Internal Drainage District APPENDIX B , Item

APPENDIX B

Information report

Changing the management of two internal drainage districts near Gravesend April 2014

Contents Page

Introduction 5 Purpose 5 Rationale 5 Timeline 6

National Background 7 Definitions: IDDs, IDBs and watercourses 7 History 8 Current governance 9

Local Background 11 Definitions: IDDs and IDBs west and east of Gravesend 11 History 11 Current governance 13

Roles, powers and responsibilities 14 Introduction 14 IDBs 14 Environment Agency 15 LLFAs 16 District Councils 16 Landowners 16

Strategic context 18 Introduction 18 North Kent Rivers Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 18 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100) 20 Habitat Creation Programme 21 South Thames Estuary and Marshes Water Level Management Plan (WLMP) 21 Nature Improvement Area 22 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies 22

Profile of the West of Gravesend IDD 24 Introduction 24 Watercourses within the IDD 25 Archaeology and historic monuments 25

Profile of the East of Gravesend IDD 26 Introduction 26 Watercourses within the IDD 27 Statutory designated sites 27 The future of the district 30 Archaeology and historic monuments 30

Financial information 31 Introduction 31 Income – grants and contributions 31

Income – drainage rates and special levy 32 Income – Higher Land Water Contributions (HLWC) 34 Additional funding 34 Expenditure – Environment Agency precept 36 Expenditure – maintenance 37 Annual report 37

Operation and maintenance 39 Assets 39 Asset inspections 39 Maintenance 40 Maintenance standards 40 IDB maintenance 41 Environment Agency maintenance 42 Incident / emergency response 43

Benefits assessment 45 Introduction 45 The Defra tool 45

Additional information 46 Enmainment and demainment of watercourses 46 Questions and answers 47

Glossary 51

Related documents

Appendices

Appendix A – Working with others to find new management arrangements

Appendix B – Feedback report – revised Oct 2013

Appendix C – Precept report – East of Gravesend

Appendix D – Precept report – West of Gravesend

Appendix E – Accounts – East of Gravesend – 2008/2009 – 2012/2013

Appendix F – Accounts – West of Gravesend – 2008/2009 – 2012/2013

Appendix G – Large format maps

Appendix H – West of Gravesend IDB Maintenance Programme

Appendix I – East of Gravesend IDB Maintenance Programme

Appendix J – West of Gravesend Environment Agency Maintenance Programme

Appendix K – East of Gravesend Environment Agency Maintenance Programme

Appendix L – IDB set up flow diagram

Appendix M – Assets register – West of Gravesend

Appendix N – Assets register – East of Gravesend

Introduction

Purpose

1. This report presents the evidence required to support local authorities’ and others’ deliberations on options for the future management of water levels in the West of Gravesend Internal Drainage District (IDD) and the East of Gravesend IDD. Much of the content is common to both IDDs. Where there is something specific to one, it appears like this:

Implications for East of Gravesend

Much of the content of the report is generic but where there is something specific to one IDD it appears like this.

2. It has been compiled by the Environment Agency using information from a number of sources:

 the Environment Agency locally, regionally and nationally;  the local authorities whose boundaries fall within one or both IDDs;  advice from Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) who have been involved in amalgamations and transfers of existing IDDs in the past; and  guidance provided by Defra, the Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) and the Environment Agency in ‘Establishing New Internal Drainage Boards – Guidance’, available from: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/file/1997080

3. The compilation and use of this report is part of a process of engagement, shared decision making and action by local authorities, the Environment Agency and others that is ongoing. This is described in Appendix A.

Rationale

4. For good reasons the Environment Agency does not normally administer IDDs. Where we inherited them from predecessor bodies we have over time transferred or dissolved their management according to local circumstances. The last few remaining ones, eight in total, are all located in the south east and include two in Kent:

 West of Gravesend IDD  East of Gravesend IDD

5. We are aiming for a successful transition to more locally accountable arrangements in these locations. In doing so, they will be in tune with the guidance and requirements set by the government, ADA and the Environment Agency itself.

6. What must change is how these IDDs are managed. What need not change, unless those running them want it that way, is the quality of services provided

and the level of investment made in them. The Environment Agency will be there to help facilitate the transition of governance arrangements over the next year or so and to help inform and support whatever local priorities for water level management emerge as a result.

7. Local authorities pay towards these services and benefit from them. Most importantly they democratically represent others who do the same. As such, local authorities have the pivotal role to play in shaping a way forward that meets local needs.

Timeline

8. Appendix A summarises the progress and plan for enabling local authorities to implement new governance arrangements for local water level management that meet local needs. It proposes a process of three steps:

Step one: from April 2013

Awareness raised; relationships built; process in place for developing a shared way forward.

Step two: from October 2013

Way forward led by local authorities, with Environment Agency support, who use information to make decisions about future water level management that meets local needs.

Step three: from October 2014

Local solution secured, transitional ‘shadow’ arrangements developed for implementation April 2015.

National Background

Definitions: IDDs, IDBs and watercourses

9. This Section describes what an IDD is, what an IDB is and what terms are used to classify watercourses in an IDD.

IDDs

10. An IDD is an area of special drainage need. The area of an IDD is not determined by county or local authority boundaries. Instead, it reflects the definition of an IDD as set out under Section 1(a) of the Land Drainage Act 1991, as an area of land that “will derive benefit, or avoid danger as a result of drainage operations”.

11. The Medway Letter of 1933 was written as a statement, from the then Minister of State for Agriculture and Fisheries, in order to clarify the meaning of such areas as described in the Land Drainage Act 1930. The boundaries of some existing ones have been decided by the Medway Letter, and in some cases amended under mechanisms within the Land Drainage Act 1991.

12. The boundaries of an IDD take into account the topography of the area, and allow for the inclusion of low-lying areas at flood risk or which would derive benefit from water level management activities. Higher ground that would either be cut off by flood events or requires water levels to be managed carefully, for its own benefit or that of the wider catchment, may also be accommodated.

13. In some circumstances where there is significant justification and the benefits can be clearly demonstrated, exceptions may be made to the Medway Letter if agreed by the Minister.

14. The process for establishing a new IDB is discussed in the Additional Information section (195-8) and summarised as a flowchart in Appendix L.

IDBs

15. An IDB is: “A public body that has been established under statute in areas of special drainage need in England and Wales, with permissive powers to undertake work to provide land drainage and water level management within their Internal Drainage District (IDD)” – ‘Establishing New Internal Drainage Boards – Guidance’, Environment Agency and ADA.

Watercourses within IDDs

16. Within an IDD, watercourses can be classified under three headings:

IDB Designated Watercourses

Under Section 14 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, IDBs have a duty to exercise general supervision over all matters relating to drainage of the land within their districts. In addition they have permissive powers to carry out work

on all ordinary watercourses within their district except for those classified as Main Rivers. In practice however, most drainage boards choose to designate specific watercourses within their district upon which to carry out regular maintenance.

Environment Agency Main River

Main River is defined by Section 113 of the Water Resource Act 1991. It means all watercourses shown as such on the statutory Main River maps held by the Environment Agency and Defra, and can include any structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water into or out of the channel. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to carry out works of maintenance and improvement on these rivers.

Other Ordinary Watercourses

All other ordinary watercourses within the drainage district that do not fall into either of the above categories generally remain the primary responsibility of the riparian owners.

History

17. This section summarises the origins and development of IDBs nationally, and the role the Environment Agency has had to play in the governance of a small fraction of them.

18. The forerunners of IDBs date back to the time of Henry III who established a Commission for the drainage of Romney Marsh in Kent in 1252. Many IDBs were established under the Land Drainage Act 1861, but some were established even earlier. Today, their work is controlled by the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by subsequent legislation.

19. Over the years IDBs developed piecemeal to meet local needs. In 2006 a review of the IDDs commissioned by Defra proposed fewer and bigger IDDs – a process of consolidation and modernisation to be carried out over subsequent years.

20. As IDDs have consolidated so have the IDBs that manage them. Since 2007 the numbers have dropped from 175 to 120 (and one in Wales) covering around 10 per cent of lowland England. ADA sees this trend as “almost solely the result of neighbouring boards amalgamating to create larger functioning units” and one set to continue with “the final number of IDBs in England... widely expected to be between 50 and 80”.

21. In a handful of places things happened differently. In 1996 the newly formed Environment Agency inherited from its predecessors the powers and responsibilities for several IDDs in different parts of the country and operated them as though it was itself an IDB. Most of these ‘legacy IDDs’ were transferred to conventional independent local governance in the years that followed.

22. Until 2010 any remaining Environment Agency legacy IDDs were managed through the Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs) as part of their wider role to oversee local investment and prioritisation of flood risk management in their regions. Their members included upper tier local authority representatives.

23. After 2010, RFDCs were replaced through the Flood and Water Management Act by Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs). These have even wider and more strategic roles with neither the mandate nor capacity to undertake the operational management of an IDD.

24. Today, ultimate accountability rests with the Environment Agency Board whose national membership reflects and carries nationwide responsibilities.

25. One of these responsibilities is the Strategic Overview role in the management of all forms of flood and coastal erosion risk across England. This means the Environment Agency works locally alongside unitary and county councils as Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), with district councils and other risk management authorities, including IDBs. All have a role in management of flood risk and water levels for people and wildlife – IDBs are part of this mix.

26. Today’s independent IDBs have memberships of local authority, local ratepayer and landowner interests. It is not the Environment Agency’s job to run an IDB but to provide information, evidence and advice for others to do so.

27. For more information see: http://www.ada.org.uk/about_idbs.html

Current governance

28. This section describes the principles and practice of IDB governance nationally.

29. ADA, in their ‘Vision for Internal Drainage Boards in England and Wales’, describe modern IDBs as having the expertise and organisational capacity to deliver a great service and to “...be representative of the districts they serve through elected and appointed Board membership”.

30. As a member of ADA the Environment Agency supports this point of principle and reiterates it in the guidance and advice it gives. As it is endorsed by Defra it is also a matter of government policy and we follow it.

31. Normally, members of an IDB would either be elected, from those who occupy land in the district, or appointed by charging authorities.

32. Currently, where the Environment Agency acts as though it were an IDB it does so through the Environment Agency Board, without the local representation that would normally apply. However, executive roles and responsibilities remain the same:

 The role of the Clerk is to oversee the administration of the affairs of the IDB including managing the Board’s finances.

 The Board is collectively responsible for ensuring that corporate financial management is adequate and that the Board has a sound system of internal control, which includes arrangements for the management of risk.

33. Boards are required to conduct a review, at least once a year, of the effectiveness of their system of internal control and publish a report. An internal audit function can be used to help compile this report. The Board should also prepare an Annual Return. This has several purposes:

 to report the accounts as approved by the Board;

 to certify that the Board has discharged its statutory duties in relation to financial affairs;

 to record the external audit;

 to inform local taxpayers and electors about what and how the Board has been doing in the last year; and

 to be a source of information for Government and stakeholders about the activity of the Board.

34. The accounts are signed by the Responsible Financial Officer acknowledging that accounting procedures have been observed throughout the year.

Local Background

Definitions: IDDs and IDBs West and East of Gravesend

35. This Section defines the current status of the IDDs to the West and East of Gravesend and the IDBs associated with them.

The two IDDs

36. The two IDDs are areas of drainage need as defined under the Land Drainage Act 1991 – as explained above. The geographical extent of each is described separately in the profiles sections that follow later on in this report.

The two IDBs

37. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1930 the two Boards (Commissions) ceased to exist as separate legal entities in 1946. They were transferred to the Kent Rivers Catchment Board who acted thereafter as though it were an IDB (with the associated powers and responsibilities). This role was inherited by the Environment Agency in 1996 under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

History

38. This section summarises the origins and development of the IDDs and IDBs to the West and East of Gravesend, as well as the role the Environment Agency has played in the governance of them.

39. In the early 17th Century, two Commissions of Sewers were established on the north Kent coast to oversee the drainage of specific areas of low lying, fertile land. In similar places across England bodies like these were being set up and renewed every decade until the Land Drainage Act 1861 made provision for such commissions to be permanent.

40. As a result, the Lombard’s Wall to Gravesend Bridge Commissioners were constituted by and operated under a Commission dated 24 July 1863. The Gravesend Bridge to Sheerness and Penshurst Commissioners were constituted by and operated under a Commission dated 20 November 1860. Each commission was a legal entity, with members (commissioners) appointed to it, and could sue or be sued like any other corporate body. For over 80 years this arrangement was maintained.

41. By the end of the Second World War it was not unusual to pass responsibility for the administration of poorly run or inadequately financed IDDs to other public bodies. These operated as though they were boards but were not IDBs. They would sue and be sued in the name of the relevant public authority and not in the name of any board or commission.

42. This is what happened in north Kent. The two commissions were transferred to the Kent Rivers Catchment Board in July 19461. This followed the making of a scheme by the Catchment Board under Section 4 of the Land Drainage Act 19302 and Section 11 of the same Act3.

43. In the years that followed, legislative changes and reforms meant successive bodies came and went – each inheriting and passing on the IDB functions described above.

From To Date Kent Rivers Catchment Board Kent River Board 1 April 1950 Kent River Board Kent River Authority 1 April 1965 Kent River Authority Southern Water Authority 1 August 1973 Southern Water Authority National Rivers Authority 1 September 1989

44. In 1996 the newly formed Environment Agency inherited the powers and responsibilities for the two IDDs to the west and east of Gravesend from its predecessor. It did so under Sections 3 and 4 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (substantially repeating the provisions of the 1930 Act) and under Section 2 of the Environment Act 1995, enabling the Environment Agency to act then, as now, as though it were an IDB. Until 2010, the Southern RFDC fulfilled this function as part of its wider role to oversee local investment and prioritisation of flood risk management in an Environment Agency region running from Kent to Hampshire.

45. After the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was passed, and following the merging of two Environment Agency regions into a bigger Southeast Region, the Southern RFDC was abolished. Today, ultimate accountability for the governance of the West and East of Gravesend IDDs is not within the Southeast Region, but with the Environment Agency Board, based in Bristol, with national responsibilities and membership.

46. In 2013 the Environment Agency began the process of dissolving this arrangement, working with local authorities and others who will determine management arrangements that meet local needs in line with government policy and industry best practice.

47. Looking to the future, the Environment Agency can under Section 3(2)(d) of the Land Drainage Act 1991 abolish the district for which it acts as though it were an IDB. In addition, by Section 5 of the Act there are provisions whereby the Environment Agency is the drainage board for an IDD, it can transfer those functions back to another body.

1 Under the Kent Rivers Catchment Board (Transfer of Powers of the Commissioners of Sewers from Lombard’s Wall to Gravesend Bridge and the Commissioners of Sewers from Gravesend Bridge to Sheerness and Penshurst in the County of Kent) Order 1946. 2 Whereby the Board were able to make an order abolishing Commissioners of Sewers and abolishing or reconstituting IDDs. 3 Whereby the Minister was given power to transfer to Catchment Boards the powers, duties, liabilities, obligations and property of the Drainage Board “and thereupon the Catchment Board shall become the drainage board of that district for the purposes of this Act...” 12

Current governance

48. This section describes the principles and practice the Environment Agency follows in its governance of the IDDs to the West and East of Gravesend.

49. The Environment Agency acts as IDB through the Environment Agency Board, following the principles of IDB governance outlined elsewhere in this report.

50. The executive functions of managing the West and East of Gravesend IDDs are discharged by officers of the Environment Agency. These are as follows:

 The role of Responsible Financial Officer is undertaken by Paul Leinster, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency.

 The role of Clerk to the Board is undertaken by Peter Carver in the National Finance Operations Team.

 The role of Engineer to the Board is undertaken by Tim Connell, Operations Manager for South London and West Kent.

Roles, powers and responsibilities

Introduction

51. This chapter outlines who does what, and why, in the management of water levels in an IDD. What it says has general applicability but where there are significant and specific implications for the West or East of Gravesend IDDs these are highlighted.

52. The flood risk and water level management activities within IDDs are the responsibility of several organisations whose roles and powers have been established through the following legislation:

 Land Drainage Act 1991 (amended 1994)

 Water Resources Act 1991

 Flood and Water Management Act 2010

53. All legislation details are available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

54. The most recent of these, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, provides the statutory basis for implementing government policy arising from previous strategy documents published by the UK Government: Future Water, Making Space for Water and the Government’s response to the Sir Michael Pitt’s Review of the summer 2007 floods. Key organisations and interests are set out below.

IDBs

55. The primary role of an IDB is to manage the water levels and reduce flood risk within their IDD. The functions of the IDB are clearly set out in the Land Drainage Act 1991 and do not overlap with those of the Environment Agency.

56. IDBs report directly to Defra from whom all the legislation and regulations that affect them are issued. Their powers and responsibilities are established through the Land Drainage Act 1991 and apply within their IDD boundary.

57. Under the Land Drainage Act 1991 IDBs have a duty to exercise general supervision over all matters relating to the drainage of land. To allow them to undertake this they have permissive powers to carry out works on all non Main River watercourses within their district. It is usual practice for a board to designate specific watercourses on which to carry out regular maintenance but, unlike Main River, there is no requirement for a statutory map displaying these.

58. In addition the IDBs may make general byelaws for the efficient working of the drainage system.

Implications for West and East of Gravesend IDDs

There are currently no such local byelaws associated with either IDD and all operations have been undertaken using the permissive powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

59. As part of their supervisory role, an IDB may prohibit the obstruction of watercourses within their district. Anyone constructing or altering a weir, bridge, embankment, culvert or similar obstruction must first seek the consent of the IDB before undertaking work. The IDB are empowered to levy a charge of £50 on applicants seeking this consent.

60. IDBs also input into the planning system by facilitating the drainage of new and existing developments within their districts. They also advise on planning applications, specifically the use of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS).

61. Within a drainage district the local authorities’ permissive powers overlap those of the IDB. Local authority powers, however, are restricted to providing flood protection and they wouldn’t normally become involved in drainage services.

62. Collectively IDBs are one of the most extensive managers of freshwaters and wetlands in England and have a significant role to play in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. All IDBs should now have a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). These aim to increase the knowledge of BAP species and habitats within their districts. They also contribute to their work programmes to enhance biodiversity, particularly for areas outside the boundaries of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

63. The specific environmental obligations are set out in the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991, significantly amended by the Land Drainage Act 1994. IDBs should conduct their work in accordance with the environmental duties set out in the Acts and aim to promote sustainability and the ecological wellbeing of their districts.

Environment Agency

64. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the Environment Agency is responsible for taking a strategic overview of the management of all sources of flooding and coastal erosion in England. As part of this role the Environment Agency is required to set the direction for managing the risks through strategic plans. As part of this strategic overview role, a National Flood and Coastal Risk Management Strategy for England was published. The strategy provides information designed to ensure that the roles of all those involved in managing risk are clearly defined and understood.

65. The Environment Agency’s operational responsibility is for managing the risk of flooding from Main Rivers, reservoirs, estuaries and the sea – as well as being a coastal erosion risk management authority. To undertake this role the

Environment Agency has comprehensive control powers over Main River in a catchment. The Environment Agency has key powers in relation to:

 Maintaining, improving or constructing new or existing drainage works;  Maintaining, improving or constructing new drainage works for the purpose of defence against tidal water;  Designation of Main Rivers;  Ensuring maintenance of flow in watercourses (Main River or ordinary watercourses outside of a drainage district);  Requiring repairs to watercourses;  Making byelaws to regulate works that may affect main rivers or sea/tidal defences;  Flood warning systems; and  General aims and environmental duties.

LLFAs

66. Established under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, LLFAs (unitary authorities or county councils) have lead responsibility for managing the risk of flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses.

67. LLFAs are responsible for developing, maintaining and applying a strategy for local flood risk management in their areas and for maintaining a register of flood risk assets.

District councils

68. District councils are key partners in planning local flood risk management and can carry out flood risk management works on minor watercourses, working with LLFAs and others. This includes taking decisions on development in their area which ensure that risks are effectively managed. District and unitary councils in coastal areas also act as coastal erosion risk management authorities.

Landowners

69. Anyone who owns land adjacent to, above or with a watercourse running through it, has certain rights and responsibilities and, in legal terms, is the riparian owner. The rights of a riparian owner have been established in common law for many years but they may be affected by other laws.

70. Anyone whose land boundary is next to a watercourse is assumed to own the land up to the centre of the watercourse. The riparian owner has general responsibilities to ensure water flows through their land without obstruction, pollution or diversion which affects the rights of others. They must also accept flood flows through their land. They have the right to protect their property from flooding but must get their plans approved by the relevant authority.

71. In addition, riparian owners have a legal obligation to notify the Environment Agency and the relevant risk management authority if they would like to build or alter a structure that acts as an obstruction to a watercourse.

72. The Environment Agency has a published guide for riverside property owners called ‘Living on the Edge’ which is available from the Environment Agency website at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31626.aspx.

Strategic context

Introduction

73. This chapter describes the most relevant strategies and policies for water level management in the West and East of Gravesend IDDs.

74. The management of water levels in the West and East of Gravesend IDDs is informed by a range of policies and strategies. Many of these relate to flood risk and environmental protection. Others may relate to spatial or economic planning for the sustainable development of businesses and communities. Much is common to both the West and East of Gravesend IDDs.

North Kent Rivers Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

75. This was published by the Environment Agency in 2008 and is available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/127387.aspx

76. CFMPs help us to understand the scale and extent of flooding now and in the future, and set policies for managing flood risk within a catchment. They inform planning and decision making by risk management authorities including local authorities, IDBs, water companies and the Environment Agency – as well as land owners, farmers and land managers.

77. CFMPs promote more sustainable approaches to managing flood risk. The policies identified in a CFMP trigger a range of plans, projects and actions by a variety of interests. The relationship between them is shown in Figure 1 below.

Policy planning  CFMPs and Shoreline Management Plans.  Action plans define requirement for delivery plans, projects and actions.

Delivery plans (see note) Projects and actions  Influence spatial planning to reduce risk and  Make sure that spending delivers the best restore floodplains. possible outcomes.  Prepare for and manage floods (including  Focus on risk based targets, for example, local flood warning plans). numbers of households at risk.  Managing assets.  Water level management plans. Note: Plans may have plural ownership. Environment Agency may lead, enable or support others to do so.  Land management and habitat creation.  Surface water management plans. Figure 1: The relationship between the CFMP, delivery plans, strategies, projects and actions

78. The North Kent Rivers CFMP sets the strategic direction for managing non-tidal flood risk in both the West and East of Gravesend IDD catchments.

Implications for the East of Gravesend IDD

There are two CFMP policy units for the East of Gravesend IDD: 1. North Kent Marshes 2. North Kent Downs

The policy for North Kent Marshes is:

“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).”

In this unit we expect alternative actions to be taken to reduce risk to the urban areas while accepting that flooding will worsen in the more rural areas. The agricultural land is internationally important grazing marsh. Action should be taken to look for opportunities to work with landowners and conservation organisations to create and restore wetland habitat in the marshes.

The policy for North Kent Downs is:

“No active intervention, continue to monitor and advise.”

This policy supports sustainability through accepting that flood risk in the unit is negligible and the impacts of taking no action are small enough to be accepted.

However the no active intervention policy applies to the Environment Agency only. Local authorities and water companies will need to continue to maintain drainage assets in urban areas to prevent increased local flood risk from surface water and minor drains.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

The CFMP policy unit for West of Gravesend IDD is Dartford and Ebbsfleet.

The policy for this unit is:

“Take further action to sustain the current scale of flood risk into the future (responding to the potential increases in flood risk from urban development, land use change and climate change).”

This policy supports sustainability through sustaining the current level of risk to people and infrastructure. It is acknowledged that flood risk in areas to be developed needs to be well understood so that proposed developments do not put more people at risk.

Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)

79. The TE2100 plan was published by the Environment Agency in 2012. It sets the strategic direction for the management of tidal flood risk in the Thames Estuary over the next 100 years.

80. The plan is important to both the West and East of Gravesend IDDs as it sets the management of the current and future protection given to the low lying marsh system by the tidal defences. It also includes the drainage through the defences from the IDD watercourses to the sea.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

The East of Gravesend IDD falls within the North Kent Marshes policy unit.

The TE2100 Plan recommended a policy for the North Kent Marshes as follows:

“...to continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk. We will continue to maintain flood defences at their current level, accepting that the likelihood and/or consequences of a flood will increase because of climate change.”

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

The West of Gravesend IDD falls within the two policy units: 1. Dartford and Erith 2. Swanscombe & Northfleet

The TE2100 Plan recommended a policy for both these units as follows:

“…to take further action to keep up with climate change so that flood risk does not increase.”

81. The TE2100 Plan also considers the impact of coastal squeeze4 within the Thames Estuary, caused by the presence of tidal defences. Proposals for new defences that lead to predicted loss of designated habitats require Imperative Reasons for Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) before they can proceed, and then compensatory habitats must be found elsewhere.

4 Coastal squeeze is the term used to describe what happens to coastal habitats that are trapped between a fixed landward boundary, such as a sea wall and rising sea levels and/or increased storminess. The habitat is effectively 'squeezed' between the two forces and diminishes in quantity and or quality. In the Thames Estuary saltmarshes are under threat from this effect. Coastal habitats will naturally adapt to a changing climate by migrating inland, but there is no room for this process to happen if the land is used for industry, housing, agriculture or recreation and is defended due to its economic or civic value.

Habitat Creation Programme

82. The first 20 years of the TE2100 Plan run from 2006 – 2026. This first epoch of the TE2100 Plan is predicted to see loss of valuable intertidal habitat due to coastal squeeze. The Environment Agency is investigating where intertidal habitat improvements in the Thames Estuary can be made to compensate for this loss.

83. It is likely that not enough habitats will be found and improved along the Thames Estuary by 2026. Options to address this include:

 Accelerating the 2nd epoch sites (2026 – 2056);  Considering sites within neighbouring Shoreline Management Plans;  Revisiting previously discounted sites; and  Looking outside the Thames Estuary to meet our first epoch requirements.

84. The Environment Agency, Natural England (NE) and Defra have agreed to explore these and other new approaches. Working with RSPB, the Greater Thames Marshes Nature Improvement Area and others across the wider estuary, the Environment Agency aims to help enable a more collaborative approach to habitat creation in future.

Implications for the West and East of Gravesend IDDs

There is no certainty at present over which sites across the estuary would provide compensatory habitat for the first phase and whether any of these would be within the areas of either IDD.

It is possible that a united approach to water level management for the locality will give local needs a stronger voice in any strategic forums that emerge for the benefit of the wider estuary in future.

South Thames Estuary and Marshes Water Level Management Plan (WLMP)

85. This was published by the Environment Agency in 1998.

86. The objective of the WLMP is to set a management regime for the operating authorities – in this case the Environment Agency, the IDB and landowners – to manage water level and drainage needs while supporting the requirements of the designated SSSI and Special Protection Area (SPA) habitats.

87. The current WLMP was agreed and signed up to by a range of stakeholders throughout the East of Gravesend IDD, however the existing plan is acknowledged to be out of date and in need of review. There has been a shift in objectives for water level management in the catchment which is a result of NE administered Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship schemes.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

None – there is no WLMP because there are no designated habitats here.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

The work that local authorities are doing to explore options for future water level management arrangements that meet local needs will be helpful in stimulating or informing any future review of the WLMP.

Nature Improvement Area (NIA)

88. NIAs were established following the publication of the Natural Environmental White Paper (NEWP) in 2011. These are large geographical areas aiming to improve ecological connectivity on a landscape scale. Partnership working is at the core of NIAs to join up local economies and local action to work towards an improved environment.

89. Both the West and East of Gravesend IDDs are located within the Greater Thames Marshes NIA. The partnership for this is led by the Thames Estuary Partnership with the aim of bringing together and reconciling the many designations and features of biodiversity value with other additional pressures present in the estuary.

Implications for the West and East of Gravesend IDDs

Local Flood Risk Management Strategies

Kent

90. As a LLFA, Kent County Council (KCC) has produced a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy covering the management of flood risk from surface water and ordinary watercourses in Kent. The strategy is available here: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/environment-and- planning/flooding/Kent%20Local%20Flood%20Risk%20Management%20Strateg y%20-%20Report.pdf

Medway

91. As a LLFA, Medway Council (MC) is producing a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy covering the management of flood risk from surface water and ordinary watercourses in Medway.

London Borough of Bexley (LBB)

92. As a LLFA, the LBB has appointed consultants to compile the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Bexley. This is a joint commission with the South East London Flood Partnership. The Strategy will be in two parts : a group wide partnership strategy and another specific to Bexley. For more information: http://democracy.bexley.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=11402

93. Other LBB strategies and studies include:

 Surface Water Management Plan: currently in draft form.  Strategic Flood Risk Assessment: available at SFRA, along with associated mapping.  Crayford Study (2007);  Erith and Belvedere Ditches and Dykes Study and Management Plan (2009/2011);  Thamesmead Canals (2010);  Erith Western Gateway (2007).

Profile of the West of Gravesend IDD

Introduction

94. This chapter describes the geography, the watercourses and the water level management assets in the IDD. It also describes designated sites of environmental significance. Any other designations (such as for archaeology and historic monuments) that are relevant to water level management are also listed.

Figure 2: Map showing the West of Gravesend IDD (for a larger version, see Appendix G)

95. The Commissioners of Sewers Lombard’s Wall to Gravesend Bridge IDD, known locally as the West of Gravesend IDD, covers an area between Dartford Creek and the Swanscombe Peninsula in Kent – see Figure 2.

96. The current IDD lies within the administrative boundaries of KCC, DBC, GBC and LBB. It is a mixture of both rural and urban land use covering 804 hectares containing approximately 1,490 residential buildings and 568 non residential buildings, including commercial properties, schools and infrastructure.

97. The district is separated into two areas, one to the west and one to the east of the map. The larger of the two, to the west, covers the Dartford Marshes and parts of Dartford Town and the other, to the east, covers parts of the Swanscombe Marshes.

98. The western area is the larger of the two at 654 hectares and is bordered by the Thames Estuary to the north and Dartford Creek to the west. Its eastern boundary ends just before the town of Greenhithe and just as it enters the main

centres of Dartford and Crayford to the south. Although a large proportion of the area is marshland, it is dominated by key infrastructure including Littlebrook Power Station, sewage works and the toll plaza for the Dartford Crossing.

99. The smaller eastern area is 150 hectares in size and is bounded by the Thames Estuary to the north, east and west. As with the western area, a large proportion of this area is marshland and it is also dominated by key infrastructure. This includes industrial estates, sewage works and part of the high speed channel tunnel rail link, including its Thames Crossing Tunnel.

Watercourses within the IDD

100. As discussed above (16) IDBs usually designate specific ordinary watercourses within their IDD on which to carry out regular maintenance. For the West of Gravesend IDD, the IDB has designated approximately 2.5 kilometres of ordinary watercourses to actively manage. These are listed below:

1 Swanscombe Drain 2 Crayford Triangle 3 Dartford Marshes

101. In addition to the IDB designated watercourses, there are also 17.5 kilometres of Main River that is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. These watercourses are listed below:

E100 Dartford and Crayford Creeks E300 River Cray E320 Middle River E330 Stanham River E400 Dartford Marsh Sewer E410 Littlebrook E420 Stone Marshes E430 Swanscombe Marsh

102. There is also a network of ordinary watercourses and drainage ditches within the district that are managed by the riparian owners.

Archaeology and historic monuments

103. KCC provide a Historic Environment Record database containing information about 24,000 archaeological sites and discoveries, historic landscapes, excavations and listed buildings.

104. For more information http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/ExploringKentsPast/

Profile of the East of Gravesend IDD

Introduction

105. This chapter describes the geography, the watercourses and the water level management assets in the IDD. It also describes designated sites of environmental significance. Any other designations (such as for archaeology and historic monuments) that are relevant to water level management are also listed.

Figure 3: Map showing the East of Gravesend IDD (for a larger version, see Appendix G)

106. The Commissioners of Sewers Gravesend Bridge to Sheerness and Penshurst IDD, known locally as the East of Gravesend IDD, covers an area between Gravesend and the Isle of Grain in Kent – see Figure 3.

107. The current district lies within the administrative boundaries of KCC, MC and GBC. It is mostly rural and covers an area of 8,599 hectares. There are approximately 6,590 residential buildings and 620 non residential buildings, including commercial properties, schools and infrastructure. Its main urban area, at Milton, Gravesend is on its western boundary. The eastern edge of the district is 24 kilometres away at Grain Village, with the extensive marsh and grasslands of the North Kent marshes in between. The IDD is bordered to the north by the Thames Estuary and to the south by higher ground. The district population live mainly within small villages.

108. Much of the area is managed by the landowners under a number of Environmental Stewardship agreements. These are agri-environment schemes

that provide funding to farmers and other land managers to deliver effective environmental management of the land.

Watercourses within the IDD

109. As discussed above (16) IDBs usually designate specific watercourses within their district on which to carry out regular maintenance. For the East of Gravesend IDD, the board has designated approximately 29 k ilometres of ordinary watercourses to actively manage. These watercourses are listed below:

1 Egypt Bay Delph 2 Lower Hope Delph 3 Curtis and Harvey 4 Ham Wall 5 Cooling Sewer 6 North Level 7 Allhallows 8 Shorne Marshes 9 Great Clane Marshes 10 St Marys Delph 11 Westcourt

110. In addition to the IDB designated watercourses there are also 46 k ilometres of Main River that is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. These watercourses are listed below:

E510 Cliffe Creek E500a Shorne and Higham Marshes E500b Norfolk Road E500c Damigos Road E500d Dering Way E500e Medway Thames Canal E530 Cooling and Halstow Marshes E520 Cliffe Marshes E540 Allhallows, Grain and Stoke Marsh

111. There is also a large network of ordinary watercourses and drainage ditches within the district that are managed by the riparian owners.

Statutory designated sites

112. All IDBs should conduct their work in accordance with a number of general environmental duties and promote the ecological wellbeing of their districts. In addition, an IDB also has the duty to further the conservation and enhancement of any designated environmental sites within their districts, for example, SSSIs.

113. There is a requirement for public bodies under Section 28H of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to consult with and provide written notice to NE when they need to undertake operations within the boundary of a SSSI. This also applies to

works or operations outside of SSSIs where there may be an impact upon the designated features of the SSSI.

114. Within the East of Gravesend IDD there are a number of statutory national and internationally designated sites. These are covered in more detail below.

South Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI

115. This SSSI comprises 5,449.14 hectares and is as notified under S.28 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Figure 4: South Thames and Marshes SSSI (for a larger version, see Appendix G)

116. The site consists of an extensive area of grazing marsh, saltmarsh, mudflats and shingle characteristic of the estuarine habitats of the North Kent Marshes. There are also freshwater pools and some areas of woodland. These habitats support a diverse range of species, including rare invertebrates and nationally scarce plants.

117. The SSSI also supports great numbers of waterfowl with many species regularly occurring in nationally important numbers and other species regularly use the site in internationally important numbers. The breeding bird community is also of interest.

Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA

118. Comprising 4,802.47 hectares of land classified under directive 79/409 of Conservation of Wild Birds, the outstanding bird and wetland interest of this site means it is also designated as a SPA.

Figure 5: Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA (for a larger version, see Appendix G)

Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar

119. This area comprises 5,553.59 hectares of land designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as waterfowl habitat (1971). The outstanding bird and wetland interest of this site means it is also designated as a Ramsar site.

Figure 6: Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar (for a larger version, see Appendix G)

120. The numbers and presence of certain species is of international importance and such designations require additional duties to ensure the protection and enhancement of the sites for these species.

The future of the district

121. Under the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan there are a number of sites that fall within the East of Gravesend IDD that have been proposed as potential areas for future habitat creation. Although no sites have been confirmed or acquired for this purpose, it is important to note that there is the potential for significant changes in the future. The potential change from agricultural land use to tidal habitat could have a significant effect on the income of a new IDB in this area.

Archaeology and historic monuments

122. KCC provide a Historic Environment Record database containing information about 24,000 archaeological sites and discoveries, historic landscapes, excavations and listed buildings.

123. For more information http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/ExploringKentsPast/

Financial information

Introduction

124. This section details the various sources of income and expenditure of an IDB. It also includes specific financial information for the IDD.

125. IDBs are predominantly funded by those who benefit from their work. In particular an IDB gathers revenues through:  Drainage rates – from agricultural land and buildings;  Special levies – issued on district and unitary authorities; and  Higher Land Water Contributions from the Environment Agency.

126. Long term financial stability is important for all IDBs to allow them to undertake their work. How the expenses of an IDB are met is established under Section 36 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. There are a number of different sources of income and expenditure and these are illustrated in Figure 7 below

Figure 7: Income and expenditure of an IDB Source: Association of Drainage Authorities

Income – grants and contributions

127. In order to fund drainage and risk management activities, an IDB is able to raise funds through both charges and levies on local authorities and agricultural

land owners. The IDB also receives payments from the Environment Agency in relation to water entering their district from higher ground.

128. In addition to this income, the IDB can also apply to the Environment Agency for capital funding for improvement works.

Income – drainage rates and special levy

129. Drainage rates and special levies are the main source of income for an IDB and are collected by the board on an annual basis. Special levies and Drainage Rates are set each year at a level so that between them the total assessed expenditure for the Internal Drainage District (IDD) for the year is funded.

130. Historically all income was collected in the form of drainage rates with all property and land within the IDD receiving a bill based on their rateable value. This did not take into account the difference between agricultural, residential or commercial property and land. This method of drainage rate collection has changed and today properties and land within the IDD are divided into two categories:

 Agricultural land and buildings; and  Other land – such as residential houses, commercial properties and roads.

131. The proportion to be raised by each is determined by the relative land values of non agricultural land (for special levies) to agricultural land (for drainage rates). Drainage rates are raised on riparian landowners of agricultural land whilst district councils that administer non agricultural land are charged the special levies.

Drainage rates

132. To calculate the drainage rates, each property within the district is allotted an ‘annual value’. The annual value is an amount equal to the annual rent, or the rent that might be expected, if let on a tenancy from year to year commencing on the 1 April 1988. This annual value remains the same from year to year.

Implications for West and East of Gravesend IDDs

The ‘annual value’ for properties in these districts was last revised in 1992.

133. Each year, the board sets a ‘penny rate in the £1’ to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year ahead. This rate is then multiplied by the annual value of the land to give the agricultural property drainage rates.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

The penny rate in the £1 for 2012/2013 was set at 1.67 pence.

Here are two hypothetical examples of applying that rate to an agricultural property, factoring in its annual value in order to calculate the drainage rate:

Property 1: 74.1 ha agricultural farmland Annual value = £4,445.00 Drainage rate = £4,445.00 x £0.0167 = £74.23

Property 2: 2.4 ha agricultural farmland Annual value = £116.00 Drainage rate = £116 x £0.0167 = £1.94

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

The penny rate in the £1 for 2012/2013 was set at 5.89 pence.

Here are two hypothetical examples of applying that rate to an agricultural property, factoring in its annual value in order to calculate the drainage rate:

Property 1: 107 ha agricultural farmland Annual value = £7,238.00 Drainage rate = £7,238 x £0.0589 = £426.32

Property 2: 2.7 ha agricultural farmland Annual value = £134.00 Drainage rate = £134.00 x £0.0589 = £7.89

Special levies

134. Each IDB sets a special levy for district or unitary local authorities within the IDD to pay. The basis for doing this derives from Section 4 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

135. They are charged to local authorities in respect of the non-agricultural land existing within the boundaries of the IDD area. The amounts are based on the proportion of the IDD area that is non-agricultural and assessed land values. For any given year, the actual special levy figure, alongside the actual drainage rate figure, will be set according to the IDD expenditure budget.

136. The amounts so levied by the EA on the district councils are then included in the amounts that district councils themselves levy on their domestic residents and commercial organisations. As such these costs also fall on property owners, but via the council tax charges.

137. As per the Local Audit and Accountability Bill 2013 – 2014, the levy will be met in future years from the general expenditure of the local authority. This means the levy is funded by the main revenue sources of local government,

council tax, central government grants and retained business rates. Local authorities set council tax rates but business rates are determined centrally.

Differential ratings

138. Under Section 38 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 an IDD can be divided into sub-districts for the purpose of setting different drainage rates and special levies across district. Different drainage rates reflect the difference in the level of service provided by an IDB. For example, in a district that has both areas that are pumped and areas that drain under gravity and therefore receive a different level of service from the IDB.

139. More information on differential ratings is available from the ADA website.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

Differential ratings do not currently occur within the West of Gravesend IDD.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

Differential ratings do not currently occur within the East of Gravesend IDD.

Income – Higher Land Water Contributions (HLWC)

140. Under Section 57 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, an IDB may apply to the Environment Agency for a contribution in relation to the quantity of water which their district receives from land at higher levels. Applications for HLWC are made on an annual basis and are paid at the discretion of the Environment Agency.

141. HLWC are granted when additional pumping/maintenance is required. This is usually due to extra water management pressures coming from higher areas that are managed by the Environment Agency, and are entering an IDD. Where there are such pressures, an HLWC figure is calculated and paid based on an assessment of their impact on the IDB.

Implications for the East of Gravesend IDD

HLWC is currently paid within the East of Gravesend IDD.

Implications for the West of Gravesend IDD

HLWC is not currently paid within the West of Gravesend IDD.

Additional funding

142. There are a number of other potential sources of funding available to all IDBs.

Grant in aid

143. From April 2008 the Environment Agency has had overall responsibility for the approval and payment of capital Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) across all authorities in England.

144. There is guidance available which sets out how the Environment Agency approves Flood Risk Management and Coastal Erosion Studies, Strategies and Projects and processes payments of FDGiA. Local authorities and IDBs must follow the 2012 Grant Memoranda when applying for FDGiA under the Land Drainage Act 1991, the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

145. The Grant Memoranda set out the terms and conditions the Environment Agency must comply with when deciding whether to grant in aid studies and projects. Grant in aid is made available under the Land Drainage Act 1991, and Coast Protection Act 1949, with grant payable under Section 16 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Flooding from the sea is promoted under the Land Drainage Act and classed as flood risk management, whilst coastal erosion continues to be promoted under the Coast Protection Act. There may be locations where it is unclear which legislation should be used and in these cases it will be determined on the basis of which element provides the majority of the benefits.

146. The overall process for the approval and grant of aid to projects and preliminary studies is:

Forward Planning and allocation of funding Application for Grant in Aid Approval of preliminary study or project Variations to a preliminary study or project Payment of Grant in Aid Project closure Final statement of accounts

147. In 2012/2013 a new approach to funding flood and coastal risk management was introduced. This is called Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding, known simply as partnership funding.

148. Partnership funding works on the basis that instead of meeting the full costs of a limited number of projects, a proportion of Government funding would be available to any suitable scheme. Funding levels for each scheme will relate directly to the benefits delivered.

149. More details including guidance documents on all aspects of securing capital funding is available on the Environment Agency website at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33700.aspx.

150. The first point of contact for IDBs wishing to apply for FDGiA is the Environment Agency Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager.

Other Grants

151. Where appropriate, IDBs may also apply to lottery funding agencies or the European Union, for additional grants for capital and environmental works.

Consenting Charges

152. Another source of income for IDBs is through their role as the drainage authority. As stated earlier in the report, an application for consent must be submitted to the board for any works within an IDD.

153. Where an application for consent is made, the board is allowed to charge an application fee of £50 for the administration of the consent. This sum may be varied but only by ministerial order.

Implications for the East of Gravesend IDD

None of these additional funding sources are currently utilised within the East of Gravesend IDD.

Implications for the West of Gravesend IDD

None of these additional funding sources are currently utilised within the West of Gravesend IDD.

Expenditure - Environment Agency precept

154. Under Section 139 of the Water Resources Act 1991 the Environment Agency imposes a precept charge on all IDBs towards its expenses. The precept funds are raised for the benefit of the IDB served through essential work to Main River within or flowing from or into their district. The payment of the precept is compulsory, however it can be appealed if the IDB feel that it is unfair.

155. The IDB may also request details on how the precept is spent by the Environment Agency. Following representation from external IDBs the Environment Agency has committed to producing an annual report on the benefits arising from the IDB precept.

156. Precept allocation has altered in recent years to provide further benefit and transparency to IDBs. The Environment Agency precepts on IDBs an amount designed to contribute to the flood risk management work that is carried out in the immediate locality of the IDD, and the wider work of the Environment Agency. This further amount will include contributions towards the construction of capital schemes, the maintenance of flood risk assets and relevant administrative and support time needed to ensure these activities are carried out.

157. Where the maintenance of Environment Agency assets and watercourses within areas of land drainage benefit are not fully funded by FDGiA, the shortfall

for this work is met by precept. All remaining precept funds are then allocated to projects that provide a benefit to the IDD.

158. Apart from maintenance, the precept payment is usually the main expenditure of any IDB.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

The Environment Agency imposes a precept charge on the IDB but has not compiled a precept report for this in the past. A precept report has now been prepared and is set out in Appendix C.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

The Environment Agency imposes a precept charge on the IDB but has not compiled a precept report for this in the past. A precept report has now been prepared and is set out in Appendix D.

Expenditure - maintenance

159. The most important expenditure for any IDB is in undertaking the annual programmed maintenance within the IDD.

Implications for West and East of Gravesend

It should be noted that the costs of maintenance are determined by the Environment Agency’s operational costs and are not necessarily indicative of how much the same maintenance would cost if the services were procured independently.

The Environment Agency’s current operational labour cost is £26.00 per hour and includes a proportion for overhead recovery.

Annual Report

160. In accordance with Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Land Drainage Act 1991, an ID B is required to submit to the relevant Minister a report of their proceedings during the preceding year. A copy of the report should also be sent to the Environment Agency and every council and London borough in which any part of the IDD is situated.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

Appendix F provides a summary of the annual accounts for the IDB for the last five financial years.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

Appendix E provides a summary of the annual accounts for the IDB for the last five financial years.

Operation and Maintenance

Assets

161. The operation and maintenance of assets and watercourses within the drainage district is undertaken for both water level management and flood risk purposes. This section describes the assets, and the activities covering their operation and maintenance.

162. Assets are listed and described in an assets register. This includes location and type, owner, target and actual condition.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

A copy of the assets register for the West of Gravesend IDD is attached in Appendix M.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

A copy of the assets register for the East of Gravesend IDD is attached in Appendix N.

Asset inspections

Visual Asset condition assessments

163. The Environment Agency undertakes visual inspections of the IDB assets to determine whether they are at the required standard. The inspection follows current Environment Agency processes and involves assessing the condition of each element of the asset assigning it a condition grade. This is between 1 (very good) and 5 (very poor) to give a calculated overall condition which is then compared against the assets target condition. Visual inspections of the assets are carried out on a risk based frequency of once every five years.

164. The visual assessment is the simplest form of non-destructive testing and does not require any specialist equipment. If there is a query over the condition of an asset a further more detailed assessment is recommended and undertaken. This is a widely used technique for monitoring assets and their surroundings and is a key indicator of an asset’s performance and integrity.

165. Inspection is an important tool that underpins a risk based approach to asset management. It allows the targeting of resources and whole life management including identifying the need for future investment.

Public Safety Risk Assessments (PSRA)

166. There is a legal obligation to assess, control and minimise public safety risks that may be created by assets or activities. In this context assets are those IDB structures that the Environment Agency maintain and/or operate.

167. Each asset is fully assessed every five years to identify hazards created by the asset and any mitigation measures that are required to minimise the risk. All subsequent inspections are carried out on a risk based frequency to ensure control measures are in place.

Maintenance

168. Maintenance is any work that sustains the standard of service expected at a certain time in an asset’s life. In some situations maintenance is no longer sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of service and refurbishment or replacement of the asset is required.

169. In general the maintenance of the assets and watercourses that is undertaken within the IDD falls under two categories – frequent and intermittent.

Frequent maintenance

170. This includes all routine activities that are repeated at intervals of less than five years mainly undertaken through the annual maintenance programme. For example, channel vegetation management, or mowing of flood defence banks to prevent colonisation and root damage from woody vegetation.

Intermittent maintenance

171. This covers activities that are undertaken on a ‘one-off’ basis or repeated at intervals greater than five years. This includes all refurbishment and replacement of assets for example sediment management.

Maintenance standards

172. All frequent maintenance within IDDs, whether on IDB watercourses or Environment Agency Main River, follows the FCRM Asset Management Maintenance Standards published by the Environment Agency. This manual helps determine the type and frequency of activities to be undertaken on our flood risk assets. It also helps selection of the appropriate environmentally sensitive option to fulfil our commitment to maintain, restore and enhance the water environment whilst carrying out our flood defence activities.

173. More information, with guidance on grass and weed cutting practices taken from Environmental Options for River Maintenance Works are available at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/109548.aspx

IDB maintenance

174. The IDB frequent (annual) maintenance programme is outlined in the chart below. This allows resources to be directed appropriately within the district and allows response to unforeseen works requirements when they occur.

Future year Assessment of Maintenance Work proposed need for Final Programme Undertaken maintenance maintenance as agreed (September to programme per programme (August) February) (March to April) (July to August)

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

A copy of the 2013/2014 IDB maintenance programme is presented in Appendix H.

In recent years the main focus of maintenance within the West of Gravesend district has been on in channel vegetation management. We have also undertaken channel sediment management on the Dartford Marshes Watercourse to return the channel to full capacity and improve conveyance.

In 2012/2013 we had programmed to undertake sediment management on the Crayford Triangle watercourse. This was postponed due to a new health and safety requirement for a two-metre work margin between machine and bank that could not be met at the time. Now the work has been included in the 2013/2014 programme.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

A copy of the 2013/2014 maintenance programme is presented in Appendix I.

In recent years the maintenance within the East of Gravesend district has focussed mainly on watercourse sediment management.

In 2006 a five year programme of sediment management was established for a number of the watercourses to return the channels to full capacity and improve conveyance.

Watercourses where the programme has been implemented:

Watercourse Length Financial Year (km) 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Ham Wall 2.9  Curtis and 2.4  Harvey Cooling 4.3  Sewer Allhallows 10.1  Marsh Lower Hope 2  Delph and Egypt Bay Delph Year 1 Great Clane 2  Marshes Lower Hope 0.75  Delph and Egypt Bay Delph Year 2 Lower Hope 2 Delph and  Egypt Bay

Delph Year 3

Environment Agency maintenance

175. The Environment Agency undertakes frequent and intermittent maintenance works either directly within the IDD or an area that provides a benefit to the IDD. These works are funded by FDGiA or a combination of FDGiA and IDB precept.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

The Environment Agency’s frequent maintenance in this area includes both in channel vegetation management and mowing on the Thames tidal embankments to prevent colonisation and root damage by woody vegetation.

A copy of the 2013/2014 Environment Agency maintenance programme that is undertaken within or benefits the system is provided in Appendix J.

Implications for the East of Gravesend IDD

The Environment Agency’s frequent maintenance in this area is dominated by mowing on the Thames tidal embankments to prevent colonisation and root damage by woody vegetation.

A copy of the 2013/2014 Environment Agency maintenance programme that is undertaken within or benefits the system is provided in Appendix K.

Incident/emergency response

176. There is no formal requirement for an IDB to provide an out of hours incident/emergency response service. However, many IDBs do provide this service and it is a decision to be made by the IDB based on resources available to them.

177. An IDB’s main priorities during a flooding incident should be:

 to ensure their systems are working efficiently;  to provide protection to people and properties; and  to provide protection to agricultural land and ecologically sensitive sites.

178. To perform an incident/emergency service during times of heavy rainfall and high river levels, IDBs may:

 liaise with the Environment Agency over developing flood conditions;  check sensitive locations and remove restrictions;  take actions where possible to reduce the risk of flooding to property;  advise local authorities on the developing situation so that local authorities can execute their emergency plans effectively for the protection of people, property and key infrastructure;  assist where possible in any post-flood remedial and clearance operations; and  assess flooding incidents to determine if new works can be undertaken to reduce the effect of future flooding incidents.

179. Another key role in planning and preparing for localised incidents and emergencies is performed by Local Resilience Forums (LRF). Formed in each police area under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they bring together key emergency responders and specific supporting agencies. They aim to coordinate

all the emergency responders to identify potential risks and produce emergency plans to prevent or mitigate the impact of any incidents. ADA would encourage all IDBs to be aware of and make contact with their respective LRF.

Implications for East of Gravesend IDD

There have been no instances when an out of hours incident/emergency response has been required within the district that would not have been dealt with by the Environment Agency as a Category 1 responder.

Implications for West of Gravesend IDD

Benefits Assessment

Introduction

180. This chapter describes an assessment methodology that is being developed to quantify the benefits of water level management.

181. Reviews of IDBs that have taken place over the last several years have identified that there is currently no consistent method for assessing the benefits that IDB activities provide to the local community and their ratepayers.

The Defra tool

182. Defra commissioned Risk and Policy Analysts Limited (RPA) to carry out research to establish a method and tools to enable IDBs to identify the beneficiaries of their work. The research also considered how these benefits could be quantified and so clarifies the relationship between income and expenditure.

183. The objective of the research was to develop a tool or method to identify the range of beneficiaries of an IDB and to measure those benefits quantitatively where possible and qualitatively where not. This will support IDBs in providing relevant information to local communities and to help inform further policy development on IDB boundaries and when setting up new IDBs.

184. The research team have now developed a spreadsheet tool that enables these benefits to be estimated for an individual IDB. This spreadsheet also identifies the extent to which each beneficiary benefits. As would be expected, the extent to which each beneficiary benefits is dependent on the type of IDB. For example, predominantly agricultural IDBs have a high proportion of their overall benefits allocated to farmers and landowners. However, it is important to note that there are often also benefits to the wider society, for example, through the presence of transport infrastructure such as motorways and mainline railways.

185. RPA have recently submitted their final report to Defra and following this research there will be further trialling and testing of the spreadsheet tool before it is made available for all IDBs to use. In the meantime it is available as a prototype.

Implications for West and East of Gravesend IDDs

This prototype tool is available for local authorities to use to estimate the benefits of IDD water level management work and so make a significant contribution to the appraisal of future governance options.

Additional information

186. This section sets out points of clarification, questions and answers that have arisen during the production of this report and which are not covered elsewhere.

Enmainment and demainment of watercourses

187. The enmainment and demainment of watercourses is possible through the process of Main River Variations and applies to both Main River (MR) and Ordinary Watercourse (OW). Enmainment is the process of designating an OW as a statutory MR. Demainment is the process to change a statutory MR to an OW.

188. There are a number of different stages in the Main River Variations process, from identification of need, through consultation, approval, implementation, mapping and distribution. This can take from several months to two years. The chart below describes the process.

• The need for a main river variaion is identified IDENTIFY NEED

• The main river variation is proposed and supporting evidence and VARIATION PROPOSAL documentation drawn up.

• Internal consultation of the variation is undertaken within the INTERNAL CONSULATATION Environment Agency with the supporting evidence.

• All comments from the internal teams are reviwed and the variation is CONSULTATION REVIEW accepted or rejected.

• The Area Flood Risk Manager will make the final decision to proceed INTERNAL APPROVAL with the proposed variation. This is then submitted to the Regional Flood Executive for final internal approval.

• Main River variation proposal paper is submitted to the Regional Flood RFCC SUBMISSION Coastal Committee (RFCC)

• The Regional Flood and Coastal Commitee accept or reject the RFCC DECISION proposed variation. If rejected the proposal can be reviewed and resubmitted otherwise the process ends here.

• Formal submission is made to DEFRA for variation. All relevant DEFRA APPLICATION operating authorities and local authorities are informed of our intention to vary main river.

• 31 days of external consulation of the proposed variation is CONSULTATION AND undertaken. A list of consultees is provided to the EA by DEFRA and includes all local authorities and parish councils. ADVERTISING • Any objections are reolved with a copy of al being sumitted to DEFRA

• DEFRA consider the fomal application and any objections recieved. DEFRA DECISION • DEFRA then accept or reject the variation

• All approved variations are updated on the statutory main river map MAIN RIVER UPDATED

189. The last major process of Main River Variations that occurred and affected the East of Gravesend IDD was in 2005 when a number of critical OW were enmained. The responsibility for them transferred from local authorities to the Environment Agency.

Implications for West and East of Gravesend IDDs

There can be no guarantee that future proposals for Main River Variations will not be made within the current or future IDD.

However no such variations can be made for any reason other than flood risk and cannot be undertaken without wider consultation and approval.

Questions and answers

How is the work to change to the management of IDDs being funded?

190. The costs of dissolving the existing Environment Agency administered IDDs and of our work in enabling transition to more locally accountable arrangements will be met by the Environment Agency.

191. The costs of dissolving will be met by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will also provide reasonable technical support to establishing any new IDDs although any costs for consultancy (such as to determine opportunities for betterment through an IDD) would have to be funded by the communities promoting the IDD.

When will the Environment Agency administered IDDs in Kent be dissolved?

192. We aim for new arrangements to be in place before April 2015, but the timetable for the process in the meantime needs to be appropriate for the local authorities and others involved. We will ensure that our actions are reasonable, fair and openly communicated.

What are the alternatives to the existing IDDs and how would they be funded?

193. There are three broad options:

1. Where there is local support, communities, local authorities or other suitable organisations may set up a new independent IDB(s) to take over some or all of the interests of the existing IDD. The new IDB would be funded as explained elsewhere in the Information Report.

2. Unless a new independent IDB is put in place, riparian landowners will become responsible for carrying out and funding the maintenance of the watercourses and structures. Where there is two-tier local government, the relevant district or borough councils – Gravesham and Dartford – would have permissive powers to maintain the watercourses and Kent County Council would be responsible for enforcement and consenting. Where there is single

tier local government both functions will be carried by the unitary authority (London Borough of Bexley or Medway Council).

3. Where there is an agreed local need for a level of service but insufficient support for a new IDB, the Environment Agency will work in partnership with the interested parties to establish alternative arrangements (outside an IDB structure). Funding would have to be raised by the partnership from local contributions, possibly subsidised by grants from central government, the lottery funding agencies and the European Union. More information can be found using the links below:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33106.aspx

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/116703.aspx

What are the expectations of a new IDB?

194. Using legislative and permissive powers a new IDB will undertake work to manage the drainage and water levels of their districts. It will do this to significantly reduce the risk of flooding to local communities, property, businesses and infrastructure. Within its IDD it will have direct responsibility for works on ordinary watercourses, drainage channels, outfalls and pumping stations, facilitating drainage of new developments and advising on planning applications. It will also have statutory duties with regard to the environment and recreation when exercising its functions.

What is the process for establishing an IDB and is the Environment Agency willing to facilitate / help coordinate this as part of the dissolution process?

195. A new IDB has not been established for 30 years so Defra, the Environment Agency and ADA have prepared guidance on how to set up a new IDB. The guidance can be viewed at: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/file/1997080.

196. The process is fully described in the guidance and the process flow chart is also in Appendix L.

197. The Environment Agency exercises a supervisory role over all IDBs. The Environment Agency will oversee the process of setting up a new IDB and will formally apply to Defra for an order to be made.

198. Along with local authorities, riparian landowners, and local communities the Environment Agency will be a stakeholder in the future management of an IDD. The Environment Agency will actively support local authorities on behalf of their communities in establishing new IDBs if that is the preferred option.

What will the process be if the option of no IDB is chosen?

199. The Environment Agency will instigate the statutory process for dissolving an IDD. This process takes a minimum of nine months dependent on responses to advertisements and notices.

200. In parallel with the statutory process the Environment Agency will work in partnership with local authorities, riparian land owners, conservation bodies and other stakeholders to agree sustainable management regimes for all IDD assets post dissolution. This will include identifying the specific risks for each asset, how and by whom those risks should be managed and any transfer of assets and liabilities such as pumping stations. The Environment Agency will support all parties in planning to meet their new responsibilities on dissolution whilst taking any action it needs to ensure a smooth transition (for example a programme of decommissioning pumping stations).

201. Local authorities and ratepayers will retain monies previously given to the IDB and could commission another body to do the work or do it themselves.

Would the costs be different in the future for a new independent IDB?

202. Comparison with independent IDBs is difficult but a Defra study in 2006 found that the administrative costs of independent IDBs were higher whilst maintenance costs per kilometre were lower than Environment Agency administered IDBs. However, since that time many smaller independent IDBs have either amalgamated or grouped together as consortia, sharing resources and reducing administrative overheads.

203. Irrespective of who acts as IDB, future costs may change with changes in Main River and coastal defence strategies, climate change etc.

204. The 2006 Defra study can be found at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/who/idbreview.htm

Who is responsible for maintenance of a watercourse?

205. It depends how the watercourse is classified, but as a general rule:

 Main River – Landowner, supported by the Environment Agency – in practice the Environment Agency generally undertake all maintenance of Main Rivers were there is sufficient flood risk justification  Non Main River, open ditches, watercourses and culverted watercourses – Landowner  Culverted watercourses beneath public road – Highways Agency/county council  Ditches dug to drain the highway – Highways Agency/county council  Highway gullies and drains – Highways Agency/county council  SUDS – Landowner/maintenance company/LLFA/district council

 Watercourses within the IDB – Landowner supported by the IDB – in practice the IDB generally undertake maintenance on specific watercourses as part of the wider management of the district  Public surface water sewer – water company  Private surface water sewer – landowner/property owner

Why is a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) not necessary?

206. The key objective of the IDD dissolution project is the change of governance of IDBs so that direct Environment Agency responsibility is dissolved, and powers and duties are transferred to another competent authority or authorities. These legal powers and duties include responsibility for protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment in particular sites designated for national or international nature conservation interest. A number of the IDDs in the South East include such sites and these are, in some cases, sensitive to changes in management of IDB watercourses. However as this project is primarily concerned with a transfer of functions and not a change in management, it is considered that this in itself is unlikely to give rise to significant effects leading to requirement for SEA.

Glossary

ADA Association of Drainage Authorities

CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan

DBC Dartford Borough Council

Defra Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EA Environment Agency

GBC Gravesham Borough Council

HLWC Higher Land Water Contribution

IDB Internal drainage board

IDD Internal drainage district

IROPI Imperative Reasons for Overriding Public Interest

KCC Kent County Council

LBB London Borough Bexley

LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority

MC Medway Council

NE Natural England

NIA Nature Improvement Area

RFCC Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

RFDC Regional Flood Defence Committee

RFO Responsible Financial Officer

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

TE2100 Thames Estuary 2100

WLMP Water Level Management Plan