have been associated with ephemeral groundwater discharges combined with normal winter rainfall. Surcharging of the Bourne occurs when the water table is high. The study showed that there were a number of pinch points in the channel that would be prone to flooding if a 1 in a 100 year event was to occur.

Chobham Flood Relief Study, Surrey Heath Borough Council In 2010 Surrey Heath Borough Council secured a grant from Defra to undertake a study of flooding issues in Chobham and surrounding areas. Two reports were completed in 2011. The design of attenuation works is now in the final stage and general clearance work continues.

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Surrey County Council In accordance with the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, Surrey County Council has produced a preliminary flood risk assessment. This was submitted to the Environment Agency in June 2011. The preliminary flood risk assessment applies only to flooding from surface water, groundwater, ordinary watercourses and canals. It does not include fluvial flood risk.

The preliminary flood risk assessment provides a high level summary of significant flood risk, based on national datasets. It is supplemented with local knowledge from partner organisations. National analysis of risk has been compared with Surrey County Council wetspots data, which is a record of where flood incidents have been reported. This has shown a correlation between the wetspots and the 200-year “deeper” surface water flooding modelling.

In 2009 Defra created a National Rank Order of Settlements Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding. Settlements were ranked based on the estimated number of properties at risk. A more detailed national analysis of flood risk was then carried out by Defra, which yielded the “places above flood risk thresholds”2.

2 Places above the flood risk thresholds are 1km grid squares where at least one of the following flood risk receptors is above the threshold given below: • Number of people – 200 or more • Critical services – 1 or more • Number of non-residential properties – 20 or more 16

Indicators were calculated based on a rainfall event with a 1 in 200 annual chance of occurring. The areas of greatest risk from surface water flooding were found by selecting clusters of eight or more touching “places above flood risk thresholds” squares.

This led to a ranked list of Surrey clusters at greatest risk from surface water flooding. These clusters are outlined in table 1 and in maps 1-6.

Table 1: Surrey clusters Surrey cluster Number of people Number of critical Number of non- per 1km square services per 1 km residential square properties per 1 km square Epsom and Ewell 407 1.3 45.30 Woking and Byfleet 405.5 0.86 28.14

Caterham and 385.63 0.88 37.13 Warlingham Guildford 379.27 1 35.93 Reigate and Redhill 368.75 0.88 38.94 Leatherhead 341.75 1.5 36.50 Camberley 332.33 1.33 52.42 Thames Ditton 293.57 1.43 19.29 Banstead 286.38 0.75 19.38 Dorking 281.5 1 36.13 Farnham 206.58 1.75 34.83 Source: Surrey County Council, 2011, Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.

Epsom & Ewell Surface Water Management Plan, Jacobs In April 2010, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council was successful in bidding for Defra funding to prepare a surface water management plan. The objective was to identify sustainable responses to manage surface water flooding and prepare an action plan. This work builds on previous studies and takes as a basis the knowledge that: • The sewer network is unable to remove rainfall of greater than 10% probability if it falls directly on urban areas. • Groundwater flooding is an issue from the chalk in the south of the borough. • There is an issue of surface runoff, from the chalk strata in the south to the clay in the urbanised north.

The report includes detailed modelling to identify smaller areas of risk. Options for risk management are ranked by a scoring system based on technical, economic, social and environmental objectives. The resulting action plan sets out site-specific measures as well as recommended spatial planning approaches. Site-specific actions that have already been allocated funding are set out in the annual action plan.

Woking & Byfleet Surface Water Management Plan, Jacobs Mapping undertaken by Defra highlighted that a significant number of properties in Woking and Byfleet may be at risk from surface water flooding. Defra funding was allocated to develop a surface water management plan. Key flooding issues identified include: • In the urban areas of Woking a number of natural drainage paths have been obstructed or diverted by development and are now a flood risk.

17

• Due to local geology the most effective sustainable drainage systems techniques in many areas would be non-infiltration based sustainable drainage systems, for example green roofs. • Maintenance of drainage systems, or systems with insufficient capacity, has contributed to flood incidents. The resulting action plan sets out location specific options and generic management proposals.

Surrey County Council wetspot flooding database ‘Wetspot’ is a term used by the lead local flood authority to describe the location of a flood incident that has been reported. The wetspot database is continually updated to produce a comprehensive map and records of all the identified wetspots in Surrey. Information from Surrey risk management authorities informs the database. This record of past flood events has been used to determine which of the Environment Agency surface water flood maps best represents flooding in Surrey.

We currently prioritise capital works at wetspots throughout the county based on a number of factors. These factors include safety, internal property flooding, social impact and duration of flooding. The highest scoring wetspots are spread throughout the county. These are highlighted in maps 1-6.

Strategic flood risk assessments Strategic flood risk assessments enable all sources of flood risk to be taken into account in the land allocation process. All Surrey district and borough councils have undertaken strategic flood risk assessments to inform the preparation of their local plans. The district and borough council strategic flood risk assessments are referenced later in this chapter. Surrey County Council has also undertaken assessments for the Surrey Waste Plan and Surrey Minerals Plan. These are available on the Surrey County Council website.

The strategic flood risk assessments have been prepared in accordance with guidance set out in national planning policy. They identify and analyse current and future flooding issues and include detailed mapping and analysis of flood risk. Neighbouring local authorities in Surrey have collaborated in producing their strategic flood risk assessments collaboratively. This helps them to consider downstream implications.

The flood risk situation, as documented in the district and borough strategic flood risk assessments, varies throughout the county. Mole Valley, for example has comparatively few properties that are at risk of flooding. In comparison Runnymede has more than 20% of properties within flood zone 3, and the risk of fluvial flooding could be a major constraint to development.

Multi-agency flood plans Multi-agency flood plans are operational documents that provide an overview of flood risk in terms of emergency planning. These outline the nature of local flood risk and include the practical ways in which responsible agencies would respond to a significant flood.

By way of example, the Reigate & Banstead Multi-Agency Flood Plan identifies the types of flood risk in the borough and the locations at risk of fluvial and/ or surface water flooding. It includes an overall risk rating for each area to help prioritise the response to a flood incident. It identifies vulnerable people and groups, and critical infrastructure, such as care homes and electricity substations.

Flood risk management is also reflected in emergency plans. Links to Surrey district and borough emergency plans can be found on the Surrey Alert website.

18

Water cycle studies These studies review the existing condition of the natural water environment in an area and investigate the water infrastructure needed to sustain growth. A water cycle strategy brings partners together to identify potential solutions to address issues. Both provide an evidence base to inform the development of local development frameworks.

A water cycle study was carried out for the Gatwick sub-region and considers issues in the Reigate & Banstead borough. It considered flooding constraints.

Historic flooding Flooding is not a recent phenomenon; for example, there was significant flooding in the county in 1968. However, flood incidents in Surrey have only been well documented since 2000. A great deal of information on past flooding incidents is contained in the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, strategic flood risk assessments and Surrey County Council wetspot database. The autumn 2000 flood event is considered the worst flood event for which detailed records are held.

Car driving through surface water flooding. Source: Surrey County Council

Annex 2 includes an overview of historic flood incidents, including the areas affected. These areas are also detailed in table 5.

Area flood risk maps As described in box 2, for the purposes of the strategy, we have presented an overview of the above flood risk information spatially at a broad ‘area’ level. In many cases these five areas combine a number of smaller river catchments. This is in keeping with the catchment level approach advocated in the national strategy.

We have not repeated more detailed information and mapping contained in documents listed earlier in the chapter. Instead we give an overview and illustrate the interactions between different sources of flood risk and observed incidents. The area maps 1-7 appended to the strategy (see www.surreycc.gov.uk/floodriskstrategy combine a number of data sources:

19

• Wetspots: The 100 highest priority wetspots. • Environment Agency NaFRA data: The National Flood Risk Assessment shows the likelihood and consequences of flooding from rivers and the sea. The likelihood of flooding has been calculated using predicted water levels and taking the location, type and condition of any flood defences into account. Significant likelihood is classified as a 1.3% (75 to 1) chance of flooding each year or greater. • Surrey clusters: These are areas at greatest risk of surface water flooding, as identified in the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment. They are based on 1 km grid squares where at least one flood risk indicator is above the flood risk threshold (see table 1). • Surface water flooding: The Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW) shows areas where surface water would be expected to flow or pond, as a result of a 1 in 30 year rainfall event. Purple areas indicate flood depths greater than 0.3 metres. The modelling takes account of drainage capacity and barriers to flow paths for example buildings.

Area summaries In this section we have summarised the main flood risk issues for our five broad areas. This corresponds to the catchment approach in the national strategy. We have drawn the information from the relevant local strategic flood risk assessments and included links to them on district and borough council websites. We have produced a map to support each area summary. The maps are available at www.surreycc.gov.uk/floodriskstrategy

Lower Thames

Surface water and sewage flooding Surface water flooding has been observed in areas such as Egham, Addlestone, Woodham and Stanwell Moor. There is a link with areas at risk of fluvial flooding. Surface water flooding is exacerbated in areas of Spelthorne by the relatively flat topography of the borough. According to the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, the greatest risk of surface water flooding in this catchment is at Thames Ditton. A number of the highest priority wetspots are found in this area, with a concentration in Egham.

When the level of the Thames is high, there can be issues relating to sewage surcharge. Localised flooding has also occurred in urban areas due to under capacity drainage and sewer systems, for example Egham and Chertsey.

Fluvial flooding By far the greatest risk in this catchment is from the River Thames itself. A number of the major towns within this catchment, such as Staines-upon-Thames, Chertsey and Molesey are located on rivers, leading in turn to high number of households at risk. Residential properties are at risk of flooding from tributaries of the Thames, including the rivers Wey, Mole, Rythe, Chertsey and Addlestone Bourne. River systems such as the Rythe can cause significant damage as they respond more quickly to rainfall events than the larger rivers.

The Environment Agency is responsible for main rivers and measures set out in studies such as the Wey and Lower Thames flood risk strategies aim to mitigate this risk.

For more detailed information, see:

Elmbridge Strategic Flood Risk Asssessment (2007) Runnymede Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009) Spelthorne Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2006)

20

Lower Wey

Surface water flooding Surface water flood incidents have been recorded in Camberley, Frimley, Lightwater, Woking, West End and Chobham. There is a particular concentration of wetspots in and around Chobham.

In the urban areas of Woking a number of natural drainage paths have been obstructed or diverted by development and now cause a flood risk. According to the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Woking and Byfleet has been identified as the area at second highest risk from surface water flooding in Surrey. We have produced a detailed surface water management plan to identify mitigation measures.

The Camberley cluster identified through the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment corresponds with a number of priority wetspots and known occurrences of surface water flooding.

Fluvial flooding Rivers in this area include the Blackwater and Wey, Hale, Addlestone Bourne and the Hoe Stream. A proportion of land in the Surrey Heath river catchments is rural or semi-rural, meaning that the number of properties at significant risk is relatively low. However, a number of developed areas have experienced significant flood events in recent years. Areas with known problems include Bagshot, Chobham, Lightwater, Windlesham, Woking and West End. The Hoe Stream flood alleviation scheme has recently been completed, significantly reducing the risk to 200 properties.

For more detailed information, see:

Surrey Heath Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008) Woking Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009)

21

Mole

Surface water and groundwater flooding Leatherhead and Dorking are both identified as Surrey risk clusters in the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.

For the Caterham Bourne, flooding problems are linked to groundwater discharges. Impacted areas have included Whyteleafe. This is a low-lying area underlain by chalk, which is a permeable rock. According to the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment Caterham and Warlingham are ranked as the third highest surface water risk area in the county.

In addition to fluvial risk, Redhill town centre is also an area at risk of surface water flooding. Redhill Brook is culverted beneath the town. This culvert system has limited capacity, and is susceptible to blockage. In heavy rainfall, the culvert may surcharge, leading to overland flooding. According to the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment Reigate and Redhill are amongst the five highest risk areas for surface water flooding.

Fluvial flooding There are a number of river basins in this area, including the Mole, Wandle and Upper Medway. In Tandridge and Mole Valley, flood risk is not a significant issue on a district wide basis. The number of properties at significant risk of flooding is low. Where fluvial flooding does occur it is often within the functional floodplain, meaning that flood events drain quickly and damage is reduced.

In Reigate & Banstead, the River Mole poses more of a risk, particularly in Horley. Horley is situated at the confluence of the River Mole and Gatwick Stream, and a short distance downstream is the confluence of the river Mole and Burstow Stream. All three rivers flow through the town. The Upper Mole flood alleviation scheme aims to address this flood risk.

The Caterham Bourne has also caused significant flooding on several occasions.

For more detailed information, see:

Mole Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (updated in 2012) Tandridge Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (updated in 2010) Reigate & Banstead Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2012)

22

South London

Surface water and groundwater flooding This area is prone to surface water flood risk and only a limited area of the borough is at risk of river flooding.

The Hogsmill and its tributaries dissect Epsom & Ewell. The Hogsmill catchment extends into neighbouring Reigate & Banstead and Sutton. Both boroughs have considerable built up areas meaning that surface water flooding is an issue in extreme rainfall events. Strategic flood risk assessments for this area have highlighted the importance of close working between local authorities in spatial planning terms.

According to the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Epsom & Ewell has been identified as the area at highest risk from surface water flooding in Surrey and a detailed surface water management plan has been undertaken to help identify flood mitigation measures.

Areas at risk of groundwater flooding have been identified, particularly in areas at the northern foot of the Downs.

For more detailed information, see:

Epsom & Ewell Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008)

Upper Wey

Surface water flooding In the more urbanised areas, surface water flooding can be locally significant. According to the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Guildford is one of the five highest risk areas for surface water flooding in Surrey. Guildford has been selected as the third area within the county for a surface water management plan as the cluster area corresponds with a number of recorded surface water flooding incidents. A number of the highest priority wetspots are also found within this cluster. Farnham also features within the top 10 priority areas.

Fluvial flooding The primary source of flooding in Guildford and Waverley is river flooding from the Wey and its tributaries. A proportion of this fluvial flooding occurs in open space, and rural or semi-rural areas, however there are impacts in the urban areas along these watercourses.

For more detailed information, see:

Guildford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2010) Waverley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2010)

23

2.3 Future changes to risk

Climate change Extensive work is underway at international and national levels to improve our understanding of the likely significant impacts of climate change, including on the potential effects on flood risk.

The most definitive account of the potential impact on climate change on UK flood risk can be found in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (January 2012). It provides detailed analysis of the potential impacts of climate change across 11 key sectors, including flood and coastal erosion. The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment used UK climate projections (UKCP09) for three time periods; the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s (short, medium and long term). This work will inform the UK’s first National Adaptation Programme to be published in 2013, which will set out the Government’s objectives, proposals and policies for response.

Based on UKCP09 projections of future rainfall, it is likely that winters will become significantly wetter and extreme winter precipitation will increase. In summer there is likely to be less overall rainfall but intense heavy downpours are anticipated. A main cause of surface water flooding is this storm rainfall. Both changes would lead to an increase in fluvial and surface water flooding. Projections suggest an 18% increase in winter rainfall in the South East by 2050, rising to 24% by 2080. Findings indicate that the frequency of heavy rainfall events could double by 2080s3.

Climate UK anticipates that without action to address climate change we could see:

“Increases in the frequency of flooding affecting people’s homes and wellbeing, especially for vulnerable groups and the operation of businesses and critical infrastructure systems.”4

Data within the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment suggests that 1 in 100 year flood events in the UK are projected, on average, to become approximately twice as frequent by 2050s and three to five times more frequent by the 2080s.

Modelling of the Thames for the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan estimates that the number of properties subject to a 1% risk of flooding from rivers in the study area will increase by approximately 20% as a result of climate change.

Defra has commissioned each climate change partnership to produce an information pack showing key risks and opportunities within their region. Set out below are key impacts anticipated as a result of increased flooding in the South East: • Flooding is a major risk to businesses in the South East • About 25% properties in the South East are already at risk from some form of flooding, this will increase • There are risks to transport and infrastructure from flood incidents • There is likely to be an impact on service delivery and delivery of emergency services.

Surrey specific research such as the Future Surrey Study 2010 and the Surrey Local Climate Impacts Profile 2009 also considered the potential implications of climate change. The impacts on transport systems and service delivery were again highlighted as key

3 UK Climate Impacts Assessment 2009 4 A Summary of Climate Change Risks for South East England, Climate UK

24 concerns. However, the methods used to develop surface water flood maps are relatively new and consequently the UK Climate Change Risk provides limited analysis of the potential changes resulting from surface water flooding alone.

What does climate change mean for Surrey? Surface water management plans and strategic flood risk assessments take account of the potential impacts of climate change, which is limited by our current knowledge.

Recent studies have attempted to illustrate the potential impacts of climate change on the extent of fluvial flood risk zones. Where detailed modelling has not been undertaken for rivers, the existing Environment Agency flood zone 2 (1 in 1,000 year event) can be used to estimate the potential extent of flood zone 3 (1 in 100 year event) in the future, see table 6 in annex 2. Based on that approach it would appear that there are areas within Surrey that will be particularly sensitive to climate change. The strategic flood risk assessments seek to project the likely extent of the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood risk zone under a climate change scenario (which assumes a 20% increase in the extent of the existing area subject to Zone 3 fluvial flood risk).5

For surface water flooding, the most detailed analysis of the implications of climate change can be found in the existing surface water management plans. The modelling of surface water flooding for those plans is based on the assumption that climate change will lead to a 28% increase in rainfall intensities for 1 in 30 year and 1 in 100 year events. The Epsom & Ewell Surface Water Management Plan indicates that, taking into account climate change assumptions, a 1 in 30 year event today would increase in severity to become a 1 in 75 year event. The modelling indicates the locations that it is expected would be affected by future surface water flooding events, enabling the plan to take account of climate change in the prioritisation of actions and in defining implementation timescales.

What needs to be done? Adaptation to the potential effects of climate change on flood risk is likely to be a gradual process, as resilience to flooding is progressively increased. The modelled impacts of climate change on flood risk underline the need for effective surface water management. Future detailed surface water management plans will continue to model the possible impact of climate change and it will therefore be a key consideration in the identification and prioritisation of mitigation actions.

The potential effects of climate change are also a key concern for the land use planning process, as local planning authorities need to consider possible changes in flood risk from all sources over the lifetime of a development.

Population change and future development Development can affect the occurrence and significance of flood events. However, planning policy aims to prevent new development from increasing flood risk.

Development can provide opportunities to address surface water flooding, through the use of measures to reduce flood risk such as sustainable drainage systems. Development can be designed to make it resilient to the impacts of flooding, which can help to reduce the risks to the building and their occupants. This ensures that natural drainage routes are not impeded.

5 A number of Surrey planning authorities are already taking this into account for assessing planning applications by considering this additional area to be within Flood Zone 3 and treating accordingly. 25

One of the key messages from the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan is that long-term adaptation of the urban environment is crucial, especially in those areas where flood defences are not feasible. The opening up of river corridors, and use of open spaces for temporary storage of water in times of flood, can help to mitigate some of the potential impacts of climate change.

Based on the housing forecasts for the Surrey district and borough councils, approximately 35,000 new residential properties need to be built in Surrey by 2026. These may include the following larger development sites (subject to allocation in the relevant local plan and/ or planning consent): • The St Ebba’s hospital site and West Park hospital site developments in Epsom • The Horley North West and Horley North East developments in Reigate & Banstead Borough Council’s area • The Princess Royal Barracks site at Deepcut in Surrey Heath Borough Council’s area • The former DERA site at Longcross in Runnymede Borough Council’s area • The Slyfield site in north east Guildford • Major redevelopment sites within Guildford town centre.

There are also a number of large potential development sites on the Surrey borders, which could affect the county. This includes the proposed Aldershot urban extension and development at Bordon in Hampshire.

2.4 How is information on flood risk currently communicated?

The Environment Agency provides flood forecasting, warning systems and public awareness campaigns to inform those at risk. The Environment Agency operates a four stage warning system with each stage setting in action a range of procedures for risk management authorities. The system is called Floodline Warnings Direct and the stages of alert are ‘flood watch’, ‘flood warning’, ‘severe flood warning’ and ‘all clear’. The service is free and sends members of the public a direct message when flooding is expected that may affect their property.

The target areas for the Environment Agency awareness raising campaigns in Surrey are those with the highest fluvial flood risk and include Chertsey St Ann’s, Chertsey Mead, Thorpe, Egham Hythe, Riverside and Laleham, Shepperton and Molesey East. Communities are encouraged to complete and test community and personal flood plans and undertake various preparation steps in advance of flooding.

Surrey County Council also provides services through its Network Management Information Centre. This includes email alerts providing travel advice and information from the flood forecasting centre which is a partnership between the Met Office and the Environment Agency. The county council website also includes a flood warning ‘widget’. This widget highlights the Environment Agency’s flood warnings in the region. Local authorities are making increasing use of social media such as twitter and facebook to update the public on incidents or events.

26

3. Roles and responsibilities

There are a number of organisations in Surrey that have a key role in flood risk management, as defined by the Flood and Water Management Act. These risk management authorities are: • Surrey County Council (Lead local • Reigate & Banstead Borough flood authority and highway Council authority) • Runnymede Borough Council • The Environment Agency • Spelthorne Borough Council • Southern Water • Surrey Heath Borough Council • Thames Water • Tandridge District Council • Elmbridge Borough Council • Waverley Borough Council • Epsom & Ewell Borough Council • Woking Borough Council • Guildford Borough Council • Upper Medway Internal Drainage • Mole Valley District Council Board.

Under the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act the following duties are common to all risk management authorities: • duty to cooperate with other risk management authorities • duty to act consistently with the national and local strategies • powers to take on flood risk functions from another risk management authority • duty to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development • duty to be subject to scrutiny from the lead local flood authority’s democratic processes.

More detailed information on the specific roles and responsibilities of each organisation is provided in this chapter.

3.1 Surrey County Council

Under the Flood and Water Management Act Surrey County Council is the lead local flood authority for the county of Surrey. The responsibilities of a lead local flood authority are:

• Development, maintenance, application and monitoring of a strategy for local flood risk management. This will be guided by the national strategy. • Strategic leadership of local flood risk management authorities. • Powers to request information from any person in connection with the authority’s flood risk management functions. • A duty to investigate and publish reports on flood incidents in Surrey (where appropriate and necessary) to identify which authorities have relevant flood risk management functions and what they have done or intend to do. • A duty to maintain a register of structures or features that have a significant effect on flood risk. • Power to do works to manage flood risk from surface water runoff or groundwater. • Power to designate structures and features that effect flood risk. • Responsibility for the sustainable drainage systems approving body with responsibility for approval, adoption, inspection and maintenance of new sustainable drainage systems. • Decision making responsibility for whether third party works on ordinary watercourses by third parties, that may affect water flow, can take place.

27

• A duty to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the exercise of flood risk management functions and to have regard to any Ministerial guidance on this topic.

Strategic leadership Surrey County Council chairs the Surrey flood risk partnership board. We formed it to ensure that there is a strategic approach to flood risk management in Surrey. Through the partnership board, we are working to ensure that there is a joint understanding of local flood risk and that our priorities are joined up.

The core membership of the partnership board consists of representation from Surrey risk management authorities. The partnership board ensures that there is collaboration between partners by sharing data and information.

Section 14 of the Flood and Water Management Act, gives Surrey County Council the power to request information in connection with its flood risk management functions. This information must be provided in the form or manner specified in the request and within the period specified in the request.

Duty to investigate and report on flood incidents This duty commenced in April 2011. On becoming aware of a flood in its area, the lead local flood authority must undertake an investigation to the extent that it considers necessary or appropriate. This investigation must set out which risk management authority is responsible and whether they have responded appropriately to the flood. The results of the investigation must be published on the Surrey County Council website.

In Surrey an initial investigation will be carried out in any circumstance of internal property flooding or of key infrastructure flooding. A number of criteria will then determine whether a full investigation is undertaken and which risk management authority leads on producing it.

Surrey’s flooding asset register This duty commenced in April 2011. It requires a lead local flood authority to maintain a register of structures or features that, in the opinion of the authority, are likely to have a significant effect on flood risk.

In Surrey the register contains key assets, such as culverts, ponds and ditches that are known to cause the flooding of properties, critical infrastructure or block major roads when the asset is not functioning to an adequate level. Information is also held on ownership and state of repair.

The register, available on the Surrey County Council website, will be used to influence maintenance regimes and assist with the duty to investigate significant flood events.

Power to designate structures The power to designate structures that have an effect on flood risk has not been fully commenced. Surrey County Council, district and borough councils and the Environment Agency are now able to designate natural or artificial features that are important for flood or coastal erosion risk management.

A feature can be designated if: • The existence or location of the feature affects flood risk • The designating authority has responsibility for the risk that is affected • The feature has not been designated already (including by another authority) • Is not owned by another designating authority.

28

Designation means that a feature may not be altered, replaced or removed without consent. Designated features will be added to the asset register.

Sustainable drainage systems approving body The commencement date for this new role has not yet been confirmed and Surrey has not yet established a sustainable drainage systems approving body. However, the Government is working with local authorities on preparing for the implementation of sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act, and Surrey County Council is actively preparing for this new responsibility.

Box 3: What is a sustainable drainage system? Traditionally, drainage systems aim to convey water away from a site rapidly, typically into the sewer system. This can lead to problems downstream.

Sustainable drainage systems make use of different techniques to mimic surface water runoff in its natural state. Rainwater is managed close to its source and on the surface where possible. Water is released slowly, reducing flood risk. Examples include basins and ponds, infiltration spaces (such as soakaways) and the use of permeable surfaces (such as gravel).

Sustainable drainage systems can provide broader benefits than conventional drainage methods. For example, they may protect or enhance water quality and may provide a habitat for wildlife in urban watercourses (if appropriately managed).

Sustainable drainage systems are already required on specific sites in a number of Surrey districts and boroughs.

Consenting role for work by third parties on ordinary watercourses As of 6 April 2012 responsibility for the consenting of works by third parties on ordinary watercourses under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act) has transferred from the Environment Agency to the lead local flood authority.

The county council is now responsible for the consenting of works to ordinary watercourses and has powers to enforce un-consented and non-compliant works. This includes any works (including temporary) that affect flow within the channel of any ordinary watercourse (such as in channel structures or diversion of watercourses).

Consent is refused if the works would result in an increase in flood risk, a prevention of operational access to the watercourse and/ or they pose an unacceptable risk to nature conservation.

As lead local flood authority and the Highway Authority, Surrey County Council has cause to undertake works on ordinary watercourses. This can include: • work in relation to upgrading of roads • work in relation to inspections of culverts • structural improvements to structures such as culverts • works associated with development of waste and mineral sites and their own sites such as libraries or schools.

In line with the aims of this strategy, such works must mitigate local flood risk. As with any other proposals they must ensure the proper flow of water in a watercourse. As lead local flood authority, Surrey County Council does not have to seek approval from external

29 bodies for their own flood risk management activities. However, the works must be undertaken in a manner that complies with the requirements of all relevant legislation.

Requirements under the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 The Flood Risk Regulations set out the timetable for a series of flood risk assessment and management tasks that the county council has to complete by various dates up to 2015, including: • Preparation of a preliminary flood risk assessment - completed in June 2011. • Preparation of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps by December 2013. This will involve working with the Environment Agency to assess flood risk areas (identified by the preliminary flood risk assessment) and provide flood hazard maps to show the extent, direction, speed and likelihood of possible floods. The maps will show the number of people, range of economic activity and extent of protected areas that could be impacted by a flood incident, as well as identifying industrial activities that could cause pollution during a flood. • Preparation of flood risk management plans by 2015.

Surrey County Council also has a number of other key roles in flood risk management work within the county.

Highway authority Highways are at high risk of flooding. Roads mimic valleys by channelling water. Inadequate drainage systems are a common cause of highway flooding. Water travelling in the drainage system moves faster than over ground and problems can arise quickly.

As the Highway Authority, Surrey County Council is responsible for clearing drains on public roads. Over 180,000 drains at the side of roads are cleaned each year. The majority are cleaned once a year, however in known problem areas, and on major roads, they are cleaned more frequently.

Drains can become blocked for a number of reasons, including drains being covered by leaves, pipes becoming blocked with debris or silt or tree roots blocking pipes.

Surrey County Council has responsibility for a number of forms of drainage associated with the highway, including gullies, soakaways, ditches, channels, drains, grills and outlets. Routine maintenance is carried out on drainage assets.

In urban areas, and around train stations, parked cars can cause problems for gully clearing. A number of approaches are used to address this, including early morning or weekend work, repeat visits and letter drops to forewarn residents and commuters.

Emergency planning - Category 1 Responder Surrey County Council has statutory duties under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to ensure that the county council is prepared and able to respond to an emergency in the county. The Emergency Planning Team works closely with members of the Surrey Local Resilience Forum, which includes the emergency services, Environment Agency, district and borough councils, voluntary and private organisations, and all departments of the county council to integrate and co-ordinate Surrey's emergency arrangements. This is known as 'Integrated Emergency Management’.

Work includes: • Assessing local risks in order to identify what situations need to be planned for. • Coordinating and managing the writing, exercising and reviewing of emergency plans to mitigate the effects of an emergency or disaster in or around the county.

30

• Planning to ensure that Surrey County Council has plans in place to deliver its critical services to the public during an emergency. • Providing an effective 24 hour, 365 days a year service, to help in the management of a major emergency and coordinate the response to an emergency on behalf of Surrey County Council. • Providing advice to local businesses and voluntary organisations about business continuity planning. • Warning and informing • Providing guidance to parish councils and other community groups, to help communities prepare for emergencies.

Flood risk appears within the top three risks on the Surrey Local Resilience Forum’s risk register. Emergency plans for flooding have been put in place throughout the county. Multi- agency flood plans exist in each district and borough and detail how local services will work together to respond to an incident.

During a flooding incident, Surrey County Council’s support for emergency services and other organisations could potentially take the form of arranging emergency accommodation, arranging emergency transport, provision of information and co- coordinating services that the county council provides, such as social care and highways.

County planning authority Surrey County Council is the county planning authority, with responsibility for the determination of planning applications and the preparation of statutory land use plans in respect of mineral extraction and associated development and the development of waste management facilities. The county council is also responsible for the determination of planning applications relating to the activities of its education, social services and highways functions. As a planning authority the county council is required to take account of national planning policy guidance on flood risk, amongst other considerations, in both its development control and forward planning work.

The Surrey Waste Plan was adopted in 2008 (hereafter the Plan). It sets out the policy framework against which applications for planning permission for waste management and related development are determined. The Plan identifies a number of sites across the county that have been allocated for waste related development during the Plan period (10 years from the date of adoption, so 2018). Under Policy DC3 (General Considerations) of the Plan all planning applications for waste related development must provide information about the drainage of the proposed site and the surrounding area, and the likely effect of the development on the risk of flooding.

The Surrey Minerals Plan was adopted in 2011. The Core Strategy sets out the policy framework against which applications for minerals related development are determined and identifies the locations at which silica sand and brick clay will be extracted during the Plan period (up to 2026). Under Policy MC14 (Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development) of the Plan all planning applications for mineral development must provide information about the effect of the development on flood risk and land drainage, and must identify any opportunities that would arise from the working for enhanced flood storage capacity. The Primary Aggregates Development Plan Document identifies the locations at which sand and gravel, or soft sand will be extracted up to 2026.

Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority Surrey County Council is the designated Fire Authority under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004. Surrey's fire fighters provide a response service to the people of Surrey and are trained to deal with a range of emergency situations, including flood incidents. During

31 widespread flooding, this is restricted to incidents where life is at risk. They also provide assistance in clear up exercises.

Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority is currently developing a water strategy, which aims to improve the service’s water rescue capabilities. The Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority currently has specialist equipment, vehicles and a dedicated Swift Water Rescue Team to help deal with flood incidents.

Working alongside other agencies, the Swift Water Rescue Team checks on properties affected by flood incidents, and plays a vital role in assisting members of the public at risk from floodwater.

As well as responding to incidents in Surrey, fire fighters from Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority can be called upon to assist other fire and rescue crews with national flood emergency responses. This includes using their high volume pumping equipment.

3.2 Environment Agency

The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Key areas of environmental protection work for which the Environment Agency is responsible include, pollution control (emissions to air and water), waste regulation and licensing, water resources and quality control, river and coastal flood risk management, and fisheries licensing.

Specific responsibilities in relation to flood risk management include: • strategic overview for all forms of flood risk • development of the national strategy to cover all forms of flood risk • responsibility for coastal and fluvial flood risk management from main rivers • powers to request information from any person in connection with the Environment Agency’s flood and coastal erosion risk management functions • a duty to report to Ministers on flood risk management including implementation of the strategies • statutory consultee to the sustainable drainage systems approving body on sustainable drainage • ability to issue levies to lead local flood authorities.

Strategic overview The Environment Agency has a strategic overview of flooding from all sources (including rivers, the sea, surface water and groundwater). Under the Flood and Water Management Act, the Environment Agency has worked with Defra to develop the national strategy.

Main rivers The Environment Agency is responsible for managing flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The Environment Agency is responsible for operating, maintaining and replacing flood risk management installations, such as flood barriers, gates, pumping stations and sluices.

Maintenance work Protecting the river environment and managing flood risk is part of the Environment Agency’s role. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to reduce the risk of flooding by undertaking maintenance work in main rivers and to river defences.

32

An annual maintenance programme includes both routine and other activities, including: • maintaining flood barriers and pumping stations • inspection and repair of flood defence structures • controlling aquatic reeds within rivers • clearing grills and removing obstructions from rivers.

A number of categories are used to decide whether the Environment Agency will maintain a watercourse or flood defence, and the level of maintenance required. Maintenance of defences will continue: • where there is an economic case to reduce the risk from flooding • where they are required to protect internationally designated environmental features from the damaging effect of flooding, for example Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar Sites and World Heritage Sites. • maintenance of flood defences that do not fit within the two categories above, but where work is justified due to legal commitments or where stopping maintenance would cause an unacceptable flood risk, will be continued.

An overview of Environment Agency maintenance programmes is available on the Environment Agency website.

The Environment Agency also has a National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD), which is a central store for data related to flood risk management. It is used to make informed decisions on maintenance and investment priorities. The database includes data from the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards on: • location of all main rivers • flood defence systems • flood storage areas.

Work is underway to improve the way information is captured on the condition of these assets to allow the Environment Agency and risk management authorities to manage them more efficiently and in a cost effective way.

Provision of new flood schemes The Environment Agency invests to improve existing or provide new installations in areas where there remains a high risk of fluvial flooding.

Such works could involve strengthening river walls or embankments, realigning watercourses, digging flood relief channels or building new weirs or sluices.

Recent and current Environment Agency flood schemes in Surrey have included improvements to the Molesey Weir (part of the Lower Mole flood alleviation scheme) and the Hoe Stream flood alleviation scheme (in Woking).

An annual programme of Surrey schemes is included at annex 3 and in map 7.

(See Surrey Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Map 7 - Surrey flood alleviation schemes 2012/ 13 at www.surreycc.gov.uk/floodriskstrategy).

33

Flood Map The Environment Agency is responsible for producing and maintaining the Flood Map, which uses data from modelling and past flood events to map flood extents and provides an important means of increasing awareness of flood risk. It is used by a wide range of organisations, including local authorities, insurers and developers, and is accessible to members of the public via the ‘What’s in Your Backyard’ section of the Environment Agency website.

Reservoirs The Reservoir Act 1975 makes the owners and operators of reservoirs responsible for the safety of the structures that they manage. Owners and operators are obliged to ensure appropriately qualified engineers undertake assessments of all reservoir structures on a routine basis. The Environment Agency enforces the Act for reservoirs in excess of 10,000m" and has a number of roles: • maintaining a register of reservoirs • enforcing compliance • producing and maintaining the reservoir flood map.

Following the Pitt Review, Defra and the Environment Agency were allocated the task of producing flood maps for every reservoir under the Reservoirs Act 1975. The flood maps indicate the likely extent of flooding that would result from a reservoir failure. The maps have been shared with local resilience forums to enable them to prepare off-site reservoir flood plans.

The maps are for the purpose of emergency planning only, to ensure that responders know who may be at risk. In Surrey, four site-specific plans have been developed for those reservoirs that fall into the national higher risk category (due to size and location).

Emergency planning The Environment Agency has the key role in warning people about flood risk from main rivers and the sea and managing the effects of flooding.

As a Category 1 Responder, the Environment Agency is a key member of the Surrey Local Resilience Forum and participates in the development of multi-agency flood plans.

Development control and spatial planning The Environment Agency, alongside Natural England and English Heritage, is a statutory consultee to the development consent process, as specified in the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order (England) (2010) and is also a statutory consultee under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The Environment Agency provides advice to local planning authorities in respect of the development consent regime on matters such as pollution control, waste regulation, fluvial and coastal flood risk and water quality.

The Environment Agency, alongside Natural England & English Heritage, is also a statutory consultee under the terms of the Environmental Assessment of Plans & Programmes Regulations 2004. The regulations require local planning authorities to undertake strategic environmental assessments6 as part of the local plan preparation process.

6 Note – the requirement for strategic environmental assessment derives from an EU Directive and applies to a range of sectors, not only land use and spatial planning. 34

Water quality The Environment Agency has a duty to maintain and improve the quality of surface water and groundwater and, as part of that duty, is responsible for the control of abstraction from, recharge to, and discharge to watercourses and waterbodies (for example rivers and aquifers) under the environmental permitting regime. The Environment Agency monitors the quality of rivers, lakes, the sea and groundwater on a regular basis.

River basin management plans The Environment Agency is the 'competent authority' for implementing the Water Framework Directive in Surrey. It produces the river basin management plans. In Surrey these are: • Water for Life and livelihoods; River Basin Management Plan, Thames River Basin District • Water for Life and livelihoods; River Basin Management Plan, South East River Basin District.

The Catchment Implementation Plan: Wey Catchment, 2011, prepared by the Environment Agency, sets out how the measures in the Thames River Basin Management Plan could be turned into actions to achieve good ecological status in the Wey catchment.

The Wey catchment is a Water Framework Directive pilot catchment, one of 10 nationally, in which the Environment Agency is working with partners to encourage greater local participation, and achieve more for communities and the water environment.

3.3 District and borough councils

Under the Flood and Water Management Act, district and borough councils have the following additional powers: • Power to designate structures and features that affect flood risk.

Under the Land Drainage Act 1991 district and borough councils have permissive powers, but no specific responsibility, to maintain or improve existing flood risk management works or to construct new works on ordinary watercourses.

The extent to which individual districts or boroughs engage in those types of work varies from area to area, often influenced by the level of local risk and the technical capacity of the council concerned.

To help prevent flooding, district and borough councils will sometimes undertake clearance work for ditches where it is in the interest of the wider public (although such action does not remove the responsibility for maintenance from the riparian owner). If the owner of land through which an open or piped watercourse passes does not fulfil their obligations, district and borough councils may carry out the works and charge the owner. Where watercourses are located within council owned land, then the relevant council will themselves be the riparian owner, and responsible for appropriate maintenance of the watercourse.

Local planning authority As local planning authorities, district and borough councils are required to take account of national planning policy guidance on flood risk, amongst other considerations, in both their development control and forward planning work.

Strategic flood risk assessments form one part of the evidence base that informs the preparation of local plans, through which land to meet the future needs of the district or borough for housing and employment will be allocated. All of the district and borough

35 councils in Surrey have prepared strategic flood risk assessments as part of their local plan preparation process, and six of the 11 district and borough councils now have adopted Core Strategies.

Of the adopted Core Strategies, four include dedicated flood risk management policies (Elmbridge, Mole Valley, Spelthorne and Surrey Heath). Of the five district and borough councils that have yet to adopt their Core Strategies, four have included dedicated flood risk management policies in their draft documents (Guildford, Runnymede, Waverley and Woking).

The adopted Core Strategies for Epsom & Ewell and for Tandridge address the issue of flood risk within policies on sustainability in new development or environmental quality. The proposed submission version of the Core Strategy for Reigate & Banstead borough also covers the matter of flood risk within a wider policy on sustainable development.

To ensure that development reduces surface water runoff, most local planning authorities in Surrey either encourage or require the use of sustainable drainage systems. These systems encompass a wide range of approaches to surface water drainage and can include storage measures such as green roofs, attenuation ponds and rainwater recycling.

Box 4: Case study Guildford Borough Council Flood Risk Reduction Measures, November 2010 This document forms part of the Guildford Local Development Framework evidence base. It sets out the policy approach for the functional floodplain in Guildford urban area.

Its vision is “to reduce the risk of flooding in Guildford Urban area, using redevelopment opportunities to provide increased safety, additional floodwater storage and improved floodwater flows whilst making space for water and the enjoyment of the River Wey”.

The document provides information on the type of flood risk reduction measures required for all proposed redevelopment in flood zone 3 of Guildford urban area and information for those willing to improve flood resilience of existing properties in this area. It acts to provide tighter controls on development within zone 3a than those contained in PPS257.

Box 5: Case study Spelthorne Borough Council, Supplementary Planning Document on Flooding, consultation draft April 2012 This document aims to explain in more detail the council’s policy on development in areas of flood risk. Spelthorne Borough Council’s approach to development and flood risk is to:

Support measures to reduce the risk of flooding to existing properties Apply strict controls over new development.

Due to the severity of flood risk in Spelthorne, requirements are also more stringent than the requirements provided by Government.

Responsibilities as a Category 1 Responder to emergencies District and borough councils have the same statutory obligations as the county council and Environment Agency in terms of emergency preparedness. They are also members of the Surrey Local Resilience Forum, which is responsible for integrating and coordinating emergency arrangements in Surrey.

7 Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) set out Government policy on development and flood risk. 36

District and borough councils in Surrey do not have a legal duty to supply sandbags, and do not supply them on demand. In extreme conditions, a number of district and borough councils try to deliver sandbags to a limited number of homes that are known to be most at risk. Information on district and borough sandbag policy, and details on where to source them, is available on their respective websites. These websites also offer advice on what actions householders can take to prepare for a flood.

3.4 Internal drainage boards

Internal drainage boards are independent bodies responsible for land drainage in areas of special drainage need. They operate under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and have permissive powers to undertake works to secure drainage and water level management in their area.

Part of the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board lies in Tandridge district. Much of their work involves the improvement and maintenance of rivers and drainage channels. They may also undertake flood defence works on ordinary watercourses in their area. The internal drainage board has the responsibility for consenting works on ordinary watercourses in its area.

Figure 1: Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board

37

3.5 Regional flood and coastal committees

Surrey County Council is represented on the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. There is a small area in the southern part of Surrey which is covered by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee but Surrey has no representation on this committee. The county council's current representative on the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is Councillor John Furey. The Thames and Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committees are consultative consenting bodies for the Environment Agency in these respective regions. These committees receive consultation from the Environment Agency about the way the Environment Agency proposes to carry out its flood and coastal erosion risk management functions and they may make representations to the Environment Agency about the exercise of these regional functions. The Environment Agency is required to take these representations into account. These committees also issue consent to the Environment Agency for: • the implementation of their regional programme • the issue of any levy on the lead local flood authorities in their respective region • the revenue expenditure for their respective region.

3.6 Water companies

Two companies in Surrey have responsibility for foul and surface water sewerage systems and sewage treatment (sewerage undertakers). They are Southern Water and Thames Water. Sutton and East Surrey Water and Veolia also supply water to Surrey residents alongside Southern Water and Thames Water.

Thames Water and Southern Water are responsible for operating and maintaining the condition of the county’s sewerage systems, which encompass foul water systems, surface water systems, and combined sewerage systems. Most of the county comes under Thames Water’s remit for sewerage and sewage treatment. However, Southern Water serves the majority of the Tandridge district. It also serves two smaller areas in the borough of Waverley (to the south of Cranleigh and to the east of Haslemere).

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 introduced new responsibilities for sewerage undertakers: • Adoption of private sewers - On 1 October 2011, sewerage undertakers became responsible for private sewers, which were previously the responsibility of the individual property owners. Not all private pipes are included. How the transfer of private sewers affects properties depends on the type of property and the location and use of the pipe. • Statutory consultees to the sustainable drainage system approving process.

Continuing flood risk management responsibilities of sewerage undertakers include: • Responding to flood incidents • Producing a DG5 register which lists properties that have experienced a sewer flood • Work to alleviate sewer-flooding problems.

Responding to and recording flood incidents The responsibilities of Thames Water and Southern Water relate to flooding from their foul and surface water sewers and from burst water mains. Sutton and East Surrey Water, as a water undertaker, has responsibility for flooding from burst water mains in the areas that they supply.

38

Flooding incidents resulting from either the sewerage system or the water supply system should be reported to the relevant company on their 24-hour phone lines. Any person reporting a sewerage or water main related flooding incident would be provided with information and advice on ways of minimising the impacts and precautionary measures that can be taken in advance of an engineer arriving.

If the cause of the incident is a sewer flood, the incident will be recorded on the DG5 register. The DG5 register records information on properties at risk of flooding from sewers due to hydraulic overload. It only includes information on actual recorded flood events.

Work to alleviate sewer flooding Works to drains and sewers can reduce the risks of surface water and sewer flooding by increasing the capacity of the sewer network to take in and channel water away.

Thames Water’s current investment programme aims to reduce the threat of sewer flooding, in particular for properties where flooding has already occurred inside the home.

The medium term investment plan (2010-15) aims to start addressing the issue of future flood risk. The aim is to protect homes and businesses at greatest risk of a flood incident from sewers. Projects will be prioritised by taking into account the severity and frequency of flooding, and the cost per property of improvements.

Improvements are currently planned to the sewer network in Surrey that will reduce the risk of sewer flooding to 110 properties that have flooded previously. In addition to routine work to keep sewers running freely, Thames Water plans to investigate and resolve repeated sewer blockages near Addlestone.

Links to the planning process Water and sewerage companies are not statutory consultees on planning applications. However, adding additional properties to the sewerage network can cause capacity issues. Water and sewerage companies are keen to develop closer working relationships with local planning authorities to ensure that their knowledge of sewer system capacity issues can be taken into account in the planning process.

3.7 Highways Agency

The Highways Agency is an executive agency, part of the Department for Transport (DfT). It is responsible for managing the core road network and within Surrey has responsibility for the following motorways and major trunk routes: • A3 • M3 • M23 • M25

Maintenance of the highway The Highways Agency is responsible for the drainage of these routes and must also ensure that road projects do not increase local flood risk or adversely affect local water bodies. The type of drainage method used is influenced by both the flood or pollution risks identified and the characteristic of the catchment. Sustainable drainage systems have been used on the network for a number of years.

In its sustainable development plan 2012-2015, the Highways Agency sets out plans to develop a flood risk management strategy to implement within the supply chain.

39

3.8 Residents and businesses

A large number of flood defence assets are owned by third parties and where this is the case the responsibility rests with the owner. This can include maintaining watercourses or culverts.

Riparian owners Anyone who owns land adjoining a watercourse has certain responsibilities. These riparian owners are required to maintain any watercourse that passes through their land, including all natural or artificial channels through which water flows (such as streams, ditches and river channels). In many cases riparian owners are not aware of their responsibilities, which can result in poor maintenance or obstruction of the flow of water.

The Environment Agency provides advice to riparian owners in a leaflet entitled ‘Living on the edge’.

Property owners Responsibility for protecting property from flooding lies in the first instance with the property owner. Residents whose homes or businesses are located in areas that are at risk of flooding should consider making their own flood defence preparations.

Maps showing the predicted risk of flooding in an area from main rivers are available on the Environment Agency website. The Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment shows additional areas at risk from surface water flooding.

For those in a flood risk area, the Environment Agency provides the following services and advice on risk management to residents and businesses: • Floodline Warnings Direct – a free service providing automated flood warnings (flooding from main rivers only) by phone, email, text or fax • Make a flood plan – a template designed to help residents and businesses identify practical actions they could take before and during a flood • Prepare for flooding. Take measures to reduce damage and keep floodwater out such as raising electrical sockets and deploying sandbags around the property.

The National Flood Forum’s Blue Pages Directory is a useful independent directory of flood product manufacturers.

The Surrey County Council website provides information on actions to take during a flood incident. It is important that residents do not remove manhole covers as this could result in foul water flooding.

For information on flood risk and insurance see the National Flood Forum website.

Flood groups Setting up a community based flood action group can be a very effective way of bringing residents and businesses together to discuss flood risk issues and identify actions that can be taken collectively to minimise the impacts of flooding. Such groups can liaise with risk management authorities on behalf of the community, and enable joint working. The National Flood Forum provides advice about the formation of a local flood risk group.

Across Surrey a number of groups have been established following local flooding incidents. As lead local flood authority, Surrey County Council is committed to providing established groups (for a list see the Surrey County Council website) with maps and data on flood risk in their area.

40

Surrey County Council also provides expertise at meetings where appropriate. In a number of areas, district and borough councils are working with flood action groups to map land ownership in order to understand more about local land drainage issues. We encourage community groups to work collaboratively with local maintenance teams.

Box 6: Case study Chobham Community Resilience Action Group (CCRAG) Following serious flooding in 2006/ 07, the community in Chobham came together to form CCRAG. Importantly this process was driven by the community but chaired by an independent body – Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority. For the first time all the key agencies were around the table and this started to build trust within the community.

The group started by collecting local information through questionnaires and followed this up by writing a project plan. Funding from Defra was sought to enable Surrey Heath Borough Council to undertake a study and to promote closer working with landowners.

More recent work has involved the reinvigoration of the flood warden scheme, production of a tested emergency plan that is owned by the community and a move towards prevention through regular community activity.

Looking to the future key priorities for the group include keeping all agencies involved, keeping the wider community motivated and getting prevention activities underway.

Box 7: Case study Farnham River Management Committee (FRMC) This group was formed in 2005 by a group of Farnham residents concerned about apparent lack of maintenance of the River Wey and the probable effect on flood risk.

The group currently comprises representatives from Farnham River Watch, the Environment Agency, Surrey County Council (Highways), Waverley Borough Council, Farnham Town Council and the Farnham Society. Members view the group as a valuable forum for addressing matters of concern.

Through the group every effort has been made to discuss and better understand flood risk management issues in Farnham. Discussions take into account flood risk from all sources, including surface water.

Most attention has been devoted to the management of the Wey and its tributaries in Farnham: the Bourne stream and the Frensham Vale stream. With no major projects in prospect, regular maintenance is seen as vital to minimising flood risk. From an early stage the committee was conscious of the requirement to manage rivers in a balanced way, not only to minimise flood risk but also to meet the needs of wildlife and the wider environment.

The group has also observed, and been involved with, good examples of collaboration between agencies. This includes the gully cleaning programme and the county council’s wetspot programme.

Looking forward, the group considers that work to remind riparian owners of their duties is a priority. The group is well informed of national developments in flood risk management and well aware of the importance of their role in highlighting the issues and incidents of local significance.

Community flood plans Completing a community flood plan can help community members and groups plan how they will work together in the event of a flood. Such plans set out who does what during a

41 flood, explains how information will be cascaded and establishes the needs of vulnerable people, such as the elderly, disabled and less mobile, in advance.

Businesses Commercial organisations are responsible for carrying out their own flood risk assessments and for preparing their premises accordingly.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 gave local authorities the duty to provide local businesses and voluntary organisations with advice on business continuity management. This duty aims to help ensure businesses are able to quickly recover from disruptions such as a flood incident.

Firms of all sizes should consider business continuity. Advice on how to plan for events that could impact on business is available on the Surrey County Council website.

In the case of businesses that are located within areas at risk of flooding, actions could include signing up for Floodline Warning Direct, investing in flood protection measures, clarifying emergency management responsibilities or making arrangements for business critical data to be backed up in the event of a flood.

Flood prevention measures can protect some properties. Source: Environment Agency

42

4. Objectives and actions

Resources are simply not available to carry out work in every area at risk of flooding. In line with advice set out in the national strategy, the approach taken in Surrey will be proportionate and risk based.

As stated in box 1, our objectives are (in no particular order):

• We will make it easier for risk management authorities to work together. • We will clarify the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders. • We will provide a clear overview of levels of flood risk throughout the county, to enable wider understanding of those risks. • We will consider flooding issues at a catchment (area) level. • We will reflect and action the concerns of residents and businesses. • We will provide a robust approach to the prioritisation of spending on schemes intended to reduce flood risk. • We will highlight how residents and businesses can help manage risk. • We will develop an annual action plan of priority actions based on the principles set out within the strategy. • We will ensure environmental consequences are taken into account in the design and implementation of any proposed flood risk management measures.

In addition to identifying capital schemes, the strategy aims to develop a series of actions to reduce local flood risk. The early focus for our work can be grouped into a number of broad themes: • maintenance • sustainable drainage • communication • improving knowledge and skills • developing a holistic response to flood risk.

This list includes work that partners are required to undertake to adhere to new responsibilities. It also responds to the public feedback from our survey to inform the strategy.

A summary of the responses received to our survey is included at annex 5. Feedback showed that respondents thought: • There needs to be a greater emphasis on the maintenance of highway drainage systems. • Developers need to be made to put more effort into flood risk mitigation. • Respondents don’t know enough about work that is being carried out in Surrey to reduce flood risk. • Areas that have already experienced flooding must not be forgotten when identifying works that are needed. • There is a role for the greater involvement of local communities.

The full action plan is provided at annex 3.

43

4.1 Capital schemes

Capital works in Surrey are likely to fall under three broad categories:

Schemes with highest eligibility for national funding Funding relates directly to the number of households protected, the damage prevented and the range of other benefits, such as environmental or business benefits, which will be delivered. Those factors will determine which schemes are developed in Surrey, and whether fluvial or surface water management measures take priority.

Schemes in Surrey listed in annex 4 include a mix of fluvial and surface water schemes.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, Woking Borough Council (for Woking & Byfleet) and Guildford Borough Council have completed, or are preparing detailed surface water management plans. Completed and emerging plans identify schemes to address known surface water flooding problems. Some of these plans will be developed into funding bids according to funding stream criteria.

Future surface water management plans will be prepared for the remaining risk clusters identified by the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, which took into account the number of residents, critical services and businesses potentially at risk.

The outstanding risk clusters include: • Banstead • Farnham • Camberley • Leatherhead • Caterham and Warlingham • Reigate and Redhill • Dorking • Thames Ditton

Preparation of those plans will not be carried out strictly in the order set out in the Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment. The modelled cluster areas will be compared with instances of recorded flooding and the information on communities at risk of fluvial flooding to pinpoint where future studies will be of most value. The level of investigation will vary based on the level of risk. Schemes identified by future surface water management plans will be included in the national bidding process.

The Environment Agency has identified communities at greatest risk of fluvial flooding in Surrey, which are listed in table 3, annex 2. The information will be used to identify schemes eligible for national funding.

Local priorities with lower eligibility for national funding Community level surface water management plan type investigations will be carried out in areas where surface water flooding has been observed and where small-scale works could help to address problems. Such areas are less likely to benefit from national funding.

There will also be a number of locally important schemes that will influence where resources and work are focused. In these cases work may be prioritised for a number of reasons: • The presence of critical infrastructure and vulnerable sites • Locations offering major development or regeneration opportunities, where the scale of potential development means that an integrated approach to drainage and flood risk management would be beneficial • Locations that are of economic importance

44

• Areas of the county where there are concentrations of vulnerable residents, who could be particularly at risk in the event of flooding, (for example elderly, disabled or less mobile residents) • Availability of additional capital investment • Areas where there is a clear interaction between different sources of flood risk • Groundwater flooding. As knowledge increases in this area there will be a greater understanding of the interaction with other sources of flood risk. • Areas where there are environmental considerations, such as proximity to sites or features of national or international significance, and mitigation measures could achieve multiple benefits • Areas where the impact of an emergency would be likely to be high. These include places where evacuation routes could be affected by flooding.

Current priorities influenced by these additional factors include: • The Redhill and Merstham regeneration areas • Potential strategic development sites, such as the Princess Royal Barracks site at Deepcut in Surrey Heath.

Ongoing programmes of work and maintenance schedules This includes work such as the Surrey County Council capital drainage programme. The programme is developed each year to resolve maintenance issues at the highest priority wetspots.

4.2 Maintenance

Surrey County Council keeps a record of wetspots in Surrey where flood incidents have occurred. These were previously recorded only in relation to the highway. The records now include other locations of flood incidents. Often when wetspots are investigated the cause is identified as a damaged or inadequate system.

We have developed a wetspot database with the involvement of all district and borough councils. We continually update it and provide a map and record of all identified problem areas in Surrey. This record includes all completed drainage works. The data is essential to plan and prioritise works efficiently.

Surrey County Council has allocated funding to complete, on a priority basis, ongoing works and new schemes at major wetspots across Surrey. A number of factors are taken into account when prioritising each wetspot site, but the key points that contribute to a high score are: • safety • internal property flooding • social impact • duration of flooding. We are also working to make sure that the frequency of flooding is used to inform prioritisation.

There are approximately 900 wetspots recorded on the wetspot database. Over one third of the wetspot locations are reported as suffering from current flooding.

Some of the highest scoring wetspots are caused, to a varying degree, by the failure of third party, non-highway drainage systems. In these instances Surrey County Council will work with third parties to minimise the effect wherever possible.

45

Map 6 shows the 100 highest priority wetspots in Surrey. Map 7 highlights the wetspots to be addressed in the capital drainage investment programme in 2012/ 13.

A number of improvements in highways drainage maintenance and repairs are planned under Surrey County Council’s new Highways contract: • From 2012 gully clearing will become more targeted. Analysis of historical data on silt levels will ensure that gullies requiring more frequent clearing are prioritised. • Work is underway to improve the mapping of drainage infrastructure. Over a four- year period, the contractor May Gurney will map the location of all drainage assets, including soakaways and catchpits to ensure they are included in the maintenance programme. • The soakaway-cleaning programme is being linked to data held in the wetspot database. This will address problems at some of the recorded wetspots in the county. • Processes are already in place to encourage coordination of operations when works require traffic management. At present this is limited to works on dual carriageways. There is an aspiration that this coordination will be extended to work with utilities and other sections of the highway. There is more to do and the actions in the strategy will encourage further improvements in maintenance and repairs.

Box 8: Case study community payback Several Surrey boroughs and districts are investigating community payback as a means to contribute to flood risk maintenance. Community payback is a form of punishment, but it is also a means by which offenders can make amends for the crimes they have committed.

Spelthorne Borough Council will be trialling community payback for the maintenance and clearance of critical ditches and watercourses. The work will mainly involve cutting back vegetation along the banks of the watercourse and clearing rubbish and litter. It is hoped that using community payback will help the borough reduce maintenance costs.

4.3 Sustainable drainage8

Surrey County Council is working with partners on preparing for this new role. It is our intention that, where appropriate, the sustainable drainage systems approving body will be a consortium of Surrey district and borough councils. We want to ensure close links with the planning approval process.

Through the requirement for sustainable drainage systems, it is intended that no new development will add to flood risk in Surrey.

The role of the sustainable drainage systems approving body will be to: • determine whether proposed drainage systems for new developments and redevelopments are acceptable and fit for purpose before construction begins • ensure that proposed drainage systems meet national standards for design, construction, operation and maintenance • adopt all sustainable drainage systems that connect more than one property

8 There will be further clarity on this new responsibility once the requirements for sustainable drainage systems in new and redeveloped sites (Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010)) have commenced and the Government has published the final version of the national standards for sustainable drainage systems.

46

• inspect and ensure that adopted sustainable drainage systems are properly maintained • ensure that approved sustainable drainage systems are included on the flooding asset register as a separate category.

The sustainable drainage systems approving body’s decisions on proposed drainage schemes are independent of the development control decisions of local planning authorities. In order for a development to proceed, planning consent will need to be obtained from the local planning authority and the drainage scheme will require the approval of the sustainable drainage systems approving body.

The Flood and Water Management Act encourages pre-application discussions between developers, the relevant planning authority and the sustainable drainage systems approving body. Such an approach should ensure that effective and sustainable drainage solutions are integrated into the design of the proposed development at the earliest opportunity.

It is likely that the sustainable drainage system consenting process will be introduced in a number of phases, with the requirement for approval applying to major developments in the first instance, and then being rolled out to smaller developments and works that can be carried out under permitted development rights. However, the Government has yet to confirm how and when the new sustainable drainage consenting role will commence.

The sustainable drainage systems approving body will produce local sustainable drainage systems design and adoption guidance in 2012/ 13. This will reflect national guidance and existing policy in district and borough councils and will be promoted widely.

4.4 Communication

Public feedback has shown that we need to do more to highlight what work is underway to reduce flood risk, how this is prioritised and how residents and businesses can assist. The strategy provides an initial opportunity to do this. A key message is that it is important to report flood incidents because it adds to our knowledge on areas at risk and frequency of incidents. This information informs how activities are prioritised.

We also need to keep key groups such as developers, planning authorities, riparian owners, parish councils and utility companies up to date on the lead local flood authority’s new responsibilities. We will need to target our communications to achieve input from certain communities or to remind landowners of their responsibilities.

4.5 Improving knowledge and skills

New skills, new technology and additional capacity are needed to carry out new duties and undertake new responsibilities.

The lead local flood authority has created a number of additional roles to manage these responsibilities. However, it is crucial that existing skills and expertise in other risk management authorities are retained. The Surrey approach will be to work collaboratively wherever possible, for example by developing a consortium approach for the sustainable drainage systems approving body.

We will also develop training where we identify gaps. For example, we are learning about the national bidding process. This will ensure that we develop excellent funding bids and achieve our fair share of funding for Surrey.

47

Box 9: Case study HydroCast rainfall and analysis system Surrey County Council has recently started trialling the HydroCast system. This is a web- based data interface that provides detailed information on both current and forecasted rainfall data, including facilities to review and analyse all recorded rainfall observations. This data is based upon rainfall radar observations that are regularly calibrated with rain- gauge information across the country.

The recorded rainfall data allows for detailed analysis of flood events in specific areas and countywide, which in turn enables us to better understand how prone certain areas are to frequent flooding and review the effectiveness of any drainage or flood defences that are in place. The forecasting aspect of HydroCast can be used to assist with the preparation for significant flood events and mobilisation for emergency responses.

Another potential use for the forecasting system is to provide customised flood warnings to residents and community flood groups. This is particularly useful when used in conjunction with any property level protection schemes, as it will give sufficient notice to set up any temporary flood defences that have been provided.

4.6 Partnership working on the implementation of the Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy

The Lower Thames Flood Risk Management scheme would be the largest inland scheme ever delivered in England and Wales. Risk management authorities will continue to work in partnership to explore avenues of funding for this project. This includes investigating local development opportunities as an enabling mechanism.

4.7 Developing a holistic response to flood risk

Progress has been made in considering the links between different forms of flood risk. Studies such as surface water management plans consider the interaction between surface water and sewage flooding. Joint work on strategic flood risk assessments and developing joint funding bids across neighbouring authorities will ensure that all flood risks within a catchment are taken into account.

The duty to cooperate is leading to much closer working between risk management authorities. Discussion at the partnership board ensures that the new and developing information on surface water flood risk is considered alongside the range of information that exists on fluvial risk throughout the county. This strategic overview will be vital in developing the annual programme of bids for national funding, which may be fluvial or surface water schemes.

4.8 Actions

Our action plan in annex 3 does not repeat all the work that is being carried out by individual risk management authorities. It sets out additional activities that are being undertaken collaboratively. Many of these actions are needed for Surrey County Council to fulfil its new responsibilities in relation to surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. The actions also demonstrate how work to reduce local flood risk will be integrated with other types of flood risk, including fluvial flood risk.

Site-specific schemes that are planned by all risk management authorities in Surrey are included in annex 4.

48

5. Flood risk management funding

Our strategy must set out how proposed actions are to be funded. This chapter will detail how flood risk management funding is allocated nationally. Looking to the future, it will explain which additional forms of funding are being considered within Surrey.

5.1 National funding

Capital funding: Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) Nationally, Defra spending on flood and coastal erosion risk management will reduce by 8% from 2011 to 2015. In April 2012 the approach to the way that Government funds flood risk management projects changed. Defra’s new methodology for allocating capital funding - flood and coastal resilience partnership funding - is based on the outcomes delivered. Funding levels for each scheme now relate directly to the number of households protected, damage prevented and other benefits such as environmental or business benefits that will be delivered. There is now also an extra emphasis on protecting households in deprived areas.

The Government’s rationale for the new funding approach includes: • more schemes will go ahead • greater certainty of funding for each project, based on the outcomes and benefits expected • more local choice in how and when schemes are delivered • innovative and cost effective solutions will be encouraged • it will be a more transparent and fairer allocation system • better value for money for the taxpayer • those most at risk and least able to help themselves will be prioritised.

Instead of funding the entire cost of a limited number of projects, the revised approach makes some Government funding available towards any worthwhile scheme. For the first time, grants for surface water management and property-level protection will be considered alongside funding for other schemes. Risk management authorities can calculate, for any proposed scheme, what proportion of funding will be provided by Flood Defence Grant in Aid. The means of calculating it are shown in table 2.

Table 2: Means of calculating the amount of Flood Defence Grant in Aid Share of Household benefits Fixed payment costs funded = + Other whole-life benefits rates by Defra + Environmental outcomes X

Divided by amount of funding required. Source: Framework to assist the development of the local strategy for flood risk management, Local Government Association, 2nd edition, November 2011

Projects whose costs do not qualify for full funding, require local contributions to proceed. The partnership board has an important role in bringing funding streams together and developing a good awareness of the areas in Surrey that have the greatest eligibility for national funding.

Agreed Surrey Flood Defence Grant in Aid schemes in 2012/ 13 are set out in the annual programme of schemes in annex 4 and map 7.

For further information on Flood Defence Grant in Aid, please refer to the Defra website.

49

The local levy Local levies are paid by upper tier authorities, such as Surrey County Council, to the Environment Agency for additional flood risk management schemes that would not otherwise proceed. The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee sets a local levy and Surrey County Council pays around £1 million per annum. Surrey County Council is the largest single local authority contributor to the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.

Regional Flood and Coastal Committees vote on where to invest the local levy. The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee has agreed a £10 million levy fund for a programme of investment in 2012/ 13. The local levy can top up Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding.

The agreed programme of works for Surrey is set out in the annual programme of schemes in annex 4 and map 7.

Revenue funding: Area-based Grant Surrey County Council receives an Area Based Grant allocation to undertake lead local flood authority responsibilities. The amount allocated is based on the level of risk in the county. This grant is not ring-fenced so the lead local flood authority decides how to prioritise this funding in order to fulfil its statutory requirements.

In the financial year 2011-12 Surrey received £217,000. In 2012/ 13 this increased to £592,000. Substantial work is required by the lead local flood authority in 2012/ 13 to establish a SuDS Approving Body and implement its new regulatory role on ordinary watercourses.

5.2 Local funding

Maintenance budgets Surrey County Council’s Highways service receives an annual capital budget for work on the highways drainage network. Work is prioritised according to safety, internal property flooding, social impact and the duration of flood incidents.

Risk management authority priorities Risk management authorities can provide capital funding for local priorities. Woking Borough Council’s investment in the Hoe Valley Scheme is a recent example. This scheme delivers multiple benefits for the area, including taking homes out of the floodplain and providing a range of community facilities. Woking Borough Council has included income from the sale of new homes and other assets in the funding of this scheme.

Surrey district and boroughs also hold maintenance and/ or drainage budgets. In a number of areas district and borough councils offer to carry out maintenance activities for a charge in situations where landowners are not fulfilling obligations.

5.3 Additional funding sources

In light of national funding changes, the lead local flood authority and partners need to be aware of how additional resources could become available.

Public feedback from our survey to inform the strategy in annex 5, suggests that those who play a role in increasing flood risk should contribute to mitigation. There was strong support for considering developer contributions where appropriate.

50

The Community Infrastructure Levy The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is an important new funding source. It is intended to ensure that developers contribute to the cost of the infrastructure necessary to offset the impact of new development. Local planning authorities, which levy the charge, are required to focus CIL revenues on the provision of new infrastructure. It is not intended to remedy existing infrastructure deficiencies.

The Planning Act 2008 includes a wide definition of infrastructure. This definition includes flood defences. Development might have a negative impact on flood risk. The inclusion of flood risk management schemes in CIL schedules is being considered by a number of Surrey local planning authorities.

In Surrey it is expected that the annual amount raised will be in the region of £20 million (from 2014). The first local planning authority will start charging CIL in early 2013 and a number of local planning authorities will not start to operate CIL until after this date.

However, it is difficult to predict the amount of funding that will be raised for flood mitigation schemes. Some local planning authorities do not expect to raise money for flood risk management schemes through CIL because it is expected that on site mitigation will be sufficient to limit the impact of new development. Any spending on flood risk management schemes will have to compete with other diverse priorities, such as additional school places and highway schemes.

Section 106 funding (developer contributions) Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to request payments from developers (linked to specific developments) to contribute to the infrastructure required to make developments acceptable in planning terms.

Requesting local contributions Contributions from residents and/ or businesses who benefit from proposed flood risk mitigation schemes may be explored in specific cases.

Growing Places Fund The Government’s Growing Places Fund will provide £500 million to boost economic growth by addressing infrastructure constraints, providing jobs and building homes. The fund is administered by Local Enterprise Partnerships, in Surrey, Enterprise M3 and Coast to Capital. Flood defence schemes are eligible for this funding.

Catchment Restoration Fund New local projects to restore and protect the health of water catchments will be supported through Defra’s Catchment Restoration Fund. The fund will support work that aims to: • restore more natural features in and around waters • reduce the impact of man-made structures on wildlife in waters • reduce the impact of small, spread-out sources of pollution that arise from rural and urban land use.

The Environment Agency will administer the £28 million fund and money will be allocated to projects for delivery in 2012/ 13, 2013/ 14 and 2014/ 15.

We have made an expression of interest for a project in the Wey catchment.

Business Improvement Districts A Business Improvement District (BID) is a defined area within which businesses pay an additional business rate to fund broad improvements within the BID’s boundaries. In

51

Surrey a BID operates in Camberley town centre, with another BID under development in Guildford. BIDs might be able to fund small scale local schemes as long as they provide benefits to business in the BID area.

New Homes Bonus The New Homes Bonus provides funding for local authorities. It match funds the additional Council Tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. Surrey County Council received £1.8 million in 2012/ 13. The New Homes Bonus could potentially be used to fund local flood risk mitigation measures.

The Hoe Stream scheme was finished in March 2012. Source: Woking Borough Council

52

6. Sustainable development and environment

The strategy provides opportunities to improve some aspects of Surrey’s environment, and is expected to contribute towards the wider goal of sustainable development. The adoption of a holistic approach to flood risk management has the potential to enable communities to adapt to the possible implications of climate change, to enhance the natural environment, and in certain circumstances promote biodiversity.

6.1 How will the strategy make a contribution to sustainable development?

The Flood and Water Management Act requires risk management authorities to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in exercising their flood risk management functions.

Box 10: What is sustainable development? The most frequently quoted definition of the term ‘sustainable development’ is that derived by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 “...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

The UK Government has adopted the Brundtland definition and is committed to sustainable development. This means making decisions now to stimulate economic growth, maximise social well-being and to protect the environment, without negatively impacting the ability of future generations to do the same. The Government has identified a number of key themes for sustainable development, which include the development of a green economy, taking action to tackle climate change, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Defra guidance provides further information on applying the themes of sustainable development to flood risk management and how the concept could be reflected in decision-making9.

The strategy will contribute to sustainable development by seeking to protect current and future generations of Surrey residents from the risk of flooding. When making decisions on flood risk management options the safety and wellbeing of both current and future residents will be considered.

The implementation of the strategy, its objectives and actions, will have wider impacts beyond flood risk management. There is particular scope for schemes to provide multiple beneficial effects at the local and wider level in respect of the following issues:

Communities and the built environment Our more holistic and integrated approach to flood risk management should help communities mitigate against, and adapt to, the potential impacts of climate change. We will do this by improving community resilience to flood incidents and promoting and enabling greater use of flood management techniques. These techniques include sustainable drainage systems, in both new and existing development.

Water resources and quality The implementation of sustainable drainage systems has the potential to deliver positive impacts for the water environment, such as:

9 Defra, Guidance for risk management authorities on sustainable development in relation to their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, October 2011. 53

• improvements in water quality due to the retention of potentially polluting flood waters in attenuation ponds • incorporation of measures to treat water pollution in the design of drainage infrastructure, for example reed beds • provision of infrastructure to enable better water cycle management, such as the storage of retained flood waters for use in times of drought.

Climate change Our more holistic and integrated approach to flood risk management should help to mitigate and adapt to the potential impacts climate change. Climate change, which is predicted to exacerbate flood risk, is discussed in more detail in chapter 2.

6.2 The environmental impact of the strategy: strategic environmental assessment

Preparation of the strategy has been informed by strategic environmental assessment. The need for strategic environment assessment (SEA) derives from a European Union directive10, which requires that plans and programmes being prepared, adopted and implemented by public authorities in relation to a range of sectors, including water management, be informed by a systematic assessment of the likely significant impacts of the proposed plan or programme (and any reasonable alternatives) on the environment.

The key findings of the SEA process are set out in the Environmental Report for the strategy. This broadly outlines how we might expect the objectives and the identified capital works and schemes to affect a number of different aspects of the environment (referred to as ‘receptors’), including the: • production of emissions that affect air quality • use of energy resources and consequent effects on climate change • use of land, and effects on soil and mineral resources • use of material resources and generation of waste materials • water environment (including flood risk) • built environment • historic environment and archaeological heritage • natural environment and biodiversity • landscape and visual amenity • health, welfare and well-being of the human population. The Environmental Report is available to download on the Surrey County Council website.

6.3 The impact of the strategy on sites of European importance for nature conservation: Habitat Regulations Assessment

Before the strategy can be adopted and implemented it has to undergo an assessment in accordance with the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive11. In the UK, the Habitats Directive is implemented through the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010, more commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations. The Habitats Directive and the Regulations, in combination with the EU Birds Directive12, provide high-level legal protection to certain plants, animals and habitats across the EU. The directives have created a network of protected areas around the EU that are of European importance for either the habitats that they contain and/or the species of plants and animals that they support (designated under the Habitats Directive and known as Special Areas of

10 Directive 2001/42/EC 11 Directive 92/43/EEC 12 Directive 2009/147/EC and previously Directive 79/409/EEC 54

Conservation) or for the species of wild birds that they support (designated under the Birds Directive and known as Special Protection Areas).

As a matter of policy in the UK the level of protection afforded to Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation by the Habitat Regulations is also extended to areas designated for protection under the 1971 Ramsar Convention on internationally important wetlands (known as Ramsar Sites).

The Habitat Regulations Assessment for the strategy compiles the information that is required to determine whether the strategy as proposed is capable of passing the strict legal test required by the directive. The strategy may only proceed if it can be determined that its implementation will not adversely affect the integrity of the three Special Areas of Conservation, four Special Protection Areas and two Ramsar Sites that are partly or wholly located within Surrey.

6.4 The Water Framework Directive

The strategy will complement work that is currently underway to comply with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive13. The directive seeks to improve the management, protection and enhancement of the water environment.

The directive requires that each Member State be divided into river basin districts for the purposes of water management, split according to geographical and hydrological features. There are 11 river basin districts in England and Wales. The vast majority of Surrey is located within the Thames river basin district. The area surrounding the settlement of Ockley in the district of Mole Valley and the settlement of Chiddingford in the borough of Waverley are located within the South East river basin district.

The Environment Agency is responsible for preparing management plans for each of the river basin districts in England and Wales. Those plans must be prepared in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The plans outline the characteristics of the river basin district, identify the pressures that the local water environment faces, and specify the actions that will be taken to address any problems before 2015.

Each river basin management plan contains maps that give an overview of the ecological and chemical status of the water bodies, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters of the area concerned. For the Thames river basin, the density of the population together with relatively low rainfall means that the water environment is stressed, with less water per person than many Mediterranean regions. This leads to over-extraction, and the high risk of pollution.

Many of the rivers within the Thames river basin have been heavily modified as a consequence of development, flood risk management and for navigation. As a result only 23% of the assessed water bodies covered by the Thames River Basin Management Plan are regarded having an ecological status of at least “good”. There are no water bodies in the Thames river basin or in the South East river basin that were considered to exhibit “high” ecological status.

The actions identified in river basin management plans include promotion of land management best practice, close working with land managers and owners and targeted management of surface water systems to reduce contaminants. The Environment Agency works in partnership with others to deliver.

13 Directive 2000/60/EC 55

Flood risk management activities are expected to have a significant impact on the ability of the UK to comply with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, as flood protection can involve substantial alteration to the natural properties of a river. Both the Thames River Basin Management Plan and the South East River Basin Management Plan encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems as a means of reducing the physical impact of flood risk management works on the ecological status or potential of water bodies. The Surrey sustainable drainage systems design guidance will play an important role in contributing to the delivery of the Thames River Basin Management Plan. Increased communications with riparian owners and improved mapping of the county's drainage ditches will also contribute to the Water Framework Directive.

6.5 The environmental impacts of schemes: Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitat Regulations Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment The need for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of certain private and public projects derives from an EU Directive14. In the UK the requirements of the EIA Directive are implemented through a range of statutory instruments, the most commonly encountered of which is the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Flood risk management works may require EIA under either the Town & Country Planning regime, or under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Land Drainage Improvement Works) Regulations 1999 (as amended).

The potential for significant adverse impact on the environment will need to be considered in detail during the development of all flood risk management schemes. For each of the schemes identified in our annual action plan the lead organisation will be responsible for finding out whether a formal EIA is required under the planning or other relevant consenting regime. Where planning permission is required, a screening opinion will need to be requested from the relevant local planning authority under Regulation 5 of the EIA Regulations 2011.

Many capital drainage schemes associated with the maintenance of the highways network are likely to be carried out under permitted development rights. The EIA Regulations have the power to revoke permitted development rights in circumstances where a given scheme qualifies as ‘EIA development’. Before any works are carried out under permitted development rights, an EIA screening opinion should be sought from the relevant planning authority, to ascertain whether the proposed works constitute ‘EIA development’. Where the scheme is not EIA development the works can then proceed under permitted development rights. If the scheme is deemed to be EIA development a planning application will need to be made, accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Habitat Regulations Assessment The EU Habitats Directive applies at the project stage as well as the plan stage of the development process. Before a given scheme can be implemented, the consenting body is required to determine whether the proposals would adversely affect the integrity of any Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar Site. Where a scheme is considered to have the potential to adversely affect a European or internationally designated nature conservation site, the lead organisation will be asked to provide information to inform an assessment of the likely significant effects.

As is the case for the EIA Regulations, the Habitat Regulations also have the power to revoke permitted development right. For flood risk management schemes that are likely to be delivered under permitted development rights the lead organisation will need to obtain

14 Directive 85/337/EC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC et al. 56

Natural England’s view on the extent to which the proposals could place the integrity of a Special Protection Area, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar Site at risk of significant adverse impact.

Habitat creation In some cases flood risk management measures will also present opportunities to create new or improve habitats. Surrey has produced a Biodiversity Action Plan, which identifies targets for species and habitats within the county. Where appropriate, flood risk management measures will play a role in contributing to habitat creation targets in the following categories: 1. Floodplain Grazing Marsh 2. Urban – wildlife on your doorstep 3. Wetland – incorporating rivers and streams, fen, marsh, swamp and linear reed bed 4. Standing open water and reed beds. There is existing expertise within Surrey, meaning that wider biodiversity improvement opportunities can be identified.

Box 11: The Moors Project, Redhill The Moors Project is a £300,000 Biffaward (now Biffa Award) funded project, designed to enhance the moors area for wildlife, visual and informal access perspectives.

The project area lies to the east of Redhill, along Redhill Brook. It is designated a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The wider area has been extensively worked for minerals. Surrey County Council embarked on an environmental enhancement initiative, in partnership with the Environment Agency and the companies that operated in the area.

The Environment Agency constructed spillways and undertook channel enhancements. A series of six lined pools have been created across the site. These pools retain water for longer, and so enhance the wetland habitat.

In addition to restoring 21 acres of wetland habitat, we aim to meet the objectives of the Surrey Flood plain grazing marsh Habitat Action Plan (HAP). The project has also improved public access and visually enhanced the area. It has helped with localised flooding in a river catchment that responds rapidly to high rainfall.

57

7. Next steps

We will circulate the draft strategy widely to community groups, individuals and organisations with an interest in flood risk management. Public consultation ends on 30 November 2012. We will update the draft strategy in response to people’s comments. The strategy will become a statutory document, which Surrey’s local authorities, water companies and internal drainage board must have regard to.

We will publish a statement alongside the adopted strategy as required by Regulation 16 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans & Programmes Regulations 2004. In the statement we will explain the way in which we took account of consultation responses and the findings and recommendations set out in the Environmental Report.

The strategy will also need to reflect the sustainable drainage systems approving role, which at the time of writing was not commenced. The lead local flood authority is developing a working model with partners.

The board will produce an annual report detailing progress against objectives. This will reflect changes in flood risk management and recommend additions or changes to the strategy where necessary.

Ongoing overview and scrutiny is described in 1.9. The action plan will be refreshed annually.

The Surrey Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, which is a key evidence base for this strategy, will be reviewed in 2016. At this stage there will be a full review of the strategy. However, our knowledge and understanding on surface water and groundwater flood risk will improve significantly in the coming years. There must be opportunities to update the strategy as new information becomes available. For this reason the strategy should be viewed as a ‘living document’.

58

Annex 1: Glossary of terms

Term/ abbreviation Definition Aquifer An underground layer of water- bearing permeable material from which groundwater can be extracted. Attenuation The reduction in intensity and duration of water flow. Basin A normally dry depression designed to control water flow or undergo treatment of the water. Biodiversity The degree of variation of life. Canal An artificial water channel for transportation or water supply. Catchment An area contributing to surface water flow to a certain point in a drain or river. Chalk strata A layer of chalk in the ground. Channel The physical confine of a watercourse. Culvert Channel to transport water underneath artificial construction - such as a road, railway or embankment. Defence (flood) A structure designed to reduce flood risk and/ or impact. Defra The Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DG5 register A log of sewer related floods. Discharge The rate of water flow. Discharge (groundwater) The rate of groundwater flow through an aquifer. District and borough council The middle tier of local government, an elected administrative body. In Surrey there are 11 district and borough councils: Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead, Runnymede, Tandridge, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking. Ditch A small to moderate artificial depression to transport water. Drain Or drainage well, is a system to collect excess surface water and groundwater in urban areas. FMfSW A Flood Map for Surface Water Deep = 0.3m deep flooding Shallow = 0.1m deep flooding.

59

Flood board A flood defence measure that physically obstructs a doorway to stop water entering a building. Floodplain The land adjacent to a watercourse that would be subjected to repeated flooding in natural conditions. Fluvial Something associated with rivers and streams. Gate (Flood) A gate used to control water flow. GIS Geographic Information Systems. Grating Or grate, usually a collection of iron bars on an iron frame acting as filters over drains to block large objects such as leaves. Green roof A roof with vegetation on its surface, contributing to local biodiversity. A green roof provides a level of retention, attenuation and treatment of rainwater. Groundwater The water below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil. Gully A large ditch or small valley, created by running water eroding sharply into soil. Can also be used to describe a street gutter or drain. Gutter (street) A depression running along a road, designed to collect surface water flowing along the street to divert it into a drain. Infiltration The passage of surface water into the ground. Impermeable Something that will not let water pass through. Local flood risk The flood risk from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Main river Watercourses shown on the statutory main river map (held by the Environment Agency and Defra). Manhole An access point for performing maintenance to a buried public utility. Ordinary watercourses Any watercourse (including ditches and streams) that is not identified as main rivers on the Defra register.

A watercourse that does not form part of a main river. For the purposes of the strategy it includes lakes, ponds

60

or other areas of water that flow into an ordinary watercourse. Permeable Something that will let water through. Pond A basin that is permanently wet, designed to retain storm water, permit settlement of undissolved particles and treatment of the water. Retention The regulation of water flow by detaining. Reservoir Artificial body of water as a result of the construction of a dam. Risk management authorities These are outlined in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (section 6 (6)) as: a) the Environment Agency b) a lead local flood authority c) a district council for an area for which there is no unitary authority d) an internal drainage board e) a water company f) a highway authority. Riparian owner A landowner whose land lies on, or adjacent to the boundaries of, any watercourse. Runoff Above ground water flow that is not in a watercourse. Occurs when ground is impermeable, saturated or the rainfall is intense. Sewer Pipe or channel to transport domestic foul and/ or surface water from buildings and urban areas.

A separate sewer will be one or the other only; a combined sewer will be both. Sluice A water channel controlled by a gate. Sluice gate Water flow control gate that operates by allowing water to flow underneath it. Soakaway Underground structure where collected surface water is held to allow it to pass into the ground over time. Surface water flooding Rainwater or other precipitation on the surface of the ground that has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer.

61

Sustainable A way to describe something that will not restrict the ability of others, now or in the future. Will also stimulate economic growth, maximize well- being and protect the environment, while not impacting future generations to do the same. Swale A shallow vegetated channel designed to direct and retain water, while also permitting infiltration and with the vegetation providing filtration. Treatment To improving the quality of water through physical, chemical or biological means. Watercourse Includes all rivers, streams, ditches, drains, cuts, culverts – any passage where water flows. Wetspot The term used by the lead local flood authority to describe the location of a flood incident that has been reported.

62

Annex 2: Technical annex

Table 3: Communities at risk of fluvial flooding - National Flood Risk Assessment Data Properties with a significant likelihood of flooding Location Local Authority Egham and Staines- Runnymede/ Spelthorne upon-Thames Over 500 Chertsey Runnymede North and East Molesey Elmbridge Hamm Island Spelthorne Shepperton Spelthorne Between 201 and 500 Guildford Guildford Thames Meadow Spelthorne Addlestone Runnymede Horley Reigate & Banstead Farnham Waverley Byfleet Woking Godalming Waverley Between 101 and 200 Hookwood Mole Valley Weybridge Elmbridge Woking Woking Earlswood Brook Reigate & Banstead Frimley Surrey Heath Thorpe Runnymede Wey Meadows Runnymede Rive Ditch Runnymede Stanwell Moor Spelthorne Between 50 and 100 Fairmile Ditch Elmbridge Leatherhead Mole Valley Pipp Brook Mole Valley Rythe Elmbridge Cranleigh Waverley Source: Environment Agency

Note: The communities have been ranked according to the numbers of properties at significant risk of flooding.

63

Table 4: Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan - Policy unit areas Sub – area Policy unit areas CFMP Policy Built up areas category covered in Surrey (districts affected) Sub area 1: Towns Addlestone Bourne Policy Option 6. and villages in open Areas of low and floodplain (North moderate flood risk and West) where the Environment Agency will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. Sub area 3: Towns Rural Wey Policy Option 2. Godalming, Shalford, and villages in open Areas of low to Bramley, Cranleigh, floodplain (South) moderate flood risk Milford, Farnham where we can generally reduce existing flood risk management actions. Sub area 4: Chalk Middle Mole Policy option 3. Areas Dorking, and downland of low to moderate Leatherhead, catchments flood risk the Reigate, Cobham Environment Agency considers are generally being managed effectively. Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level. Sub area 5: Hogsmill, Upper Policy Option 6. Horley, Redhill, Urbanised places Mole Areas of low and Merstham with some flood moderate flood risk Horley North West defences where the and Horley North Environment Agency East will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. Sub area 6: Places Lower Mole Policy option 3. Areas Walton on Thames, with significant flood of low to moderate Molesey defences flood risk the Environment Agency considers are

64

generally being managed effectively. Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level. Sub area 7: Upper and Middle Policy option 4. Areas Upper and Middle Expanding towns in Blackwater Valley of low, moderate or Blackwater floodplain location. high flood risk where Farnborough, the Environment Aldershot, Frimley, Agency feels it is Camberley already managed effectively but where future actions may be needed to keep pace with climate change. Sub area 8: Heavily Byfleet and Policy option 5. Areas Staines-upon- populated Weybridge, of moderate to high Thames, Ashford, floodplain. Guildford, Hoe flood risk where the Chertsey, Stream, Lower Environment Agency Sunbury, Egham. Thames can generally take Woking, Guildford, further action to Byfleet and reduce flood risk. Weybridge, Molesey

Source: Thames Catchment Flood Risk Management Plan

Table 5: Historic flooding incidents Date Impact summary Autumn 1 in 300 year storm. 500+ properties flooded, 260 residents evacuated. 2000 Flooding closed M25.

Flooding was most extensive in districts of Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Tandridge and areas of Elmbridge. Winter River flooding in Runnymede and Spelthorne during December 2002. Worst 2002-3 of the flooding occurred due to the Bourne overflowing causing flooding to Chertsey and Egham. The rivers Thames and Wey also burst their banks causing flooding along many parts of the Thames.

Summer Two months of rainfall (85mm) fell in the space of six hours over north west 2006 Surrey. This localised storm caused flash flooding in Aldershot, Ash, Ash Vale, Windlesham, Lightwater, Chobam, West End and Addlestone.

July 2007 Rainfall in July: actual (percentage of usual) Byfleet = 141 mm (255%) Guildford = 151.6mm (342%) Chobham was again impacted. Many towns across the west of the county suffered disruption to the transport system.

Source: Surrey Local Climate Impacts Profile, Surrey County Council 2009

65

Table 6: Current and potential future flood zones in Surrey’s main urban centres Main Urban Current Flood Potential Future Thames CFMP Centres Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Policy unit Staines-upon- Limited Extensive Lower Thames Thames and Egham Chertsey Extensive Extensive Ashford and Sunbury Limited Partial Byfleet Partial Extensive Byfleet and Weybridge Walton on Thames Limited Extensive Lower Mole and Molesey

Horley Partial Partial but likely to Upper Mole extend Dorking Limited Limited, but will Middle Mole extend Leatherhead and Limited Limited, but will Cobham extend

Aldershot and Limited Extensive Upper and Middle Farnborough (both Blackwater partially in Surrey)

Frimley Limited Extensive Camberley Limited Extensive

Source: Potential Future Effects of Climate Change, Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Study Final report 1B: Infrastructure baseline and future needs analysis.

66

Table 7: Water Framework Directive - ecological status or ecological potential !

Sub-catchment and Ecological Potential or Waterbodies in Surrey or with catchments that partially fall within Surrey Ecological Status Thames River Basin Management Plan Moderate Rivers: (1) Colne Brook (from confluence with Horton Brook to Thames); (2) Colne & GUC (from confluence with Chess Colne to Ash); (3) Colne Brook (from confluence with Alderbourne to confluence with Horton Brook) Poor Lakes: (1) Wraysbury Reservoir Darent Poor Rivers: (1) Upper Darent Good Lakes: (1) Mytchett Lake (1) Fleet Brook; (2) Cove Brook; (3) Blackwater (Aldershot to Cove Brook confluence at Hawley); (4) Blackwater Loddon Moderate Rivers: (Hawley to Whitewater confluence at Bramshill) Poor Rivers: (1) Hart (Crondall to Elvetham) Good Lakes: (1) Epsom Stew Pond Moderate Rivers: (1) Hogsmill London Rivers: (1) Ravensbourne (Keston to Catford); (2) Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) & Pyl Brook at West Poor Barnes; (3) Wandle (Carshalton branch at Carshalton); (4) Wandle (Croydon to Wandsworth) and the River Graveney Moderate Rivers: (1) Upper Eden (South); (2) Gibbs Brook; (3) Tributary of Edenbrook (West); (4) Eden Brook Lakes: (1) Bay Pond; (2) Hedgecourt Lake Medway Rivers: Eden Brook east of Lingfield (NM); Tributary of Eden Brook (East) (NM); Upper Eden (North) (NM); Eden at Poor Bough Beech (HM) Rivers: (1) Downside Ditches and Bookham Brook Good Lakes: (1) Island Barn Reservoir; (2) Black Pond Rivers: (1) Tilgate Brook, Gatwick Stream and Crawters Brook at Crawley; (2) Mole at Gatwick Airport; (3) Salfords Moderate Mole Stream (Redhill Brook confluence upstream); (4) Pipp Brook; (5) Rythe; (6) Man's Brook (Charlwood to Gatwick Airport); (7) Deanoak Brook; (8) Mole (Hersham to River Thames confluence at East Molesey) Rivers: (1) Baldholms Brook; (2) Salfords Stream (Salfords to River Mole confluence); (3) Tanners Brook (Holmewood to Poor R. Mole confluence at Brockham); (4) Redhill Brook; (5) The Rye at Ashtead; (6) Leigh Brook; (7) Mole (Horley to Hersham) 67

Bad Rivers: (1) Burstow Stream Good Lakes: (1) Bessborough Reservoir; (2) Knight Reservoir Thames: (1) Port Lane Brook; (2) Thames (Cookham to Egham); (3) Ash and Stanwell Brook Maiden- Moderate Rivers: (1) Queen Elizabeth 2 Storage Reservoir; (2) King George VI Reservoir; (3) Staines Reservoirs (North) head to Lakes: Rivers: (1) Thames (Egham to Teddington Sunbury Poor Lakes: (1) Staines Reservoirs (South); (2) Queen Mary Reservoir Rivers: (1) Chertsey Bourne (Sunningdale to Virginia Water); (2) Chertsey Bourne (Virginia Water to Chertsey); (3) Ock Good Lakes: (1) The Tarn; (2) Manor, Fleet, Abbey and St Ann's Lakes at Thorpe Park; (3) Boldermere Rivers: (1) Addlestone Bourne (West End to Hale/Mill Bourne confluence at Mimbridge); (2) Addlestone Bourne (Mill/ Hale to Chertsey Bourne); (3) Chertey Bourne (Ascot to Virginia Water); (4) Chertsey Bourne (Chertsey to River Thames confluence); (5) Clasford Brook and Wood Street Brook; (6) East Clandon Stream; (7) Guileshill Brook; (8) Hale/ Mill Moderate Bourne (Bagshot to Addlestone Bourne confluence near Chobham); (9) Hoe Stream (Normandy to Pirbright); (10) North Wey (Alton to Tilford); (11) Royal Brook; (12) Slea (Kingsley to Sleaford); (13) Stratford Brook; (14) The Moat at Egham; Wey (15) Tillingbourne; (16) Truxford Brook; (17) Wey Navigation (Pyrford Reach); (18) Wey (Shalford to River Thames confluence at Weybridge) Lakes: (1) Frensham Little Pond; (2) Virginia Water; (3) Whitmoor Common Pond Rivers: (1) Wey (Tilford to Shalford); (2) Hoe Stream (Pirbright to River Wey confluence at Woking); (3) South Wey Poor (Haslemere to Bordon); (4) South Wey (R. Slea confluence to Tilford) Lakes: (1) Frensham Great Pond Bad Rivers: (1) Cranleigh Waters Canals Moderate (1) Wey & Arun Canal; (2) Basingstoke Canal Surface (1) From King George VI Reservoir (surface water transfer linked to GB806100096); (2) From King George VI Reservoir Water Good (surface water transfer); (3) Surface water transfer north of Stanwell and south of Heathrow Cargo Terminal; (4) Thursley/ Transfers Forked Pond (surface water transfer) South East River Basin Management Plan Good Lakes: (1) Vann Lake Arun & (1) Boldings Brook; (2) Loxwood/ Chiddingfold Tributary; (3) Loxwood Stream; (4) Loxwood Stream - Hambledon Western Moderate Rivers: Tributary; (5); North River; (6) Boldings Brook; (7) R. Arun (upstream of Pallingham) Streams Poor Rivers: (1) River Kird Source: Surrey County Council, summary table of information produced for the strategy 2012 (unpublished)

•

68

Annex 3: Action plan

Objective Actions Lead organisation Timescales 1. To make it The partnership board will continue to meet regularly to enable collaboration Lead local flood Quarterly easier for risk across risk management authorities. Its work plan will be publicised and when authority (LLFA) and management required sub-groups will be formed to lead on particular tasks. partnership board authorities to work together The lead local flood authority will lead on ensuring there are regular meetings LLFA Twice a year of all Surrey risk management authorities. Meetings may include provision of training as required.

Work will continue on GIS mapping of key data, which will be made LLFA Priority action accessible to all risk management authorities. Early priorities include the 2012/ 13 flooding asset risk register.

Existing information on flood risk will be compiled on Surrey-i to ensure ease LLFA Priority action of access for risk management authorities. 2012/ 13

Surrey risk management authorities will work towards agreeing a data sharing All risk management Priority action standard ensuring information is available in consistent formats. This includes authorities 2012/ 13 GIS information.

The lead local flood authority and boroughs and district councils will share LLFA and district and Priority action their respective approaches to investigation of flood incidents and designating borough councils 2012/ 13 structures. The minimum information, required to be shared amongst partners, will be agreed.

The lead local flood authority will develop training for planning authorities on LLFA Priority action sustainable drainage systems, the consenting role and other required topics. 2012/ 13 Production of maps indicating the suitability of locations for appropriate Longer term sustainable drainage systems across the county. 2013/ 16

Ensure that existing surface water and groundwater flood risk data is Sustainable drainage Priority action available for updates to district and borough strategic flood risk assessments systems approving 2012/ 13 69

Objective Actions Lead organisation Timescales and to improve the consideration of local flood risk issues in site allocation body (SAB) and LLFA decisions and individual planning permissions.

Work to achieve greater involvement of water companies with the planning District and borough Priority action process. councils, county 2012/ 13 planning authority and water companies 2. To clarify roles The lead local flood authority will undertake general communication activities LLFA and partnership Priority action and responsibilities on the roles and responsibilities of risk management authorities, landowners board 2012/ 13 of all stakeholders and riparian owners. This includes production and targeted promotion of a Surrey riparian owners leaflet based on the Environment Agency template and developed in partnership.

Work is currently underway to identify land ownership of ditches adjacent to LLFA and other risk Longer term the highway. This is a complex task. In areas of the county this is being management 2013/ 16 carried out in collaboration with other risk management authorities and authorities communities. Over time this work will be extended to cover non-highway ditches in known flood risk areas.

Work is needed to ensure consistency of approach during a flood incident. LLFA and other risk Priority action The initial priority is the experience of callers reporting issues to risk management 2012/ 13 management authorities and to ensure information gets to the appropriate authorities authority.

3. To provide a We will identify all the ordinary watercourses and designate the high-risk LLFA and district and Longer term clear overview of ordinary watercourses throughout the county. This will inform the lead local borough councils 2013/ 16 levels of risk flood authority consenting role, the flooding asset register and maintenance throughout the regimes. county, to enable wider We will continue to improve our understanding of surface water flood risk LLFA lead Ongoing understanding of through a programme of surface water management plans. The nature of those risks these studies will vary based on the level of risk. The action plans produced will identify potential schemes to reduce surface water flood risk.

70

Objective Actions Lead organisation Timescales Findings of surface water management plans will be promoted to local LLFA and district and Ongoing communities to involve them in the process of identifying solutions. borough councils

Closer working between communities and maintenance teams will be LLFA lead Ongoing encouraged in order to collect local knowledge on issues such as land ownership and maintenance.

The lead local flood authority will seek to increase knowledge on groundwater LLFA Priority action flooding. Early actions include the purchase of British Geological Survey 2012/ 13 groundwater emergence data to supplement existing data.

The lead local flood authority will continue to highlight the importance of LLFA Ongoing residents and businesses reporting flood incidents in order to help build up knowledge. This will include promotion of schemes such as the online reporting form for past incidents.

To develop a strategic overview, the partnership board will receive regular Partnership board Ongoing updates on the flooding asset risk register, designated structures and investigation reports.

4. To consider The partnership board will consider issues at a catchment level, informed by Partnership board Priority action flooding issues at a multi-agency data. Areas where multiple risk categories coincide will be 2012/ 13 catchment level identified and investigated further if required.

The partnership board will encourage the development of bids for funding that Partnership board Priority action consider cross border issues. and risk management 2012/ 13 authorities

Where appropriate, joint updates of strategic flood risk assessments will be District and borough Ongoing considered. councils

71

Objective Actions Lead organisation Timescales 5. To reflect and Communication activities will focus on areas where residents and businesses All risk management Priority action action concerns of have highlighted they need further information. This includes increased authorities 2012/ 13 residents and promotion of the work that is carried out to address flooding within the county businesses and information on how maintenance work is prioritised.

Better use will be made of the Surrey wetspot database to inform the LLFA Priority action soakaway-cleaning regime. 2012/ 13

Local authorities, through the partnership board, will explore greater LLFA and district and Longer term coordination of operations when works require traffic management. This could borough councils 2013/ 16 mean combining drain clearance with other works.

Findings from surface water management plans will be reported to LLFA Priority action maintenance regimes. 2012/ 13

A more targeted approach to gully clearing is being used, which is based on LLFA Priority action silt levels. 2012/ 13

District and borough councils are exploring additional maintenance District and borough Priority action approaches. This includes community payback and community maintenance councils 2012/ 13 days.

In partnership, we will develop a Surrey sustainable drainage systems LLFA with county Preparatory approving body which is fully integrated with the local planning system. planning authority, work in 2012 for and district and when relevant borough council input legislation is commenced

Production of local sustainable drainage systems design and adoption Sustainable drainage Preparatory guidance. systems approving work in 2012 for body (SAB) when relevant legislation is commenced

72

Objective Actions Lead organisation Timescales 6. To provide a The forward programme of surface water management plans will be based on LLFA and other risk Ongoing robust approach to the Surrey clusters of surface water flood risk from the Surrey Preliminary management the prioritisation of Flood Risk Assessment. This list will be prioritised by cross-referencing these authorities spending on areas with local knowledge on observed flooding incidents to identify areas of schemes intended greatest need. Sewage flooding data will also inform this prioritisation. to reduce flood risk Smaller scale surface water investigations will be carried out in smaller LLFA and partnership Priority action communities that have experienced surface water flooding incidents. The board 2012/ 13 partnership board will prioritise these studies. The Surrey wetspot database is being revised to include frequency of flooding in its prioritisation methodology.

Through the partnership board additional support and training will be provided LLFA Priority action to district and borough councils on the national funding process. 2012/ 13

The partnership board will support production of an annual programme of Partnership board Priority action bids for Defra funding. This will take into account the holistic picture of risk 2012/ 13 countywide.

The partnership board will develop a good understanding of the areas within All risk management Ongoing Surrey that have highest eligibility for national funding. authorities through partnership board

Risk management authorities recognise that at a local level, smaller scale Partnership board Priority action solutions are often more fundable. Enabling cost effective works such as 2012/ 13 property level protection will also be a priority.

Risk management authorities will explore relevant sources of additional All risk management Ongoing funding. This includes developer contributions and growth point funding. authorities

Work is required to explore the potential for contributions from business in All risk management Longer term areas that would benefit from works. authorities 2013/ 16

Where appropriate, flood risk management measures will be included in District and borough Ongoing

73

Objective Actions Lead organisation Timescales infrastructure delivery plans in order to be eligible for Community councils Infrastructure Levy funding.

7. To highlight how The lead local flood authority will lead on communications activities to raise LLFA and district and Priority action residents and awareness of surface water flood risk. This will include practical promotion of borough councils 2012/ 13 businesses can activities residents and businesses can undertake such as rainwater help manage risk harvesting. Also to communicate the approaches used by successful community groups.

Local authorities will seek to facilitate the formation of groups where LLFA, Environment Priority action appropriate. This includes providing groups with information, maps and Agency and district 2012/ 13 encouraging them to work collaboratively with maintenance teams. and borough councils

We will continue raising awareness in areas at highest risk of fluvial flooding. Environment Agency, Ongoing This includes promotion of flood warnings, flood plans and property level LLFA, district and protection. This will need to take account of the need of diverse communities. borough councils

Community flood and emergency plan workshop to provide practical advice Environment Agency, Priority action on producing, maintaining and testing flooding and community emergency Local Resilience 2012/ 13 plans. To take place in Addlestone on 24 November 2012. Partnership

Test exercises for residents to deploy their individual property protection Environment Agency Priority action products installed as part of the Lower Thames Strategy. 2012/ 13

8. To ensure The SEA process for the annual action plan will provide a clear account of the LLFA and Priority action environmental environmental risks and opportunities for environmental gain that are Environment Agency 2012/ 13 conseq-uences are associated with options being considered. taken into account in the design & Where flood risk management schemes listed in the annual action plan would LLFA and Priority action implementation of require planning permission (either alone or as part of a wider development Environment Agency 2012/ 13 any proposed flood proposal) the need for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and/ or risk management Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) will be established early in the measures development of the scheme.

74

Annex 4: Annual programme of schemes 2012/ 13

Scheme Lead risk management authority Funding source

Capital drainage schemes 2012/ 13 (remaining programme at September 2012) Woodbridge Road A25, Stoughton Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Park Road, Banstead Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Guildford Rd, Abinger Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

South Road, Egham Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Outwood Lane, Chipstead Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Guildford Road, Ottershaw Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Hanover Close, Englefield Green, Egham Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Bond Street, Egham Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Trumpsgreen Road (corner with Oak Tree Close), Virginia Water Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

A22 Caterham by-pass Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

75

Investigations for 2012/ 13: Deepdene Roundabout, Deepdene Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Buckles Gap Roundabout/ Burgh Heath Road, Epsom Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Anstie Lane, Coldharbour Surrey County Council SCC Capital Drainage Schemes

Environment Agency schemes River Wey Weir Refurbishment Surrey County Council FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 Upper Mole Flood Alleviation Scheme. Works in West Sussex Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 include work at Clays Lake south of Crawley to replace existing dam with new embankment dam and work at Worth Farm to the east of Crawley to build a new embankment dam in agricultural land River Wey Weir Refurbishment Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 River Wey Gate Motorisation Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 Stanwell Moor Candidate Assessment Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 Penton Hook Restoration. This includes excavation of the Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 previously deposited material to free up some space for new deposits. Creation of reedbad habitat Burstow Stream modelling Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 Dead River Survey and Modelling Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 Kinnersley Manor, Reigate Gauging Station improvement Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 Thames Weirs High Priority Programme Package 1. Includes Environment Agency FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 replacement of Molesey weir structure summer 2012 and summer 2013 Rive Ditch Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey County Council FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 and Local Levy Lyne and Chilsey Green flood risk reduction scheme Runnymede Borough Council, FDGiA funding 2012/ 13 and Local Environment Agency Levy

76

Lower Thames Strategy (to be confirmed) Lower Thames Flood Environment Agency Local Levy 2012/ 13 Alleviation Scheme - Individual Property Protection Lower Thames Strategy - Flood alleviation scheme engineering Environment Agency Local Levy 2012/ 13 component Lightwater surface water flood relief study Surrey Heath Borough Council Local Levy 2012/ 13 Mill Lane, Pirbright, Flood Protection Guildford Borough Council Local Levy 2012/ 13 Stew pond restoration and flood alleviation scheme Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Local Levy 2012/ 13 Bishop Meadow, Farnham Environment Agency Local Levy 2012/ 13 Kingswood Lane, Hamsey Green (to be confirmed) Tandridge District Council Local Levy 2012/ 13 Cranleigh watercourses Environment Agency Local Levy 2012/ 13

77

Annex 5: Public feedback from a survey to inform the strategy

The risk management authorities within Surrey already collect a range of information from residents and businesses through the reporting of flood incidents and involvement with community flood groups. This reporting is very important as information on the frequency of flood incidents helps prioritise works.

To produce this strategy and to develop actions we wanted to understand the key concerns locally. During January - March 2012, residents and businesses were asked to complete a short questionnaire on flood risk management in Surrey. The survey was available online and also in a leaflet format. Surveys were sent to business networks, residents associations, community flood groups and parish councils’ network. The survey was also highlighted in Surrey Matters, the County Council quarterly magazine sent to every household in Surrey.

We asked questions around: • people's experience of flooding in the county • experience of obtaining insurance • key local concerns • attitudes to the funding of flood risk management work • what they felt risk management authorities should be making a priority • what role that residents and businesses should play in reducing risk.

Who responded? 257 responses were received of which 84% were from residents and 14% represented a community group or a parish council.

Responses were received from all district and borough councils in Surrey, with the highest number of responses from Elmbridge and Guildford. 64% of respondents reported that they had personally experienced flooding in the last 10 years.

Over 77% of those that had experienced flooding stated that it related to flooding that had made local roads impassable with the flooding of gardens or driveways also experienced by over half. In total 25 people reported flooding of their own home. This was spread throughout the county and due to a mix of fluvial and surface water flooding.

2007 was a particularly significant year for flood incidents, corresponding with data held on historic flooding. However, many people also reported the same problems occurring year on year.

Insurance 40 respondents had experienced problems obtaining building insurance in recent years. This problem is therefore not limited to those that have already experienced property flooding and it highlights the potential for future problems due to uncertainty around the agreement between the Government and the insurance industry. Problems have also been encountered by those that have experienced surface water flooding.

Priorities Respondents voiced concerns relating to both surface water flooding and fluvial flooding, demonstrating that both issues are a high priority within the county. For those expressing specific concerns around surface water flooding, over half felt that the highest priority action for risk management authorities should be on improving maintenance, in most cases highway drainage maintenance. Many respondents think that regular maintenance of the local drainage system would be enough to reduce flood risk considerably.

78

Some specific suggestions included: • Better targeting of maintenance in known hotspot area • Better maintenance of drainage infrastructure • Better partnerships with local farmers, parish councils, residents on ditch clearance • Different approaches to maintenance such as community payback.

Of those expressing concern specifically about fluvial flood risk, the majority felt that reducing development in areas at risk of flooding or ensuring development does not add to flood risk, needs to be the key priority. There is a widespread perception of inappropriate building on the floodplain and a view that developers are not made to take requirements relating to flood risk mitigation seriously. Respondents also thought that capacity issues on the sewage network are not adequately taken into account in the planning process.

For both groups these priorities were closely followed by the need for action in areas that have already experienced flooding, rather than a focus on modelled risk. The majority of people felt that the building of new flood defences couldn't be a priority due to financial limitations or the fact that other work, such as improved maintenance, could make a real difference.

Most respondents feel that a key priority should be ensuring that any risk to critical facilities such as hospitals is minimised.

What additional information is needed? Of those already receiving information, the majority is from the Environment Agency in relation to fluvial flood risk. This includes the Floodline warning service. Those that have experienced flooding requested much better information on work that is underway to reduce flood risk throughout the county. This needs to include explanations as to how work is prioritised by risk management authorities. Another request was for improved communication around what risk is and which areas are therefore felt to be priorities.

There was also some interest in information on community flood plans and measures householders can use to improve their own resilience. The need for locally specific information was also suggested.

General feedback highlighted some inadequacies in the way that risk management authorities deal with queries, often involving respondents being passed from agency to agency.

Role of residents and businesses A number of respondents suggested that residents and businesses can play a more active role. This included more recording and reporting of local information to authorities and work activities where a degree of community coordination is needed.

Those that have experienced flooding generally felt that many of the activities suggested were actions that they should be taking. This included signing up for any available warning systems, preparing a flood plan or installing flood protection.

Funding There was a strong view that those that play a role in increasing flood risk should contribute to mitigation. Consequently 83% of respondents considered that developers should contribute to mitigation measures where appropriate. Other options had a much more mixed response, with requesting contributions from the residents likely to benefit from measures being viewed as inappropriate by just under half

79 the respondents. The proportion of people viewing it as inappropriate was highest amongst those that had experienced flooding, although not dismissed by all.

There was too low a response from businesses to gauge reaction to the idea of voluntary contributions from business beneficiaries.

A general point was that it is inappropriate to consider requesting voluntary contributions in relation to surface water flooding mitigation measures when maintenance is felt to be such a contributory factor.

What are we doing about your concerns? Any information that has been provided on specific locations that have experienced flooding has been added to our database of flood incidents, which is used to improve knowledge of known issues throughout the county.

A number of respondents felt that local government is not currently fulfilling its role regarding flooding. The actions in annex 3 show how we are starting to address your key concerns below in the coming year:

• There needs to be a greater emphasis on maintenance of highway drainage systems • Developers need to be made to put more effort into flood risk mitigation • You don’t know enough about work that is being carried out in Surrey to reduce flood risk • Areas that have already experienced flooding must not be forgotten when identifying works that are needed • There is a role for greater community involvement.

In relation to development, the new National Planning Policy Framework and the accompanying Technical Guidance continues to require that development is directed away from areas at highest risk of flooding. Through the requirement for sustainable drainage systems, it is the intention that no new development will add to flood risk in Surrey.

80

Annex 6: Contact details

Surrey County Council Telephone: Contact Centre 03456 009 009 Email: Contact Centre [email protected] Web: www.surreycc.gov.uk

The Environment Agency Telephone: Incident Hotline 0800 807060 Floodline Warnings Direct 0845 988 1188 General Enquiries 03708 506 506 Email: General Enquiries [email protected] Web: www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Thames Water Telephone: Leakline 0800 820 999 Non-bill enquiries/ Emergency 0845 9200 800 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.thameswater.co.uk

Southern Water Telephone: Leakline 0800 820 999 Technical enquiries/ Emergency 0845 278 0845 Email: Customer Services [email protected]. Web: www.southernwater.co.uk

The Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board Telephone: Customer Services 01622 758345 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.medwayidb.co.uk

Elmbridge Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01372 474474 Email: Environmental Care [email protected] Web: www.elmbridge.gov.uk

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Telephone: Contact Centre 01372 732000 Email: Contact Centre [email protected] Web: www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk

Guildford Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01483 505050 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.guildford.gov.uk

Mole Valley District Council Telephone: Customer Services 01306 885001

81

Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.molevalley.gov.uk

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01737 276000 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk

Runnymede Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01932 838383 Email: Technical Services [email protected] Web: www.runnymede.gov.uk

Spelthorne Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01784 451499 Email: Environment Services [email protected] Planning Services [email protected] Web: www.spelthorne.gov.uk

Surrey Heath Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01276 707100 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.surreyheath.gov.uk

Tandridge District Council Telephone: Customer Services 01883 722000 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.tandridge.gov.uk

Waverley Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01483 523333 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.waverley.gov.uk

Woking Borough Council Telephone: Customer Services 01483 755855 Email: Customer Services [email protected] Web: www.woking.gov.uk

82

If you would like this information in large print, Braille, on tape or in another language please contact us on:

Tel: 03456 009 009 Minicom: 020 8541 9698 Fax: 020 8541 9575 Email: contact.centre @surreycc.gov.uk