Lincolnshire Coastal Study Summary Report
Lincolnshire Coastal Study
Summary Report
14 May 2010
Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Lincolnshire Coastal Study Steering Group’s information and use in relation to the Lincolnshire Coastal Study. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. © Crown Copyright 2009. The UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) have been made available by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department of Climate Change (DECC) under licence from the Met Office, UK Climate Impacts Programme, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Newcastle University, University of East Anglia, Environment Agency, Tyndall Centre and Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory. These organisations give no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the UKCP09 and do not accept any liability for loss or damage, which may arise from reliance upon the UKCP09 and any use of the UKCP09 is undertaken entirely at the users risk.
Document History
JOB NUMBER: 5080858 DOCUMENT REF: 5080858/75/DG/088
1 Draft NW GD GD GD 31/03/10
2 Final, approved by SG NW GD GD GD 14/05/10
Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final
Summary Report
Glossary
Term Explanation
APE Annual Probability Event CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EiP Examination in Public emda East Midlands Development Agency
EMRA East Midlands Regional Assembly
GOEM Government Office East Midlands LDF Local Development Framework
PPS3 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (CLG, 2006)
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy SA Sustainability Appraisal
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
UKCP09 United Kingdom Climate Projections 2009
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 3
Summary Report
Introduction
With large areas at or below sea level, the Lincolnshire coast is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The most vulnerable stretches of the coast are currently well protected from flooding (and have flood warning systems). However, future rises in sea level mean that it is necessary for decision makers to understand the current and possible future relationship between sea level rise and coastal flooding, economic regeneration, planning and housing provision, agricultural production, tourism, social deprivation, the natural environment, transport and health. Following the Examination in Public (EiP) of the last East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (which guides future development in the East Midlands), the Government asked for more research in preparation for the next RSS review by 2011. The Lincolnshire Coastal Study Group was consequently formed, consisting of Lincolnshire County Council, the coastal local authorities (East Lindsey District Council, Boston Borough Council, South Holland District Council), Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM), East Midlands Development Agency (emda), Environment Agency, Natural England, East Midlands Regional Assembly and the Internal Drainage Boards. The Group commissioned the Lincolnshire Coastal Study to make a fresh assessment of the future needs of the coastal area and to assist in providing a longer-term perspective for planning. For the purposes of the Study the coastal area is defined as Boston Borough Council, South Holland District Council and East Lindsey District Council (excluding the Wolds). The Study addresses coastal flooding issues and puts forward a set of Principles and Options for spatial development which would allow communities in the Study Area to develop and have a viable and prosperous future. The Lincolnshire Coastal Study, along with other evidence (e.g. on housing needs) informs draft policy 5 (and others as appropriate) in the review of the East Midlands RSS. As the Regional Plan Policy 5 notes (GOEM, 2009): A strategy will be agreed between the Regional Planning Body, the three Lincolnshire coastal districts (East Lindsey, Boston and South Holland), Lincolnshire County Council, the Environment Agency and other relevant regional organisations. This will consider primarily: flood risk and flood defence works; housing needs; regeneration needs, including social and economic factors; other infrastructure needs; and the protection of the integrity of designated nature conservation sites of international importance. The strategy should consider how any infrastructure will be funded and the timing of such works. New housing and other new development will need to be carefully phased in accordance with the provision of necessary new infrastructure. The agreed strategy will form part of the next RSS review and if agreed before the adoption of the next review it will form a guide to the preparation of local development documents in the three districts until the regional strategy is rolled forward.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 4
Summary Report
Relationship of the Study to Shoreline Management Plans
The Study is set within the context of emerging Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), which explicitly develop policy on defence presence, position and standard of protection. The Study follows the current draft SMP policies in relation to the line and standard of protection of coastal flood defences. The Study is therefore concerned with residual flood risk i.e. how to manage spatial development behind defences which could be breached or over-topped. Residual risk is more precisely defined in Section 4.2. Adopting this relationship means that the Principles may require revision in future if the third or subsequent round of SMPs lead to the adoption of a different defence line or standard of protection.
Project timeline
Phase 1 of the Lincolnshire Coastal Study commenced in 2008 with a Scoping Study to identify the main issues facing the Lincolnshire coast as well as a literature review of over two hundred international, national, regional and local plans, policies and other documents. Phase 2 of the Study commenced in January 2009. The Study was broken down into five tasks as set out in Table 1. The findings of the five tasks are summarised in the sections that follow.
Table 1 – Lincolnshire Coastal Study tasks
Task Description Timeline Output
Task 1 – Baseline Collation of an economic, January - April Task 1 environmental and social baseline 2009 report for the Study Area. Development of a Sustainability Appraisal framework.
Task 2 – Scenarios Mapping of flood hazard scenarios April – July 2009 Task 2 and development of socio- report, economic scenarios for the Study including Area. maps Task 3 – Develop Development of draft Principles and Tasks 3 and 4 ran Task 3 Principles and Options through workshops with concurrently and 4 Options technical stakeholders, elected between July and report members, private sector December 2009 stakeholders and the project and the Principles Technical and Steering Groups. and Options were developed Task 4 – Test and Testing of the draft Principles and iteratively. refine Principles and Options against sustainability Options criteria. Refinement of Principles with project Steering Group and technical stakeholders.
Task 5 – Delivery of Collation of information on potential January – March Task 5 Principles and delivery mechanisms for the 2010 report Options Principles and Options, including actors, investment requirements, funding sources, timing and possible barriers.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 5
Summary Report
Task 1: Baseline
In Task 1 the social, economic and environmental baseline of the Study Area was established and key issues identified. This led to the development of a sustainability framework that was used later in the project to evaluate the Principles and Options. The baseline describes the particular vulnerabilities of the Study Area, reflecting flood hazard within the specific social, economic and environmental circumstances. Environmental, social and economic issues in the Study Area were identified based on the Phase 1 Scoping Study, a review of plans, policies and processes affecting the Study Area and a workshop attended by Technical Stakeholders. Baseline
The following environmental, social and economic issues were identified in the Study Area: Environmental issues Internationally, nationally and regionally significant biodiversity: the majority of the coastline in the Study Area (excluding the stretch of coast between Skegness and Mablethorpe) is internationally designated. Threatened coastal landscapes: the Countryside Quality Counts assessment of countryside change between 1999 and 2003 identified agriculture, development, sea level rise and coastal erosion as the main pressures on landscape in the Study Area (Haines-Young 2007). Importance of historic environment assets: there are a high number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and registered parks and gardens as well as listed buildings and Conservation Areas in the Study Area. In addition to individual features, the undesignated historic environment also includes archaeology and semi- natural historic landscapes. Heritage features are valuable and unique and they cannot be re-created if destroyed. Therefore, they are particularly vulnerable to coastal flooding. High risk of flooding and coastal erosion: the low-lying nature of the Lincolnshire coast makes it vulnerable to flooding from the sea. Coastal erosion is also affecting the Lincolnshire coast, particularly between Mablethorpe and Skegness. Impacts of climate change on nationally important agricultural assets: Lincolnshire has extensive resources of high quality agricultural land. Coastal flooding may lead to the loss of some of the best farmland in the country with impacts on the local and national economy and national food security. Pressure on water resources due to climate change and other socio-economic drivers may also constrain agriculture in the area in future. Pressure on water resources: the majority of Water Resource Management Units in the Study Area are already deemed to be fully committed (Environment Agency 2004; 2006; 2007). Climate change and development are likely to increase the pressure on water resources in the Study Area. A reduction in summer rainfall and an increase in winter rainfall falling as intense bursts (Hulme et al. 2002) and saltwater inundation intrusion into aquifers may reduce the availability of water. Social issues A likely mismatch of future housing needs and housing provision: projections show a significant increase in housing need in the Study Area up to 2031. The demographic structure of the area means that there is already a high proportion of retired and elderly residents and therefore a higher ratio of homes to jobs than elsewhere in the region. Lack of affordable housing provision: there is a serious lack of affordable housing in the Study Area. Affordability problems are rooted in the increase in house prices over the last decade which has outstripped increases in household income. In-migration from outside the three districts has also pushed house prices beyond the means of many local residents. The recent fall in house prices is unlikely to improve the situation given the lack of available credit and the deflationary affects on wages.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 6
Summary Report
Demographic pressures: ageing of the population in the Study Area is a long term trend. Migration of people of retirement age to the coast is a key driver of population growth in the Study Area, particularly in East Lindsey. An aging population has implications for health and social services in the Study Area as well as the labour market. High levels of deprivation, particularly in coastal settlements: East Lindsey and Boston are in the top 25% of the most deprived districts in the country. There are some severe pockets of deprivation in Boston town, Sutton on Sea, Wainfleet All Saints, Mablethorpe and Skegness. Deprivation is driven by low incomes, disability and poor access to services. Although unemployment is generally low, there are areas of high unemployment in the coastal zone, particularly around Mablethorpe and Skegness. Low levels of education and skills: the Study Area is characterised by a low skill, low wage equilibrium which is driven by the economic structure of the area. Those with higher qualification and skill levels tend to commute out of the area to pursue higher value employment. General health issues and health inequalities: the Health and Disability domain of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) identifies acute pockets of deprivation in Skegness and Mablethorpe and more inland areas surrounding Spilsby. Health issues are not merely related to age but also mental and physical disability. Low level of accessibility to key services: poor accessibility to key services reflects the rural character and remoteness of the Study Area. Transport infrastructure and public transport provision is poor. Economic issues Concentration of economic activity within a few low value, low skilled sectors: the Study Area is deeply dependent on the agriculture and tourism sectors. The economy of the Study Area is good at maintaining low unemployment levels and high employment rates but jobs are low value added and low skilled. Seasonal unemployment: given the economic dependencies on the food and farming and tourism sector, the area is susceptible to seasonal trends in employment. Unemployment in the Study Area is highly cyclical: falling in the summer season and peaking in the winter. Labour market constraints: one of the implications of an older population is that there is a smaller workforce in all three districts. This is set to shrink further, since the population is forecasted to age. This implies that the economy, unless in-commuting increases significantly, could encounter supply side constraints in terms of labour market shortages. This will not be just in terms of numbers but also the particular skill sets that those leaving the labour market take with them. Sustainability framework
Sustainability Appraisal (SA), incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, is formally required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks only. Although there is no statutory requirement for SA or SEA for the Lincolnshire Coastal Study, a decision was made by the Steering Group to incorporate SA/SEA within the project in order to ensure compatibility with the RSS review. A SA Framework was developed based on the identified key issues, the baseline data, indicators in the East Midlands Sustainable Development Framework (ref) and stakeholder knowledge. The Study Framework was used later in the Study to assess the possible effects of implementing the Principles and Options. Specific objectives within the Study Framework have been worded so that they reflect a desired direction of change. Guide questions provide a clarification of the intended interpretation of each Objective.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 7
Summary Report
Task 2: Scenarios
In Task 2, flood hazard scenarios were mapped and socio-economic scenarios were developed. The scenarios describe potential changes in society and the economy of the Study Area over the twenty first century, and potential changes in climate and tidal flood hazard. The socio-economic scenarios were developed based on literature review, expert judgement and simple projection techniques. Future flood hazard scenarios were developed independently to the Study using models that describe how floods form and move over land. In Task 2, this information was mapped for the Study Area. Together, the scenarios formed the main inputs to the development of Principles and Options in Task 3 and 4. Socio-economic scenarios Three socio-economic scenarios were developed for use in the Study: Conventional Development, National Enterprise, and Green. The Conventional Development scenario is based on current trends; National Enterprise is associated with a stronger role for central Government and the adoption of protectionist policies; the Green scenario favours stronger environmental policies. All three scenarios show, in different ways, the importance of agriculture and agricultural land in the Study Area. Under the National Enterprise and Green scenarios, tourism may have an enhanced role. These two scenarios also see greater economic growth, although current issues such as low wage and skill levels and seasonal employment persist. Changes to population, housing numbers and land requirements for housing have been quantified using simple projection techniques. The numbers show ongoing in-migration to the Study Area, with potential increases of population from a 2006 value of approximately 280,000 persons to 440,000 (Conventional Development), 550,000 (National Enterprise) and 620,000 (Green). Without any (net) migration population levels would fall. The housing numbers under three socio-economic scenarios are not as different as their equivalent population outputs because of assumptions made about the average number of people living in each house. However, housing numbers would double under the Conventional Development and National Enterprise scenarios, although with no net in-migration housing numbers would decline. The land requirements would vary from 3,500 to 4,300 hectares under the three main scenarios and although these are small in terms of the total Study Area land mass, they represent a very large increase in the total housing land required. Climate change scenarios and impacts
Climate change is likely to present significant impacts for the Lincolnshire coastal communities, especially with regards to sea level rise. The headline messages for the East Midlands region from the United Kingdom Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) climate change projections for the final 30 years of the twenty- first century are (Murphy et al. 2009): Hotter summers: the central estimate of the increase in average daily summer temperature in the 2080s is between 2.7°C and 4.4°C, depending on the emission scenario; Warmer winters: the central estimate of the increase in average daily winter temperature in the 2080s is between 2.6°C and 3.6°C, depending on the emission scenario; Drier summers: the central estimate of the decrease in summer precipitation is between -13% and -25%, depending on the emission scenario; and Wetter winters: the central estimate of the increase in winter precipitation is between +15% and +25%, depending on the emissions scenario. For relative mean sea level rise along the Lincolnshire coast, the central estimate is 48cm and 58cm, for the medium and high emission scenarios respectively, for 2100 (Lowe et al., 2009). However, there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of mean sea level rise. Based on the scientific uncertainties
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 8
Summary Report
incorporated in the UKCP09 projections, mean relative sea level rise is unlikely to exceed 90cm by 2100. Changes in storm surge height (separate to mean sea level rise) are also highly uncertain; the UKCP09 projections show a slight reduction, but the outputs of other international climate models show an increase. The current Defra allowance for sea level rise for the Lincolnshire coast is 113cm. Flood modelling and mapping The flood modelling and mapping has been restricted to flooding from the sea and estuaries (tidal flooding) and does not take into account other forms of flooding such as that from rivers. The potential impact and consequences of a major tidal flood event (such as the tidal flooding that occurred in 1953) forms the largest type of flood risk to human life, property and agricultural land in the Study Area. The flood hazard data used in this Study was commissioned by the Environment Agency and produced by independent consultants. The data was created using state of the art hydrodynamic 2D computer-based modelling which was developed to simulate the impact of an extreme tidal storm event in the North Sea on the coastal areas of Lincolnshire. The models enable us to gain a realistic understanding on how tidal flood waters could behave in relation to defences and the land behind defences. These new datasets therefore provide more information than the Environment Agency’s Flood Zones which only show the undefended floodplain i.e. modelled without defences intact. The modelling includes flooding due to overtopping and breaching of flood defences. During an overtopping event the defence holds but water flows over the top. During a breach event, a section of the defence fails, allowing the tidal flood waters to pass through a gap in the defence unimpeded. The crest (height) of the defences used in all modelling scenarios was based on present levels, despite the draft SMP policy, because the breach results would be similar whatever the defence standard of protection given the assumption of a breach occurring (see below). Each breach was simulated individually. The width of the breach was dependant on the type and location of the defence. It was assumed that 72 hours would lapse before the breach could be sealed. To be able to assess the impact of a breach anywhere along the coastal defences, breaches were simulated at regular intervals. Risk is a function of the probability of an event occurring and the consequences of that event. Risk can therefore be reduced by decreasing the probability of occurrence or decreasing the consequence. The controllable element of the probability of a flood occurring landward of a defence depends largely on the presence, position, and height of the defence (as well as its strength, which is particularly important for breaches). The probability of a breach event is difficult to determine, although overtopping will promote breaching. The modelling therefore only assesses the consequence of breaches and no assessment of the probability of a breach occurring has been included. This is a significant assumption, but is based on the precautionary principle, in the absence of information regarding breach probability. The Environment Agency is undertaking further work on this, and it is recommended that the findings of the Coastal Study are re- evaluated in the light of this work when it is published. Two return periods were modelled: the 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 year events. This was undertaken for the ‘present’ day (2006 baseline) and 2115 (the year to which the final Defra sea level allowances relate). The modelling commissioned by the Environment Agency for 2115 is based on a sea level rise of 113cm. Given the uncertainties in sea level rise, two alternative rises in sea level (55 cm and 160cm) were modelled as part of the Coastal Study using simple interpolation and extrapolation techniques. The tidal flood maps illustrate the hazard due to flooding. The definition of flood hazard zones used in this project follows the definition used by Defra and the Environment Agency. The classification is split into four categories, defined by the depth and velocity of flood waters and the related ability of people to evacuate the area once a flood occurs (Defra and Environment Agency, 2008). The ‘white’ zone (little or no hazard) has been added for the purposes of this project. See Table 2 for a description of the flood hazard zones.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 9
Summary Report
A single overall flood hazard map has been produced for the Study for reference with the Principles (see Figure 1). This map only relates to breaching (which is generally more severe than overtopping) and is supplemented by data from South Holland District Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in the area of the tidal Welland.
Table 2 – Flood hazard classification used in the Lincolnshire Coastal Study
Degree of coastal Hazard Colour on Description of flood Description of hazard flood hazard Rating mapping water
Little or no Outside of flood extent Little or no hazard (from None White hazard produced by model coastal flooding)
Shallow flowing or Low Low Hazard Green Caution, low risk to people deep standing water
Risk to the vulnerable, such Danger to Fast flowing or deep Moderate Yellow as children, the elderly and some standing water the infirm
Danger for Fast flowing and deep Risk to most, including the Significant Orange most water with some debris general public Fast flowing deep Extreme hazard, danger to Extreme Danger for all Red water with significant all, including the debris emergency services
Source: Defra and Environment Agency, 2008
Tasks 3 and 4: Principles and Options
In Tasks 3 and 4, a series of Principles to guide spatial development and Options for new development in the Study Area, taking into account flood hazard, were developed and evaluated using the sustainability framework developed in Task 1. Tasks 3 and 4 ran concurrently as development and refinement of the Principles and Options was an iterative process. The Principles and Options were generated through a series of workshops with the project Steering Group, Technical Group, elected members and technical stakeholders. Participants were presented with baseline socio-economic and environmental information (from Task 1) and the flood hazard maps (developed in Task 2) and asked to identify Principles and Options for sustainable spatial development of the Lincolnshire coast. The output of the workshops was a long list of potential Principles and Options which have been refined through discussion with the project Steering Group, technical stakeholders and sustainability appraisal.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 10
Summary Report
Figure 1 – Residual coastal flood hazard map
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 11
Summary Report
Principles
The Principles provide a set of strategic aims for spatial development that apply across the Study Area (see Box 1). Principles 1 and 2 deal explicitly with two approaches to reducing the risks associated with flooding: Managing the level of development in hazardous locations; and Mitigating the consequences of flooding. The Study is also concerned with the full range of sustainability issues, of which flood risk is one important part. Therefore, Principle 3 is focussed on improving socio-economic and environmental conditions in the Study Area through spatial planning. There are a number of terms used in the Principles (those underlined in Box 1) which have the following specific definitions: Residual flood risk Residual flood risk is based on the following assumptions: Use of a 1 in 200 year return period event (0.5% annual probability event, APE); Use of Defra’s guidance of October 2006 on sea level rise, which for the Lincolnshire Coast is a 1.13m rise in mean relative sea level between 2006 and 2115; Modelling based on breaches of defences occurring as indicated (i.e. 100% defence failure probability at the 1 in 200 year water level). This takes a precautionary view; and Use of modelling based on existing defences (despite the SMP policy, although the breach results would be similar whatever the defence standard of protection because they assume failure). Flood hazard The definition of flood hazard zones used in this project (see Figure 3.1), follows the definition used by Defra and the Environment Agency, and is described above (see Table 2). Major development For the purpose of the Study, the definition of major development follows the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended). Local housing needs Local housing needs are those required to meet the housing needs of existing communities and should include a mixture of open market and affordable housing (as defined by Annex B of PPS3). Emergency planning Emergency planning can be used to reduce the consequence of flooding. There are three phases to emergency planning (UK Resilience): Emergency preparedness Emergency response - the decisions and actions taken to deal with the immediate effects of an emergency Recovery - the process of rebuilding, restoring and rehabilitating the community following an emergency
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 12
Summary Report
Options
Six options for strategic spatial development in the Study Area have been identified and developed. In order to be consistent with Principle 1, the delivery of the Options that involve large scale development would be outside the red, orange and yellow flood hazard zones. The Options are: Option 1 - New development in larger settlements Option 2 - New settlement Option 3 - Development in the smaller settlements Option 4 - Network of inter related service centres Option 5 - No development in the Study Area Option 6 - Business as usual. Sustainability assessment
The Principles and Options were evaluated based on the SA framework developed in Task 1. The Principles are found to be broadly compatible with the sustainability objectives. However, there is still a potential conflict involving Principle 1 as it will create restrictions on where housing can be located and the Options for housing might not be ideal from a traditional housing needs perspective. Based on the draft compatibility assessment, some alterations have been made to Principle 3 to state the need for focus on deprived areas, and to reflect the importance of natural, cultural and historic assets. An appraisal of the Options against the sustainability objectives has been undertaken. The assessment results show that Option 1, which promotes development in larger settlements, is the most sustainable option overall. Option 1 delivers significant positive effects across social, environmental and economic Sustainability Appraisal objectives by allowing for a larger scale development that can deliver a range of housing types, including affordable housing, in proximity to the key services and facilities and minimising the potential greenfield land take compared to the other options. However, Option 1 would limit housing growth in Mablethorpe, Skegness and Boston, towns in which such growth would be expected. This could exacerbate existing issues, in terms of supporting current employment locations, economic diversification and with regards to social exclusion and inequality. This is a particular issue for Boston given its sub- regional status, and the distance between it and areas better suited to significant housing development. Option 2 relating to a new settlement is the second most sustainable option overall although it is expected to result in more significant negative effects against the environmental objectives. This option also presents problems for existing communities especially as a single new settlement will be detached from most existing communities given the size of the Study Area. Options 3 and 4 do not perform so favourably in sustainability terms due to the more dispersed nature of development across smaller settlements, involving greenfield land take, inefficiency of resource use and locating people in places remote from key services and facilities. Although these options also present problems for existing communities, they are potentially less significant if new growth could be located close by. As the location and type of the development under Option 5 is not known, there is a high level of uncertainty associated with the scoring assigned for all the environmental objectives. However, significant negative social effects can be expected under Option 5. Option 6 is the least sustainable option overall as significant negative effects are predicted across most of the objectives and even if some objectives (housing, social exclusion, use of resources) may see minor positive effects under this option in the short term, this is likely to worsen in the medium to longer term, as flood risk increases over time, potentially leading to severe consequences to both people and material assets when flooding occurs.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 13
Summary Report
Box 1 Lincolnshire Coastal Study Principles The Study follows the current draft Shoreline Management Plan policies in relation to the line and standard of protection of coastal flood defences. The Study is therefore concerned with residual flood risk. The primary principle is to increase the safety of people by reducing the number of people at risk of flood hazard in the Study Area. Principle 1 Development will be guided by the level of flood hazard. With respect to the red, orange and yellow zones:
Major development will be employment or business related only;
Exceptionally, development to meet local housing needs may continue subject to the mitigation of flood risk through flood resilient design and emergency planning;
It will not be appropriate for housing development in the red, orange and yellow zones to contribute to meeting the Region’s strategic housing requirements. Rather, any new housing development should be of a level and type designed to keep the population in these zones broadly stable. With respect to the green zone:
Exceptionally, major development may be possible so long as flood risk is mitigated through flood resilient design and emergency planning. With respect to all flood hazard zones:
New and replacement community buildings may be permitted subject to flood risk being mitigated through flood resilient design and emergency planning;
New caravan sites or extensions to existing sites may be allowed for short-let tourist use between the months of April and September subject to the mitigation of flood risk through flood resilient design and emergency planning;
Development of buildings and infrastructure explicitly for use in emergencies may be permitted subject to flood risk being mitigated through flood resilient design. Principle 2 The consequence of flooding for people in all flood hazard zones will, over time, be reduced by:
The installation of flood resilience measures in domestic and public buildings, caravan sites and for essential infrastructure;
Improving emergency planning and emergency response and evacuation arrangements;
Improving public awareness and understanding of flood risk and responses. Principle 3 Development decisions will aim to improve social, economic and environmental conditions in existing and new communities by:
Minimising the loss of high quality agricultural land;
Diversifying the tourism industry;
Improving green infrastructure;
Protecting and enhancing water infrastructure;
Protecting natural, cultural and historic assets;
Improving transport infrastructure and services;
Improving the quality of existing housing stock and access to jobs, training and services for local people. There will be a particular focus on more deprived areas. 5080858 /LCS-SummaryReport_Final 14
Summary Report
Task 5: Delivery
In Task 5 delivery of the Principles and Options has been considered through a series of potential delivery mechanisms. Detailed information about actors, timing, funding requirements, policy requirements and potential barriers to delivery has been collated and presented for each of the Options and delivery mechanisms. Delivery of Principle 1
According to the Principle 1, major housing development will largely be delivered outside the red, orange and yellow flood hazard zones through the choice of Option or combination of Options. Major housing development may be permitted in the green zone, subject to flood resilient design and emergency planning. Other types of development, including housing to meet local housing needs, employment and business related development, community infrastructure and buildings for use in emergencies, may be permitted in the red, orange and yellow zones, subject to mitigation of flood risk through resilient design and emergency planning. The key to delivery of buildings in the flood hazard zones is therefore the implementation of resilience and emergency planning measures appropriate to the particular hazard zone and type of development. Some guidance on flood resilient design and emergency planning in the different flood hazard zones is given in the Task 5 report although it is recommended that more detailed Design Guidance for development on the Lincolnshire coast is developed further to this project and that emergency plans are tailored to the flood hazard zones. The main actors likely to be responsible for delivering the Options are similar regardless of the choice of Options. Local authorities, regional bodies and private sector companies are likely to be central to the delivery of the Options, supported by national government in policy making and possible funding. Whilst there are existing plans and policies in the Study Area concerned with new development, the review of the RSS will start the Local Development Framework (LDF) process for the Local Planning Authorities and as such existing policy for delivering the Options will need to be reviewed. In order to meet the timescales of the LDFs and RSS the choice of Options would need to be delivered in the short term. Delivery of Principles 2 and 3
Principle 2 is concerned with reducing risk to people in all flood hazard zones through emergency planning and flood resilience measures. Potential delivery mechanisms for Principles 2 include: Including local flood risk issues in the school curriculum; Buy and rent back schemes; Grants to enable homeowners in the red, orange and yellow zones to prepare for flood emergencies; Installing flood resilience and resistance measures in the green zone; Including a policy to allow change of use of buildings to non-critical uses in the red, orange and yellow zone in the RSS; Introducing and enforcing occupancy criteria in holiday and caravan sites; Including information about flood risk and emergency preparedness measures in HIPs and other documents given to new home owners / tenants and asking people to sign a declaration of understanding; Including information on flood risk and emergency response procedures to tourists (e.g. in hotel guest info packs, on the back of accommodation doors etc);
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 15
Summary Report
Undertaking risk assessments for critical infrastructure and fitting resilience measures or making plans to relocate assets where appropriate; Linking flood awareness raising to Cultural Strategies; Setting up a 'flood friends' campaign; and Using more visible communications methods e.g. roadshows. Principle 3 is concerned with improving wider socio-economic conditions in the Study Area. Potential delivery mechanisms for Principles 2 include: Raising national awareness of strategic importance of agricultural land and food processing in Lincolnshire; Including a policy on minimising loss of high grade agricultural land in the RSS; Using developer contributions to fund green infrastructure; Marketing alternative tourist offering e.g. heritage based tourism, local food based tourism, eco tourism etc; Providing improved or new public transport services; and Lobbying national government for increased funding for regeneration in the flood hazard zone. A wide range of potential actors in the delivery of Principles 2 and 3 have been identified including national government and government agencies, regional government and organisations, local authorities and private sector businesses. There may be a role for the Lincolnshire Pathfinder project in the delivery of a number of Principle 2 mechanisms. Some of the proposed delivery mechanisms for Principle 2 and 3 are likely to require significant new sources of funding but many involve relatively small amounts of investment and could be delivered in the short term, e.g. Including flood risk issues in school curriculum; Linking flood awareness to Cultural Strategies; Setting up a 'flood friends' campaign; Using more visible communications methods; Raising national awareness of strategic importance of agriculture in Lincolnshire; Including policy on minimising loss of high grade agricultural land in RSS; Marketing alternative tourist offering; and Lobbying national government for increased funding for regeneration. Existing plans and policies are able to deliver many of the Principle 2 and 3 delivery mechanisms, although some may require updating. Gaps in national policy have been identified, in particular relating to situations such as in Lincolnshire where there is likely to be significant changes in residual flood risk, rather than physical changes to the shoreline. Local policy making is required to translate the final RSS policies into LDFs and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedules need to be prepared. A number of potential socio-economic and environmental impacts of the Principle 2 and 3 delivery mechanisms are highlighted. At this stage, the delivery mechanisms have been described at a strategic level and are not specific to places or contexts. Before implementing these mechanisms, it is recommended that further work to assess and mitigate these impacts should be carried out.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 16
Summary Report
Next steps
The Lincolnshire Coastal Study forms part of the evidence base for the review of the East Midlands RSS. The findings of the Study have been taken into account particularly in the development of draft Policy 5. The East Midlands Regional Assembly (EMRA) submitted a Draft Revised Regional Plan to the Secretary of State on 26 March 2010. The Plan will be subject to an Examination in Public (EiP) later in 2010.
Further work
A number of recommendations for further work have been made as a result of the Lincolnshire Coastal Study, including: More detailed design guidance for development on the Lincolnshire coast; Emergency planning tailored to the different hazard zones; and Further consideration of the socio-economic impacts of implementing some of the Principle 2 and 3 delivery mechanisms. Some wider issues have also been identified through the Lincolnshire Coastal Study: Dominant paradigms in spatial planning may not be appropriate in the Study Area e.g. - Population growth is required to deliver regeneration; - Prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield; and - Preference for mixed use developments where people live close to where they work; How to deliver mechanisms in the flood hazard zones without new development to contribute to funding; The scale of national funding required for delivery of the mechanisms; and The need for national planning policy that addresses residual tidal flood risk. The organisations that comprised the Lincolnshire Coastal Study project Steering Group are likely to remain as a group to take forward the findings of the Lincolnshire Coastal Study and investigate what further work is required in the area. The membership and remit of this group are yet to be determined although some organisations have already committed to further work in the Study Area.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 17
Summary Report
References
CLG 2006. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing. CLG, London. Defra and EA. 2008. Supplementary note on flood hazard ratings and thresholds for development planning and control purpose – Clarification of the table 13.1 of FD2320/TR2 and Figure 3.2 of FD2321/TR1., Environment Agency and HR Wallingford. Environment Agency 2004. River Witham Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy. Environment Agency, Peterborough Environment Agency 2006. The Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy. Environment Agency, Peterborough Environment Agency 2007. The Welland Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy. Environment Agency, Peterborough GOEM, 2009 Government Office for the East Midlands, 2009. East Midlands Regional Plan. Norwich, The Stationary Office. Haines-Young, R.H. 2007. Tracking Change in the Character of the English Landscape 1999 – 2003. Natural England, Peterborough Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J., Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S. 2002. Climate change scenarios for the United Kingdom: the UKCIP02 Scientific report, UKCIP, Oxford Lowe, J. A., Howard, T., Pardaens, A., Tinker, J., Holt, J., Wakelin, S., Milne, G., Leake, J., Wolf, J., Horsburgh, K., Reeder, T., Jenkins, G., Ridley, J., Dye, S., Bradley, S. (2009), UK Climate Projections science report: Marine and coastal projections. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M. H., Jenkins, G. J., Booth, B. B. B., Brown, C. C., Clark, R. T., Collins, M., Harris, G. R., Kendon, E. J., Betts, R. A., Brown, S. J., Humphrey, K. A., McCarthy, M. P.,McDonald, R. E., Stephens, A., Wallace, C., Warren, R., Wilby, R. and Wood, R. A. 2009. UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate change projections. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter.
5080858/LCS-SummaryReport_Final 18