Essex Flood Partnership Board
Committee Room 1, Thursday, 13 09:30 County Hall, October 2016 Chelmsford, Essex
Membership
Cllr Simon Walsh Essex County Council
Cllr Mick Page Essex County Council Cllr Kay Twitchen Essex County Council Anna Hook Essex County Council John Meehan Essex County Council Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Peter Massie Essex County Council Graham Verrier Environment Agency Viv Stewart Environment Agency Graeme Kasselman. Thames Water Jonathan Glerum Anglian Water Dave Bill Essex County Fire and Rescue Service Cllr Richard Moore Basildon Borough Council Cllr Wendy Schmitt Braintree District Council Cllr Tony Sleep Brentwood Borough Council Cllr Ray Howard Castle Point Borough Council/ECC Cllr Neil Gulliver Chelmsford City Council Cllr Mark Cory Colchester Borough Council Cllr Will Breare-Hall Epping Forest District Council Cllr Danny Purton Harlow District Council Cllr Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Cllr Dave Sperring Rochford District Council Cllr Nick Turner Tendring District Council Cllr Martin Terry Southend on Sea Borough Council Cllr Gerrard Rice Thurrock Council
Cllr Susan Barker Uttlesford District Council
For information about the meeting please ask for:
Page 1 of 44 Lisa Siggins 03330134594 / [email protected]
Page 2 of 44 Essex County Council and Committees Information
This meeting is not open to the public and the press, although the agenda is available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Page 3 of 44 Pages
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Minutes 7 - 14 To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 th June 2016
3 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct
4 Highways Update To welcome Peter Massie, Head of Commissioning Essex Highways. Peter will give a verbal update regarding two of their latest investment projects
• Enforcement Pilot • Targeted Gully Cleansing
5 Outline Business Case for 2017/18 Capital Programme 15 - 22 To receive a report (EFPB/16/16) from John Meehan, Acting Head of Environment and Flooding on the approval and feedback of the Outline Business Case for capital spend in 2017/18.
6 Essex Capital Flood Programme Update 2016/17 23 - 28 To receive a report (EFPB/17/16) from Dave Chapman, Delivery and Enforcement Manager on the programme of works and ongoing progress in 2016/17.
7 Community Flood Improvement Fund (CFIF) 29 - 38 To receive a report (EFPB/18/16) and presentation from Dipo Lafinhan, Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator regarding application details and prioritisation of the CFIF 2016/17 fund to date.
8 FCERM Capital Investment Process & Opportunities 39 - 44 To receive a report (EFPB/19/16) and presentation from Graham Verrier, Environment Agency Area Flood Risk Manager regarding the process and opportunities for local authorities to apply for Environment Agency funding.
Page 4 of 44 9 Flood Communications To receive a verbal update from Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager, regarding a recent wraparound newspaper and residents flood survey on Canvey Island.
10 SWMPs – Loughton Launch - Tier 1 areas now complete To receive a verbal update from Epping Forest District Council regarding their experience of the Loughton SWMP project and an overview of the Teir 1 priority area competition by Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager.
11 Any Other Business
12 Date of Next Meeting To note that meetings in 2016/17 will be held as follows:
Thursday 19 January 2017 at 9.30am County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 6 April 2017 at 9.30am County Hall Chelmsford
*** Following the formal meeting A sandwich lunch will be available in the Council chamber foyer.
Page 5 of 44
Page 6 of 44 30 June 2016 Minute
Minutes of a Meeting of The Essex Flood Partnership Board Held At County Hall, Chelmsford at 9.30am on 30 June 2016
Present:
Name Organisation Cllr Susan Barker Uttlesford District Council Ms Trudie Bragg Castle Point Borough Council Cllr Will Breare-Hall Epping Forest District Council Mr Qasim Durrani Epping Forest District Council Mr James Ennos Tendring District Council Ms Kat Dedman Essex County Council Mr Jonathan Glerum Anglian Water Ms Anna Hook Essex County Council Mr Paul Hayden RFCC Cllr Ray Howard Castle Point Borough Council/ECC Mr Oladipo Lafinhan Essex County Council Mr Duncan Lewis Essex Fire and Rescue Service Mr John Meehan Essex County Council Cllr Richard Moore Basildon Borough Council Cllr Mick Page Essex County Council Ms Debbie Rayner RFCC/EI0 Cllr Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Ms Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Cllr David Sperring Rocford District Council Ms Natasha Taylor Essex County Council Cllr Nick Turner Tendring District Council Mr Paul Walker Essex County Council
Ms Lisa Siggins Essex County Council Democratic Services
1. Chairman of Essex Flood Partnership Board
The Board noted the appointment of Councillor Simon Walsh as Chairman of the Board, by virtue of his recent appointment as Essex County Council Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste, which includes responsibility for flood risk management. This was in accordance with the terms of reference for the Essex Flood Partnership, agreed by the Board on 13 January 2015
2. Membership
The Board noted the Membership of the Board as set out on the front page of the agenda. Councillor Cllr Mark Cory had replaced Councillor Tim Young as the Colchester Borough Council representative and Councillor Sperring had replaced Councillor Hudson as the Rochford District Council representative. The Chairman advised that Deborah Fox would no longer be on the Board and welcomed Anna Hook who would be the new representative, in her role as Head of Commissioning: Sustainable Environment.
Page 7 of 44
30 April 2016 Minute
3. Apologies
Apologies for absence were received from:
Cllr S Walsh -ECC Cllr K Twitchen–ECC Deborah Fox – ECC Peter Massie – ECC Mark Dickinson – Thames Water
4. Minutes
With regards to Minute 6 of the Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 20 April 2016, Councillor Turner commented that his comments regarding a scheme in Thorpe –Le- Soken had not been recorded or actioned. David Prudence from Essex Highways gave Councillor Turner a verbal update and it was confirmed that written confirmation of the position would be sent Councillor Turner following the meeting.
The Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 20 April 2016 were then approved as a correct record and signed on behalf of the Chairman.
5. Declarations of Interest
No declarations were made at this point.
6. PLP update and Lessons Learnt
The Board received a PowerPoint presentation from John Alexander of Aquobex who were commissioned to deliver the pilot PLP grant scheme in 2015/16.
The presentation included details of:
• contract delivery • an overview of the choice of products available • statistics and applications received • customer feedback • lessons learnt • challenges. • plans to raise public awareness
The presentation also gave an illustration of Energy- Passive Groundwater Recharge Pump (EGRP).
A discussion followed regarding the eligibility of applicants with Councillor Turner raising an issue concerning a local resident in his District. Clarification was given with Lucy Shepherd advising that the resident could indeed make an application and explained how the PLP applications are prioritised. Councillor Turner requested contact details for officers and departments who would be able to assist in this issue. Page 8 of 44 30 June 2016 Minute
Jonathan Glerum of Anglian Water (AW) confirmed that AW offer a similar scheme and confirmed that he would check applications received to ascertain whether there were any duplicate applications.
There followed a discussion regarding the implementation of certain preventative measures being included in “new builds” and the fact that these are often prohibited by Building Regulations. It was confirmed that ECC officers (Lucy Shepherd) would look further into this issue.
7. Flood Capital Programme Update
The Board received a report (EFPB/13/16) and scheme tracker (accompanying appendix) from John Meehan, Head of Environment and Flooding providing an update on the Capital Flood Programme.
The Capital Flood Programme has a £19 million ECC budget broken down over 6 years. Last year the budget of £1.5 million was met. It has an ambitious programme in 2016/7 of £3.5 million for grants and projects.
The Capital Flood Programme is broken down into 3 elements
1) The Property Level Protection (PLP), which offers previously-flooded properties individual protection. 2) The Community Flood Improvement Fund is aimed at partners applying for grants to protect properties. 3) Capital Projects Programme is the bulk of the Programme focussing on delivery projects on the ground. The budget this year is £2,725,000 for 2016/17.
The aim of the Capital Projects Programme is to implement projects which reduce flooding to properties. A long list of project has been presented to the Flood Board previously which are progressed annually. They go through a 5 step process (contained in Appendix 1 of the Report):
Feasibility, Optioneering, Detailed, Design & Tender Construction
The Feasibility and Optioneering stages are assessing 30 projects this year. 20 are being assessed by Ringway Jacobs and 10 by CH2M (funded by Environment Agency at a cost of £141,485). Of the 20 Ringways Jacobs projects, 2 have poor Cost Benefit Ratios (CBRs) and have been rejected, 4 are borderline CBRs) and are pending, 12 have positive CBR’s and are progressing and 2 are still in feasibility. The total cost of Feasibility is approximately £337,500, of which Environment Agency funded £141,485 and ECC funded £196,000.
Detailed Design will take place on approximately 20 projects. The exact total is not clear yet as a number of schemes may fail the Feasibility stage. The approximate cost is £315,000.
Currently, 8 schemes are predicted to go into Construction. 4 schemes were designed last year and are being delivered this year. In addition another 4 schemes
Page 9 of 44
30 April 2016 Minute are programmed for this year. In anticipation of site problems or delay 4 schemes are being developed as contingencies.
The total cost for Feasibility and Optioneering, Detail Design and Construction is £3,407,000 .This is over budget by £682,000, but it is advised by the Capital Programme Team to over-programme at this stage of the year to insure against problems and slippage.
The Floods team have a very strong partnership with Environment Agency and as stated above have secured £141,485 for initial assessments From EA Levy and another £1,526,396 Flood Defence Grant in Aid is anticipated. The net result is the Flood Programme is approximately £700,000 over-programmed but the anticipated EA funding of £1,700,000 means that ECC can reduce it Capital Borrowing requirement by £1 million.
8. Essex Community Flood Improvement Fund
The Board received a report (EFPB/14/16) and accompanying appendices from Oladipo Lafinhan, Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator confirming the new terms of the Essex Flood Grant 2016/17.
Mr Lafinhan explained that the purpose of the report was to highlight observations made during the implementation of the first phase of this grant with the view to incorporate changes which would further encourage enhanced grant take up rate in Essex.
He gave the Board details of the lessons learned from the first phase of the grant and explained that a number of the grant criteria have been determined as quite inflexible. He further advised that guidance notes would be expanded for future applications.
He explained that there would be changes to the 2016/17 Flood Partnership Programme Grant which included early engagement with prospective applicants in order to clarify their responsibilities and duties towards the delivery of their schemes
The name of the scheme has been changed from ‘Essex Flood Partnership Programme Grant’ to ‘Community Flood Improvement Fund’ in order to make the scheme more memorable and comprehensible. The ECC website has been amended to reflect this change.
The Board were advised of dissemination events already scheduled and of existing online information and dissemination platforms all of which are detailed in report EFPB/14/16.
During the following discussion it was stressed that Parish Councils need to be made aware of the events and changes and the Chairman confirmed that this would be done. The discussion also included assisting the business community and groups such as Sturmer Flood Action Group who had experienced difficulties during their application resulting in them withdrawing it despite being successful.
Page 10 of 44 30 June 2016 Minute
Councillor Turner sought clarification regarding applications made by Essex Highways and was given verbal clarification by David Prudence from Essex Highways.
9. Local Flood Risk Management Strategy - 2016 Review
The Board received a verbal update from Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager, on plans to review the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy before 2017.
Ms Shepherd reminded the Board that The Local Flood Risk Strategy is a statutory document required by the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) and therefore must address specific requirements.
The Board were advised that the current strategy is being reviewed earlier than had been planned and that the project for the review will be going out to tender shortly. There will be a need to consult the wider public with the intention of making the current 120 page PDF document more user friendly.
Ms Shepherd advised that she would welcome engagement from Board Members and supporting officers.
10 . Update on progress of Service Level Agreements in relation to SuDS statutory consultee role and SuDS Adoption
The Board received report (EFPB/15/16) from, Kat Dedman (nee Goodyear) Development & Flood Risk Manager regarding the current SLA offer to LPAs confirming arrangements going forward if SLAs are not agreed.
Ms Dedman explained that Essex CC as Lead Local Flood Authority became a statutory consultee on major planning applications (10+ dwellings, commercial floorspace 100sq.m+ or site area 1ha+) from 15th April 2015. And received Defra funding of £81,000 for 2015/16 and this has drastically reduced to £18,000 for 2016/17. ECC are under increased pressure to close this funding gap and, along with other LLFAs, have been lobbying Defra to address the issue.
ECC have had legal advice that the Development Management Procedure Order, which sets out the consultees on planning applications, does not include applications to discharge planning conditions attached to a planning permission in ECC’s statutory consultee role. It is therefore considered to be a discretionary service and given the lack of action by Defra to address the funding issue we began the process of discussion to include these for a charge to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in an SLA in October 2015.
Various meetings have been held and letters sent to Heads of Planning of the individual LPAs with a view to seeking a definitive answer on whether or not LPAs wished to enter into this agreement by 11 th May.
Page 11 of 44
30 April 2016 Minute
A further letter was sent in March offering a simplified approach of £2000 per authority for discharge of condition applications (these being a priority out of the services offered), cheaper than had been previously proposed for this particular service. The Development and Flood Risk Manager attended the Essex Planning Officer’s Association Development Management Forum on 15th April asking for a definitive answer on whether or not LPAs wished to enter into this agreement by 11th May
To date, those willing to enter into the agreement are Chelmsford, Tendring and Braintree.
The LLFA is providing training on assessing the drainage information submitted with applications for LPAs in July through the Land Drainage Partnership which all LPAs are members of as an alternative to or in addition to the SLA.
At the meeting Basildon confirmed that they were willing to enter into the agreement for 2016/17 and will review the position at the end of that time. Rochford, Epping Forest District Council and Canvey Island explained that they will not been entering into the agreement and a discussion followed which involved the latter expressing disappointment as ECC in seeking this form of action. Councillor Barker of Uttlesford advised that she was unaware of the situation and will need to seek advice of the relevant officers in her District Council and clarify whether Uttlesford will enter into the agreement with ECC..
John Meehan urged Members to consult their relevant officers regarding the situation as soon as possible as the financial year was now into the 2 nd quarter.
Finally Ms Dedman gave the Board an update on SuDS Adoption in Exceptional Circumstances and Non Adoption advising that a revised Policy is currently undergoing internal and external consultation and that copies can be provided by her on request. A decision is due to be taken by Cabinet in the coming months
11. Canvey Island: Community Resilience and Flood Hack
The Board received a presentation from Philip Wilson, Community Resilience Officer on the upcoming Flood Hack and Community Resilience Progress.
Mr Wilson advised that the Hack will be taking place on 16 th July at PROCAT Canvey Island. The event is aimed at bringing together local residents, technologists, flooding experts and other interested people to share ideas on how to protect Canvey Island against future flooding. The event is being supported by Anglian Water.
Councillor Howard expressed his pleasure that this event is planned but stressed that there is still further work to be done.
John Meehan gave the Board an update on the monies spent and resiliance measures for Canvey Island, stressing that this is just “a small part of a bigger picture” for Canvey Island.
Page 12 of 44 30 June 2016 Minute
12. Any other business
With the agreement of the Chairman the following additional items were considered:
Councillor Turner sought clarification on the boundaries of the Thames Estuary and ECC officers agreed to provide him with this information.
With regards to Minute 10 of the Meeting of the Board of 20 January 2016 it was agreed that the the entry in the recommendation column in to Appendix to report EFPB/06/16 in respect of the entry concerning Maldon District Council be amended to read:
“The scheme cannot be funded for a number of reasons: the delivery date is not defined, funding has not been secured and more importantly the proposed scheme will attenuate and divert surface water flows originating off site, from land to the north of the development, within the areas identified in Maldon & Heybridge Surface Water Management Plan within the 2 Critical Drainage Areas 4 and 5. Therefore it is appropriate for the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Developers and Local Planning Authority to come to work together on how to fund the North Heybridge FAS through alternative funding routes.”
13. Date of Next Meeting
Resolved:
That the next meeting of the Partnership Board would be held on scheduled for Thursday 13 October 2016 at 9.30am at County Hall Chelmsford
There being no urgent business the meeting closed at 12.05 pm
Chairman
Page 13 of 44
Page 14 of 44 Report to: AGENDA ITEM 5 Essex Flood Partnership Board Report Number: (EFPB/16/16) Date of report: 29/09/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : Outline Business Case for 201 7/18 Capital Programme
Report by : John Meehan, Acting Head of Planning & Environment
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Planning & Environment
Enquiries to : John Meehan Acting Head of Planning & Environment 07827 976397
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To update the Flood Board on the Capital Flood Programme 2017/18 Outline Business Case(OBC) production progress
2. Background
2.1 The Capital Flood Programme has a £19 million ECC budget broken down over 5 years. Last year the budget of £1.5 million was met. It has an ambitious programme in 2016/7 of £3.5 million for grants and projects. Every year we prepare an OBC to bid for the funding for the following year. In 2017/18 we estimate the Flood Programme will spend £5 million.
2.2 The Capital Flood Programme OBC is broken down into 7 headings and the text including in the OBC is set out below.
3.0 Business Drivers Flooding is a key issue for many of our communities that can have a significant impact upon their quality of life. There is an urgency to protect properties and avoid the blight
Page 15 of 44 that flood incidents can place on local communities and economies. Central Government is seeking to encourage more local investment in flood prevention. We are equipping communities with the skills, support, knowledge and equipment to protect their own property. So ECC investment forms a golden thread from national through regional to local level.
This programme has been put in place in order to provide flood management measures, to address the growing number of homes that are at risk from local sources of flooding in Essex.
4.0 Objectives
The Flood Prevention Capital Programme aims to reduce the level of flood risk to properties over 5 years. The 2017/18 project objectives (detailed plan in Appx 5) will be complete when the following is true: • Delivery of ECC-led priority schemes - The ‘flood assets’ have been built, and successfully adopted. • The Community Flood Involvement Fund grants have been awarded and an appropriate progress tracking mechanism is in place in order for ECC to establish that the grant has been used properly in accordance with the grant agreement. • When 100 properties or more have Property Level Protection measures installed
5.0 Success Measures
Our focus is to reduce the impact of flooding to properties in Essex. Critical success factors include: • Delivery of ECC priority schemes – Delivery of the schemes to quality, time and budget. • When 100% of Community Flood Involvement Fund grant have been awarded in line with grant conditions and adoption of the delivered assets. • Value for money – Schemes will only be progressed where Cost Benefit Ratios are greater than 1.0.ie for every £1 invested more than £1 will be returned in benefits • 25% external funding and partnership funding secured. This is based on 2016/17 where we estimate £975k external funding being attracted on a budget of £3.5 million (27%)
Page 16 of 44 6.0 Coasts and Benefits (WHAT does the project need to achieve)
Non-Financial Benefits: this supports the delivery of the council’s commissioning outcome that ‘people in Essex experience a high quality and sustainable environment’. There are also links with sustainable economic growth and outcomes for good health and wellbeing and safer communities.
Financial Benefits: t he ECC-led schemes and grant funding protecting 377 homes in 2017/18 would yield a cost-benefit ratio of £1 to £1.59. Also included in the cost of delivery, are the construction, design and feasibility studies for another 519 homes (at risk of over a 0.3m depth of flooding). This will create a pipeline of schemes for delivery next year/in future years. These works are taking place in communities totalling circa 1,460 properties at varying levels of risk. Property Level Protection (PLP) and Community Flood Involvement Fund grants, together with volunteer activities, community engagement and education activities will ensure that the maximum number of people and properties benefit from the Capital programme.
The 2017/18 spend will potentially release funding from funding sources listed below, all of which can unlock further funding from the Environment Agency partnership funding. (see Appendix 5 for estimates). The estimate for the Environment Agency funding for 2017/18 is c.£975,000. We will only know when the detailed projects are submitted the exact nature of this funding. Below are the other potential sources of funding which contribute towards the Capital Programme funding:
- Engaging with Local Planning Authorities on S106 funding (£16,000 received in 16/17) - Districts that have allocated flood budgets (£100,000 received in 15/16) - Anglian/Thames Water on partnership funding possibilities - Highways (Surface Water Alleviation Schemes)
This funding would replace the ECC funding if the bids are accepted thus reducing pressure on the ECC Capital Programme.
7.0 Financial Costs - 2017/18
The formal cost estimates are yet to be given by Ringway Jacobs hence we cannot give complete financial assurance of the figures, but they remain the best estimates.
Estimated
costs ECC Flood Capital Programme – Delivery £
Page 17 of 44 2017/18 Flood Prevention Schemes – Implement 2017/18 3,670,000 Flood Prevention Schemes – Design 2017/18 120,000 Flood Prevention Schemes – Feasibility 2017/18 135,000 Sub -total 3,925,000 Other Components of the Flood Programme 2017/18 Capitalised delivery costs 75,000 Community Flood Involvement Fund (CFIF) 400,000 Property Level Protection (600,000) Sub -total 1,075,000 Total Capital Spend 5,000,000
8.0 Key Financial Assumptions on the above figures are as follows:
Assumptions that impact on Cost or Benefit How you plan to manage them The flood risk exposure of 150-200 households will be Use of the prioritisation matrix reduced from ‘very significant risk’ (>=5%) of flooding to to shortlist qualifying ‘moderate risk’ (>=0.5%) i.e. on a scale of 1-3, reducing it schemes. from 3 to 1. The 10% contingency is based of 18 months experience If the tender figures are of managing the Flood Programme. substantially higher or lower than estimated we will deprioritise priority schemes or accelerate Reserve schemes Inflation rate is based on economic models of c1.4%. The estimates are based on feasibilities done with 12 month of the delivery so we expect little inflationary change
9.0 Delivery Approach
A programme approach has been adopted, with flexibility between the project streams to accommodate movement in the programme overall. The contigency will also be managed at a programme level.
Page 18 of 44 An options appraisal has been undertaken to determine a shortlist of schemes in the programme. The preferred recommended solution was arrived at from a range of evidence bases including the Outline Process/Matrix for shortlisting scheme delivery (as endorsed by CPMB in the 2015/16 OBC).
The projects shall be procured either via the Highways Strategic Transformation Contract (Ringway Jacobs), by the use of appropriate public sector frameworks such as the Water and Environment Management framework or otherwise in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Below are the 2017/18 delivery schemes 9 priority schemes and 4 reserve schemes as fall-back for any slippages on the priority schemes
Priority Cost £ Preferred Option Schemes Brays Grove, £665k Two flood storage areas and two new culverts have been modelled Harlow to assess the viability of such a scheme. The storage areas would (HAR6) be created by constructing bunds with new drainage networks such as ditches to attenuate water on two main flow paths. New £250k Flood storage area created by constructing an attenuation basin to Thundersley, capture surface water runoff. Castle Point (CAS2) Maldon Central £408k Flood storage area created by constructing an attenuation basin to (MAL2) capture surface water runoff. Kingsmoor, £668k Combination of installing bunds to create an attenuation basin to Harlow (HAR2) capture surface water runoff. Two new culverts and raised kerbing to create a preferential flow route. Laindon, £547k Combination of seven small swales and an attenuation basin within Basildon (BAS8) Paddocks Recreation Ground to capture surface water runoff. Ashingdon, £425k Flood storage area created by constructing an attenuation basin to Rochford capture surface water runoff. Extend the existing Anglian water (ROC7) flood park Nettleswell, £548k Combination of installing bunds to create an attenuation basin to Harlow (HAR10) capture surface water runoff. New culverts and raised kerbing to create a preferential flow route. The Hythe, £127k Create a new bypass channel to take excess water during periods Colchester of excess rainfall. (COL2b) Sponge 2020 £32k EU Interreg Project in Partnership with Basildon Hospital to remove hospital surface water into a series of water gardens for patients and staff Total £3,670k Reserve Preferred Option
Page 19 of 44 Schemes Sumners Area, 1,459k Flood storage area near playing fields Harlow (HAR1) Stewards 1,893k Flood storage area Harlow (HAR4) Latton Bush 967k Flood storage Area south west of Latton Green and refurbishing Harlow (HAR5) and extending side weir Great Burstead £300k Flood storage area created by constructing an attenuation basin to capture surface water runoff.
9.0 Timeline and Key Milestones
Key milestones shown below, Milestone Description Target Date
Priority Schemes – Agree programme & task order update with April 2017 Ringway Jacobs Property Level Protection – Confirm new contract arrangement April 2017 Bid /Grant Scheme – Re-Launch of Scheme April 2017 Commence tender process and deliver ECC priority schemes Start April 2017 Property Level Protection – Re-Launch of Scheme May 2017 Bid /Grant Scheme – Announcement of successful bids July 2017 Priority Schemes – Monthly update meetings on feasibility, design, maintenance/adoption agreements, pore-construction information Monthly & delivery
10.0 Key Risks and Issues
Key risks shown below
Name and Description Mitigation Owner If costs seem to be overrunning and we appear to be over budget we have 2 options Risk: Costs for schemes over-run John Meehan 1) we could approach the Delivery Board to assess whether they are underspending and
Page 20 of 44 utilize that underspend. 2) if above is not possible we will defer the implementation of a scheme to ensure costs are in line with budget Costs in the OBC are best cost available and Risk : Cost estimates are higher based on up to date consultancy work. If or lower than predicted in the costs over run please see above. If cost are John Meehan OBC less than predicted we will bring forward one of the 4 reserve schemes in the table above. A case will be made for an increased Risk: If capital schemes in the revenue budget in 2017/18 as the existing 2017/18 programme don’t come operational budget is insufficient to to fruition, scheme development John Meehan accommodate these potential costs. Going costs would need to be treated as forward, the development of a pipeline of revenue expenditure. schemes will mitigate this risk. Suitable tender documentation is developed Risk: Insufficient or non-compliant John Meehan and market engagement is conducted to bids are received for the tender Dave ensure the best possible market response is opportunities Chapman received for all opportunities 13 initial assessments (IA) are being worked on in 2016/17. The schemes that are viable from the IA’s will make up the reserve list for 2017/18. In addition we hold regular reviews Risk: The priority schemes and with Ringways and internal team every John Meehan therefore the majority of the month to monitor drop out and replace with Dave programme cannot be delivered substitute projects. The Cost benefit ratios Chapman and impact on cost/benefit are assessed at Initial Assessments and only those greater than 1,0 go forward. That is where for every pound invested more than £1 will be spent on the flood damage to properties which have been protected. Early engagement with landowners and local John Meehan Risk: Created assets are not planning authorities. Reserve schemes in Dave adopted and maintained. place if delays occur in year due to ongoing Chapman negotiations.
11.0 Recommendation
For Essex Flood Board Members to note progress on the Capital Flood Programme OBC 2017/18
Page 21 of 44
Page 22 of 44 Report to: AGENDA ITEM 6 Essex Flood Partnership Board Report Number: (EFPB17/16) Date of report: 29/09/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : The Essex Capital Flood Programme
Report by : David Chapman Delivery and Enforcement Manager
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Planning & Environment
Enquiries to : John Meehan Acting Head of Planning & Environment 07827 976397
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To update the Flood Board on the Capital Flood Programme progress in 2016/7
2. Background
2.1 The Capital Flood Programme has a £19 million ECC budget broken down over 5 years. Last year the budget of £1.5 million was met. It has an ambitious programme in 2016/17 of £3.5 million for grants and projects.
2.2 The Capital Flood Programme is broken down into 3 elements
1) Property Level Protection (PLP) is a scheme that offers previously flooded properties individual protection. This year the scheme is valued at £375,000 plus £90,000 totalling £465,000.
• 60 pre-installation surveys for the 2016-17 phase have been completed
Page 23 of 44 • Aquobex plan on conducting the remainder 147 surveys before the end of the 2016/17 financial year • Aquobex was given an initial target of 60 installations this year and the first of these will commence on the 3 rd October
2) The latest Community Flood Improvement Fund information will be covered by Oladipo Lafinhan with item 7 on the agenda.
3) Capital funded Flood Alleviation Schemes (FAS) is the bulk of our programme; this area focuses on delivering projects on the ground in the areas most at risk of surface water flooding. The budget this year is £3,125,000. Below is more specific detail on the Capital Projects Programme
3. Capital Projects Programme 2016/17
3.1. The aim of the Capital Projects Programme is to implement projects which reduce flooding to properties. A long list of project has been presented to the Flood Board previously which is progressed annually. They go through a 5 step process as follows;
• Feasibility • Optioneering • Detailed Design • Tender • Construction
Page 24 of 44 3.2. Feasibility/Optioneering stage update
ECC are carrying out 33 feasibility studies this year. Twenty are being progressed through the Essex Highways contract, 10 by CH2M using the WEM framework (funded by EA Anglian) and 3 by Capita using the WEM framework (funded by EA Thames). The total cost of Feasibility is approximately £399,485, of which the EA have funded £141,485 through FDGIA and ECC funded £258k.
• The 10 Jacob’s feasibility studies are complete and 5 have been progressed into optioneering, this stage is programmed to be complete by November 2016. • The 10 feasibility schemes being delivered by CH2M via the WEM framework are progressing well and of the 5 early studies that have been completed, 3 are looking likely to progress to optioneering. • The 3 feasibility studies being carried out by the Thames EA region are complete and all 3 have a BCR >1 and will be progressing to optioneering. • At the end of the optioneering stage another review will take place to ensure a viable and cost effective scheme is still deliverable.
3.3. Detailed Design
There are 6 schemes currently in the detailed design stage with another 10 due to start in October. With the progression of the 5 year programme the aim for our capital programme is to complete the feasibility/optionering and detailed design stage the year before a scheme is scheduled for delivery. By doing this it gives us greater control over delivery and we can start work on the ground earlier in the year, which is good in spend monitoring terms and avoids the winters months which can delay delivery.
Page 25 of 44 3.4. Construction
• Church lane, Runwell is now complete and functioning to good effect
• Mill Road, Foxearth started on the 12 th September and is programmed to finish by the end of December
• Messing is complete and has been put to the test already; the reports from the PC are that the scheme is working as planned and flooding has been prevented
• The Street, Latchingdon is complete and is functioning as planned
• Planning applications have been submitted for the East Thundersley, Rayleigh West and West Horndon schemes
• Work on the Hockley scheme is programmed to start on the 24 th October
• Thaxted has been progressed to delivery for this financial year. The scheme involves constructing 13 ‘Leaky Dams’ that will be strategically placed along an open watercourse to slow the flow and maximize channel capacity. This scheme will be a softer greener approach to managing flood risk and will be the first of its kind in Essex. We are working in partnership with Place Services, EA and Jacobs 3.5 The ECC estimated cost for the Feasibility/ Optionering stage of the programme is £258k. 3.6 The estimated cost for the Detail Design stage of the programme is £315k 3.7 The estimated cost for the Construction stage of the programme is £2.735m Adding all 3 parts of the capital programme together totals £4,173,000m which is over budget by £673k, but we are advised to over-programme at this stage of the year to insure against problems and slippage.
Page 26 of 44 4. Recommendation
4.1 For Essex Flood Board Members to note progress on the Capital Flood Programme
Page 27 of 44
Page 28 of 44 Report to: Essex Flood Partnership Forward Plan reference number : Board (EFPB 18/16) AGENDA ITEM 7
Date of report: 13/10/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : Essex Community Flood Improvement Fund
Report by : Dipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Planning and Environment
Enquiries to : Dipo Lafinhan/Lucy Shepherd
1. Background
1.1. Essex County Council set-aside £400,000 of its Capital Flood Prevention Programme to provide a Community Flood Improvement Fund grant for other authorities, charities, community groups, farmers and or landowners committed to delivering projects resulting in the reduction of flood risk to Essex residents.
1.2. Starting from 1 April 2016 we invited applications from a wide range of organizations including:
• Town and Parish Councils • District, Borough and City Councils • Community groups • The Environment Agency • Water supply and sewerage companies (Anglian Water, Affinity Water, Thames Water and Essex and Suffolk Water) • Essex Highways • Essex Fire and Rescue Service • Voluntary Organisations, Charities and Conservation Bodies • Other interested organisations in Essex
2. Applications Received
2.1. The deadline for applications was initially 1 September 2016 however given that the grant became open to applications only six months earlier (April, 2016) it was decided that another deadline should be set before the end of the financial year in order to enable applicants more time as well as introduce more flexibility in the grant process.
Page 29 of 44 2.2. The initial 1 September deadline was further revised to 19 September due to the amount of interest received from various applicants and the need to seek further project clarifications.
2.3. As of 19 September, we had received a total of 19 applications with the total grant applied for at £791,188.
2.4. All applications were discussed at the Flood Programme Board on 20 September 2016.
2.5. Appendix 1 provides a list of the applications received, and feedback from our Programme Board in terms of grant award decisions.
2.6. Applications have been assigned a red/amber/green (RAG) category. Those applications in the yellow category may be appropriate for grant support subject to further revision, discussion and provision of additional project information and evidence.
2.7. Consequently we are still encouraging stakeholders to make further applications. Further decisions would be made on the applications designated to the Yellow category after the next grant deadline in February 2017.
3. Common issues
3.1. As a result of undertaking early engagement with prospective grant applicants we’ve had to provide some additional support. This has so far mostly been helping to clarify project management roles for applications involving multiple partners and helping out with the application forms.
3.2. A number of applications are characterised by estimates and/or projections of the costs of the proposed works to be delivered. This represents a risk element to the applications.
3.3. A number of the applications contain prima facie claims about numbers of properties to be protected. However the evidence provided to support these claims is not sufficient enough to justify supporting these projects.
3.4. Some potential applications have not been made despite the best efforts of our officers. There seem to be some reluctance amongst stakeholders around the issue of adopting and/or maintaining flood alleviation assets resulting from proposed grant funded projects.
4. Recommendations
4.1. In conclusion we recommend that all applications in the Green category are awarded as soon as possible.
4.2. Yellow applications should be discussed further and subject to further clarification before next grant application deadline in February 2017 Page 30 of 44 4.3. Red applications are unable to be supported by our Partnership Programme Grant.
4.4. We would encourage our partners and other stakeholders in Essex to endeavour to make more applications in order to provide relief to Essex residents affected by very frequent local flooding.
Page 31 of 44 Appendix 1
Applicants (Scheme) Number of Scheme Risk Factor (L: Low; M: Scheme Notes Recommendations properties Cost (£) Medium and H: High) at risk
Colchester Borough 1 4,910 This is a very low risk project • Project costs are based on actual It is recommended that Council (Hobstevens as the total spend is below preferred contractor quotes this project is provided Cottages) £5,000 which incidentally is • Resident has already begun the full grant funding. the limit for the PLP grant process of undertaking maintenance and delivery is planned work on the ditch adjacent to her before the end of the property financial year. • Application includes pictorial evidence of last flooding episode
Epping Forest District 9 16,100 Very Low: ECC funds can be • Project costs are based on actual It is recommended that Council (Pynest utilized within the current contractor quotes this project is provided Green Lane Watham financial year. Total grant • Maintenance protocol between EFDC full grant funding. Abbey) funds applied for are actual and Essex Highways preferred contractor quote • Application includes pictorial evidence of last flooding episode Epping Forest District 4 5,430 This is a medium risk scheme • Project costs are based on actual It is recommended that Council (Lower as although the scheme is preferred contractor quotes this project is provided Forest) deliverable within the • Ditch maintenance responsibility of full grant funding. financial year and the grant City of London conservators and applied for is an actual quote riparian owners from the preferred • Pictorial evidence provided contractor, maintenance • EFDC are willing to enforce riparian would be the responsibility duties of a third party but EFDC have enforcement protocols.
Page 32 of 44 Essex Fire and Rescue N/A 36,000 This is a very low risk scheme • These barriers can be deployed by It is recommended that Service (Water-Gate as the Watergate barriers EFRS during extreme events to the Water Gate barriers – Protecting local can be purchased and minimize flood risks in hotspots should be funded. communities) deployed as soon as • Members of the public and other practicable. EFRS have organizations i.e. Parish Councils or agreed to place these community groups can request for barriers in their Maldon the barriers depot where these would be deployed and subsequently returned for cleansing and storage. Maldon District 9 18,927.01 Very Low: ECC funds can be • Project costs are based on actual It is recommended that Council (Katonia utilized within the current preferred contractor quotes this project is provided Avenue) financial year. Total grant • Mayland Parish Council have agreed full grant funding funds applied for are actual to maintain the flood alleviation preferred contractor quote. assets and scheme project Letter from Parish Council management to be overseen by stating they would be Maldon District Council responsible for the • Preferred option has been outlined maintenance of the and delivery plan is in place. alleviation asset. Maldon District 2 7,821 Very Low: ECC funds can be • Project costs are based on actual It is recommended that Council (Bakersfield) utilized within the current preferred contractor quotes this project is provided financial year. Total grant • Mayland Parish Council have agreed full grant funding. funds applied for are actual to maintain the flood alleviation preferred contractor quote. assets and scheme project Letter from Parish Council management to be overseen by stating they would be Maldon District Council responsible for the • Preferred option has been outlined maintenance of the and delivery plan is in place. alleviation asset. Harlow District Commercial 24,000 Medium risk: there are no • Grant sought is based on quotes It is recommended that Council (Stort Valley properties residential properties at risk from preferred contractor this project is provided
Page 33 of 44 Meadows) in Harlow and EA consents would have • Benefits to the scheme will be the full grant funding. Town to be sought for any works increased movement of surface centre on Main rivers water away from local businesses, particularly at times of excessive rainfall • Additional benefits would include enhancing the biodiversity value of the Maymeads Marsh (AKA Honeymeads Marsh), by restoring the open water aspect of the 5.5ha Marsh and open water ditch system. Harlow District Princess 20,000 Medium Risk: although there • Grant sought based on quotes from It is recommended that Council (Oakwood Alexandra are no reports of residential preferred contractor this project is provided Pond) Hospital property flooding, there are • Benefits of the scheme are multiple full grant funding. reports of extensive flooding folds: the hospital car park would be in a critical infrastructure, protected from frequent inundation the Princess Alexandria and the surface water would be re- Hospital, especially the car directed back to the Oakwood pond park. thus providing some alleviation. Essex Highways (St 4 20,000 This is a high risk scheme as • Grant applied for is an estimate, It is recommended that Nicholas Rd Witham) the amount of grant applied there is a possibility of the actual this project is provided for is not based on any works costing more than grant full grant funding based actual feasibility study but applied for on the documented rather an estimation of what • Letter provided from Essex flooding issues the the proposed works would Highways to the Flood COG Flood and Water team cost. There is a risk of the providing assurances that the are aware of in the actual work costing more scheme would be delivered area than the grant applied for. In addition, there is cost breakdown of the preferred remedial option, no proposed project delivery plan has been produced. Page 34 of 44 Essex Wildlife Trust 10 60,000 This is a high risk scheme as • EA Main river consent would be It is recommended that (Hoppit Mead) there is a possibility of cost needed this project is put on overruns especially in • Grant applied for is an estimate of hold in order to obtain relation to the off-site the total scheme cost more detailed project disposal of excavated spoil. • This also includes costs of EWT staff information. There might also be the need time for more additional background modelling works if the preferred option is not economically feasible. Essex Wildlife Trust N/A 85,650 This is a high risk scheme as • EA Main river consent would be It is recommended that (Cymberline there is no concrete needed this project is put on Meadows) evidence of the scheme • Grant applied for is an estimate of hold in order to obtain reducing flood risk. In the total scheme cost more detailed project addition, the land is owned • This also includes costs of EWT staff information. by Colchester Borough time Council and their approval would be needed for any works on their land. EA assessment and consenting would also be needed. Essex Wildlife Trust 40 92,950 This is a high risk scheme as • EA Main river consent would be It is recommended that (Ramsey Meadows) it is anticipated that needed this project is put on modelling and consenting • Grant applied for is an estimate of hold in order to obtain would be needed before the the total scheme cost more detailed project project proceeds. In • This also includes costs of EWT staff information. addition, no concrete time evidence of either past flooding events or evidence that the scheme would reduce flood risk has been provided. Essex Wildlife Trust N/A 69,400 This is a high risk scheme as • EA Main river consent would be It is recommended that
Page 35 of 44 (Waterhall Meadows) it is anticipated that ne eded this project is put on modelling and consenting • Grant applied for is an estimate of hold in order to obtain would be needed before the the total scheme cost more detailed project project proceeds. In • This also includes costs of EWT staff information. addition, no concrete time evidence of either past flooding events or evidence that the scheme would reduce flood risk has been provided. Essex Highways 1 30,000 This is a high risk scheme as • Grant applied for is an estimate, Although this is a high (Ferry Road, the amount of grant applied there is a possibility of the actual risk scheme to fund, it Hullbridge) for is not based on any works costing more than grant is possible for actual feasibility study but applied for additional documents rather an estimation of what • Letter provided from Essex to clarify some project the proposed works would Highways to the Flood COG details. Therefore it is cost. There is a risk of the providing assurances that the recommended that we actual work costing more scheme would be delivered await the additional than the grant applied for. In documents before any addition, there is cost decision is made. breakdown of the preferred remedial option, no proposed project delivery plan has been produced Essex Highways 3 30,000 This is a high risk scheme as • Grant applied for is an estimate, Although this is a high (Greenstead green) the amount of grant applied there is a possibility of the actual risk scheme to fund, it for is not based on any works costing more than grant is possible for actual feasibility study but applied for additional documents rather an estimation of what • Letter provided from Essex to clarify some project the proposed works would Highways to the Flood COG details. Therefore it is cost. There is a risk of the providing assurances that the recommended that we actual work costing more scheme would be delivered await the additional than the grant applied for. In documents before any
Page 36 of 44 addition, there is cost decision is made breakdown of the preferred remedial option, no proposed project delivery plan has been produced. Essex Highways 1 20,000 This is a high risk sc heme as • Grant applied for is an estimate, Although this is a high (Mitchell Avenue, the amount of grant applied there is a possibility of the actual risk scheme to fund, it Halstead) for is not based on any works costing more than grant is possible for actual feasibility study but applied for additional documents rather an estimation of what • Letter provided from Essex to clarify some project the proposed works would Highways to the Flood COG details. Therefore it is cost. There is a risk of the providing assurances that the recommended that we actual work costing more scheme would be delivered await the additional than the grant applied for. In documents before any addition, there is cost decision is made. breakdown of the preferred remedial option; no proposed project delivery plan has been produced. Essex Highways 1 20,000 This is a high risk scheme • Grant applied for is an estimate, Due to the risks and (Ashwells Rd, Pilgrims due to the following reasons there is a possibility of the actual uncertainties about the Hatch) 1) the amount of grant works costing more than grant funding, delivery and applied for is based on an applied for customer complaint, it estimate of the proposed • Letter provided from Essex is recommended that remedial work 2) Delivery Highways to the Flood COG this project cannot be timeline is not clear 3) There providing assurances that the funded. have been complaints from scheme would be delivered the resident of No2 Ashwells who has promised to contact his local Councillor, MP and also various forms of social media about the 'lack of responsibility shown by ECC'
Page 37 of 44 as a result of the carriage way being repeatedly re- surfaced. Essex Highways 1 200,000 This is a high risk scheme as • Grant applied for is an estimate, It is recommended that (Grove Hill Dedham) the amount of grant applied there is a possibility of the actual this project cannot be for is not based on any works costing more than grant funded because there actual feasibility study but applied for is no economic rather an estimation of what • Letter provided from Essex justification for funding the proposed works would Highways to the Flood COG a £200,000 scheme cost. There is a risk of the providing assurances that the which is protecting 1 actual work costing more scheme would be delivered residential property. than the grant applied for. In • No justifiable evidence produced for addition, there is cost the cost of this scheme. breakdown of the preferred remedial option especially considering the total cost estimated for the scheme which is half of the grant budget and no proposed project delivery plan has been produced
Page 38 of 44 Report to: Report Number: Essex Flood Partnership Board (EFPB 19/16) AGENDA ITEM 8
Date of report: 13/10/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : FCERM Capital Investment Process & Opportunities
Report by : Graham Verrier, Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager and Tim Gornall, Partnerships & Strategic Overview Team Leader. Head of Service: Charles Beardall, Area Manager
Enquiries to : David Orrin, Partnerships & Strategic Overview Advisor 020302 55169
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To highlight Local Authorities have flood risk management (FRM) powers to promote and construct (FRM) schemes under the Flood and Water management Act 2010 and Land Drainage Act 1991. To highlight there are capital grants available to local authorities to support Flood, & Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) projects. To summarise the process to obtain capital GiA funding from the Environment Agency (EA) and encourage/facilitate grant proposals in Essex. To confirm the EA and LLFA can help local authorities’ through the process.
2. Recommendations
2.1. Local Authorities liaise with LLFA to review localised flood risk priorities and promote FCERM projects for grant funding from the Environment Agency.
1. Where possible, the EA and LLFA will support and facilitate local authorities’ project proposals.
2. Local authorities familiarise themselves with the grant funding process and conditions.
3. Local authorities look for potential future opportunities within the 6 year capital investment period.
Page 39 of 44 3. Background and update
3.1 Introduction
3.2 We (the Environment Agency) provide capital grants to other flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) operating authorities in England under section 16 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Applications must also meet the conditions relevant to flood risk management work under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
3.3 We can fund capital grant for all types of flooding; this includes surface water, groundwater and Individual Property Protection schemes. This paper summarises the processes and requirements local authorities should follow when applying for grants. Local authorities can also make applications on behalf of communities or private organisations.
3.4 All the grant we provide is bid-based capital grant. Under DCLG rules, the authority receiving the grant has flexibility as long as the grant is spent on capital projects. In practice, we award grants to approved projects and release the money as the project progresses.
3.5 Six Year Capital Investment Programme 2015-2021
3.6 In line with Defra’s Investment Plan “reducing the risks of flooding and coastal erosion” the 6-year plan allocation conditions require the FCERM GiA programme to attract 15% partnership funding contributions, realise 10% efficiency savings and contribute towards the 300,000 houses target over those six years.
3.7 We carry out an annual refresh of the capital investment programme inviting RMAs to confirm present projects for grant allocation are on track. RMAs are also welcome to submit new project proposals that require grant allocation.
3.8 What can you get Capital Grant for?
Local authorities can apply for funding for:
• Projects - standalone schemes to build or improve defences and structures • Strategies - a series of interconnecting projects for complex flood or coastal erosion risk situations
Page 40 of 44 • Studies - investigations of your FCERM options or their environmental effects on designated areas
Read the latest Grant Memorandum for a detailed list of what you can get funding for.
3.9 What are the grant conditions?
We will specifically assess whether the proposal is:
• eligible within the terms of the relevant act; • technically sound and environmentally acceptable in line with FCERM appraisal guidance (FCERM-AG); • economically justified in line with FCERM-AG (must have a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) >1); • in line with action plans set out in CFMPs, SMPs and Coastal Habitat Management Plans (CHaMPs), where appropriate; and • on the Sanctioned List of projects and studies we have agreed are eligible for grants.
We will also assess whether reliable commitments for non-grant funding (partnership match funding) are in place as your proposal will require a Partnership Funding score of at least 100% .
4.0 How to apply for Capital Grant
4.1 We assess projects on the basis of the outcomes delivered, costs and benefits and we decide which projects to prioritise and approve on this basis. The actual grant we pay and the approved project sum is different. We decide the amount by looking at the costs of the project, or cap it at the amount set by the partnership-funding tariff associated with the outcomes delivered by the proposal.
Page 41 of 44 4.2 Outcome Measures:
OM1 The ratio of the whole life present value benefits (Pvb) to the whole life present value costs (PVc) from projects in the FDGiA capital investment programme
OM2 The number of households moved out of any flood probability category to a lower one (households better protected)
OM3 The number of households with reduced risk of coastal erosion
OM4 Hectares of habitat or km of rivers, created / protected to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive for areas protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive.
4.3 To apply for grant funding, fill in both parts 1 and 2 of the Project Proposal Form along with a completed Partnership Funding Calculator which must have a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) >1 and a partnership funding score of at least 100%.
The calculator takes into account: • how much GiA you can get • extra funding you’ll need to get through partnerships • how many homes will be better protected from flood risk or coastal erosion • how many of those homes are in deprived areas (which carry a heavier weighting than homes in non-deprived areas) • any benefits to wildlife, e.g. habitat created or improved
4.4 We also require a map with a ‘polygon’ showing the project’s benefit area. Your local Partnerships & Strategic Overview (PSO) contact can help facilitate and support you with your proposal.
4.5 Complete the appropriate grant form to support your proposal and submit claim forms to get the funds you’ve been allocated:
• FCERM 2 : Flood Defence Schemes – application for grant • FCERM 3 : Application for interim payment of grant funding • FCERM 4 : Application for prior approval of variations of approved schemes/studies • FCERM 5 : Final statement of account for projects or studies on site • FCERM 7 : Application of approval for preliminary studies and strategies • FCERM 8 : Project closure report
Page 42 of 44 4.6 After you apply
4.7 If your proposal is successful, the project will be added to the programme of FCERM schemes. Depending on the partnership funding status of your project it will be added to either the pipeline or development phase of the programme. You must then develop a business case for the project .
4.8 How we can help
4.9 Local authorities can lead flood risk management projects. Where possible The Environment Agency and LLFA can help support LAs. We can assist with the process by advising and supporting the completion of project proposal forms and grant forms.
5.0 The Environment Agency has a designated post specifically to support RMAs with projects. The post has been working closely with Essex LLFAs to streamline the process through to approval of Outline Business Case (OBC).
5.1 We have produced supplementary guidance notes to help RMAs when producing OBCs for low value, low risk projects. For projects seeking less than £30,000 FDGiA we have reduced the amount of paperwork and evidence required for approval.
Page 43 of 44
Page 44 of 44