Essex Flood Partnership Board
Committee Room 1, Thursday, 26 10:00 County Hall, January 2017 Chelmsford, Essex
Membership
Cllr Simon Walsh Essex County Council
Cllr Mick Page Essex County Council Cllr Kay Twitchen Essex County Council Jon Wilson Essex County Council John Meehan Essex County Council Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Peter Massie Essex County Council Graham Verrier Environment Agency Rachel Keen Environment Agency Graeme Kasselman. Thames Water Jonathan Glerum Anglian Water Dave Bill Essex County Fire and Rescue Service Cllr Richard Moore Basildon Borough Council Cllr Wendy Schmitt Braintree District Council Cllr Tony Sleep Brentwood Borough Council Cllr Ray Howard Castle Point Borough Council/ECC Cllr Neil Gulliver Chelmsford City Council Cllr Mark Cory Colchester Borough Council Cllr Will Breare-Hall Epping Forest District Council Cllr Danny Purton Harlow District Council Cllr Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Cllr Dave Sperring Rochford District Council Cllr Nick Turner Tendring District Council Cllr Martin Terry Southend on Sea Borough Council Cllr Gerrard Rice Thurrock Council
Cllr Susan Barker Uttlesford District Council
For information about the meeting please ask for:
Page 1 of 52 Lisa Siggins 03330134594 / [email protected]
Page 2 of 52 Essex County Council and Committees Information
This meeting is not open to the public and the press, although the agenda is available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Page 3 of 52 Pages
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Minutes 7 - 16 To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 th October 2016.
3 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct
4 Asset Register – New Policy and Protocol To receive a verbal update from Natasha Taylor, Head of Advocacy and Enforcement Team, regarding the new policy and protocol surrounding the Asset Register.
5 Update on 2016/17 Flood Capital Programme 17 - 22 To receive a report (EFPB/01/17) and PowerPoint presentation from Dave Chapman, Delivery and Enforcement Manager, on the New Initial Assessment Site List and a Major Flood Schemes update.
6 Essex Property Level Protection update 23 - 28 To receive a report (EFPB/02/17) and a verbal update from Dipo Lafinhan, Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator, regarding an update on Property Level Protection (PLP).
7 Essex Community Flood Improvement Fund 29 - 40 To receive a report (EFPB/03/17) and a verbal update from Dipo Lafinhan, Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator, regarding application details and prioritisation of the Community Flood Improvement Fund (CFIF) 2016/17 to date.
8 Thaxted Leaky Dams: Case Study To receive a PowerPoint presentation from Dave Chapman Delivery and Enforcement Manager, regarding the progress on the flood alleviation scheme in Thaxted
9 Business Accelerator – Feedback on Services in Scope 41 - 46 To receive a report (EFPB/04/17) and presentation from John Meehan, Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management, regarding the process and opportunities for income generation.
Page 4 of 52 10 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 47 - 52 To receive a report (EFPB/05/17) and presentation from Jon Wilson, Head of Commissioning Sustainable Essex Place, regarding the work to update the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.
11 Any Other Business
12 Dates of Future Meetings To note that meetings in 2017 will be held as follows:
Thursday 6 April 2017 at 10.00am County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 6 July 2017 at 10.00am County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 12 October 2017 at 10.00am County Hall Chelmsford
Page 5 of 52
Page 6 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 1 ______Minutes of the meeting of the Essex Flood Partnership Board (Private Meeting), held in Committee Room 1 County Hall, Chelmsford, Essex on Thursday, 13 October 2016
Present : Name Organisation
Cllr Will Breare-Hall Epping Forest District Council Ms Rosanna Briggs Essex County Council Mr David Chapman Essex County Council Mr Qasim Durrani Epping Forest District Council Mr James Ennos Tendring District Council Ms Kat Dedman Essex County Council Mr Jonathan Glerum Anglian Water Mr Tim Gornall Environment Agency Mr Ian Haines Maldon District Council Mr Paul Hayden RFCC Cllr Ray Howard Castle Point Borough Council/ECC Mr Stuart Jarvis Castle Point Borough Council Mr Oladipo Lafinhan Essex County Council Mr Peter Massie Essex County Council Cllr Richard Moore Basildon Borough Council Cllr Mick Page Essex County Council Cllr Danny Purton Harlow District Council Ms Debbie Rayner RFCC/EI0 Cllr Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Ms Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Mr Graham Verrier Environment Agency Cllr Nick Turner Tendring District Council Mr Paul Walker Essex County Council Mr Jon Wilson Essex County Council
Ms Lisa Siggins Essex County Council Democratic Services
1 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were received from: Dave BiIl – Essex Fire and Rescue Cllr Cory – Colchester Borough Council Cllr Schmitt – Braintree District Council Cllr Barker- Uttlesford District Council John Meehan - ECC
Page 7 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 2 ______
2 Minutes With regards to Minute 4, Councillor Turner offered his thanks to David Prudence from Essex Highways for his very helpful assistance in providing information with regard to this issue.
With regards to Minute 12, Councillor Turner pointed out that he was still awaiting clarification regarding the Thames Estuary Boundaries.
The Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 30 June 2016 were then approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
3 Declarations of Interest No declarations were made at this point.
4 Highways Update The Board welcomed Peter Massie, Head of Commissioning Essex Highways who gave a verbal update regarding two of their latest investment projects
• Enforcement Pilot
The Board were informed that following the cessation of the "Maldon Pilot project" due to lack of available funding, a limited extension had now been granted by the Cabinet Member. Limited additional funding has been provided for one year with an anticipated start date of early January 2017. Where possible this will be combined with carriage way repairs and capital programme renewals. Councillor Turner raised an issue concerning the clearing of ditches where ownership is unknown due the land being unregistered. It was agreed that a Council lawyer's opinion be given in this regard
• Targeted Gully Cleansing
The Board were informed that funding of £250,000 had been made available. A specialist vehicle and additional crews will be hired with an extended cleaning timetable from early morning to late evening. Whole estates will be cleansed rather than a few targeted properties. The work will be based on a list of know problem sites and it was confirmed that the said list will shortly be shared with officers.
5 Outline Business Case for 2017/18 Capital Pro gramme The Board received a report (EFPB/16/16) presented by Dave Chapman, Delivery and Enforcement Manager on behalf of John Meehan, Head of Environment and Flooding. The report provided an update on the Capital Programme 2017/18 and the outline Business Case (OBC) production progress.
The Board were advised that The Capital Flood Programme has a £19 million ECC budget broken down over 5 years. Last year the budget of £1.5 million was met. It has an ambitious programme in 2016/7 of £3.5 million for grants and projects. Every year we prepare an OBC to bid for the funding for the following year. In 2017/18 we estimate the Flood Programme will spend £5 million. Page 8 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 3 ______
The Capital Flood Programme OBC is broken down into 7 headings and the text including in the OBC was set out in the above mentioned report.
Dave Chapman explained the breakdown of the Financial costs for 2017/18 as detailed in the report giving a total Capital Spend of £5 million. The Board were then given details of the priority schemes in the programme as detailed in the report and advised that there were four reserve schemes as fall back for any slippages on the priority schemes.
In response to a member question it was confirmed that each scheme is assessed by a "scoring matrix".
Councillor Turner raised a query regarding the depth of flooding criteria detailed under the Financial Benefits part of the report . Dave Chapman clarified that this is the point at which it be certain that flood water will enter properties. After a brief discussion it was the word be looked at to avoid any possible confusion
The Board Noted the report
6 Essex Capital Flood Programme Update 2016/17 The Board received a report (EFPB/17/16) from Dave Chapman Delivery and Enforcement Manager on the programme of works and ongoing progress in 2016/17.
The Board were informed that The Capital Flood Programme has a £19 million ECC budget broken down over 5 years. Last year the budget of £1.5 million was met. It has an ambitious programme in 2016/17 of £3.5 million for grants and projects.
The Capital Flood Programme is broken down into 3 elements:
1) Property Level Protection (PLP) is a scheme that offers previously flooded properties individual protection. This year the scheme is valued at £375,000 plus £90,000 totalling £465,000.
2) The latest Community Flood Improvement Fund information is dealt with under Minute 7
3) Capital funded Flood Alleviation Schemes (FAS) is the bulk of the programme; this area focuses on delivering projects on the ground in the areas most at risk of surface water flooding. The budget this year is £3,125,000.
The aim of the Capital Projects Programme is to implement projects which reduce flooding to properties. A long list of project has been presented to the Flood Board previously which is progressed annually and each project goes through a 5 step
Page 9 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 4 ______process which is highlighted in the above report.
ECC are carrying out 33 feasibility studies this year. Twenty are being progressed through the Essex Highways contract, 10 by CH2M using the WEM framework (funded by EA Anglian) and 3 by Capita using the WEM framework (funded by EA Thames). The total cost of Feasibility is approximately £399,485, of which the EA have funded £141,485 through FDGIA and ECC funded £258k.
There are 6 schemes currently in the detailed design stage with another 10 due to start in October. With the progression of the 5 year programme the aim for the capital programme is to complete the feasibility/optionering and detailed design stage the year before a scheme is scheduled for delivery. By doing this it gives greater control over delivery and we can start work on the ground earlier in the year, which is good in spend monitoring terms and avoids the winters months which can delay delivery.
The Board's attention was drawn to the Construction part of the report and the various sites in question. In particular Member were advised of a scheme in Thaxted that involves constructing 13 ‘Leaky Dams’ that will be strategically placed along an open watercourse to slow the flow and maximise channel capacity. This scheme will be a softer greener approach to managing flood risk and will be the first of its kind in Essex. ECC are working in partnership with Place Services, EA and Jacobs
At this point Councillor Walsh declared an interest as the Local Member for Thaxted.
It was confirmed that: • The ECC estimated cost for the Feasibility/ Optionering stage of the programme is £258k. • The estimated cost for the Detail Design stage of the programme is £315k • The estimated cost for the Construction stage of the programme is £2.735m Adding all 3 parts of the capital programme together totals £4,173,000m which is over budget by £673k, but it is advised to over-programme at this stage of the year to insure against problems and slippage.
The Board Noted the report
7 Community Flood Improvement Fund (CFIF) To receive a report (EFPB/18/16) and presentation from Dipo Lafinhan regarding application details and prioritisation of the CFIF 2016/17 fund to date.
The Board were informed that Essex County Council set-aside £400,000 of its Capital Flood Prevention Programme to provide a Community Flood Improvement Fund grant for other authorities, charities, community groups, farmers and or landowners committed to delivering projects resulting in the reduction of flood risk to Essex residents.
Page 10 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 5 ______From 1 April 2016 applications were invited from a wide range of organisations.The deadline for applications was initially 1 September 2016 however given that the grant became open to applications only six months earlier it was decided that another deadline should be set before the end of the financial year in order to enable applicants more time as well as introduce more flexibility in the grant process .It was confirmed that:
• As of 19 September, a total of 19 applications had been received with the total grant applied for at £791,188. • All applications were discussed at the Flood Programme Board on 20 September 2016. • Appendix 1 of the report provides a list of the applications received, and feedback from the Programme Board in terms of grant award decisions. • Applications have been assigned a red/amber/green (RAG) category. Those applications in the yellow category may be appropriate for grant support subject to further revision, discussion and provision of additional project information and evidence. • Consequently stakeholders are still being encouraged to make further applications. Further decisions would be made on the applications designated to the Yellow category after the next grant deadline in February 2017
The Board had a brief discussion regarding the schemes in the various categories with attention drawn to the common issues as set out in the report.
Councillor Turner suggested that additional funding be made available for Local Highways Rangers to enable then to assist in ditch clearance, however it was stated that this would be dependant upon whether the funding would be Capital or Revenue. It was suggested that a way forward would be for relevant parish councils to make their own applications for funding.
The Board agreed: • that all applications in the Green category are awarded as soon as possible. • Yellow applications should be discussed further and subject to further clarification before next grant application deadline in February 2017 • Red applications are unable to be supported by the Partnership Programme Grant. • to encourage partners and other stakeholders in Essex to endeavour to make more applications in order to provide relief to Essex residents affected by very frequent local flooding.
Page 11 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 6 ______
8 FCERM Capital Investment Process & Opportunities The Board received a report (EFPB/19/16) and PowerPoint presentation from Graham Verrier, Environment Agency Area Flood Risk Manager and Tim Gornall, Environment Agency Partnership and Strategic Overview Team Leader regarding the process and opportunities for local authorities to apply for Environment Agency funding.
The Board were advised that the Environment Agency (EA) provide capital grants to other flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) operating authorities in England under section 16 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Applications must also meet the conditions relevant to flood risk management work under the Land Drainage Act 1991.The EA can fund capital grant for all types of flooding, including surface water, groundwater and Individual Property Protection.
Mr Gornal explained that there was a six year capital investment programme (2015-2021) and highlighted the key points that are fully detailed in the above report:
• What can you get capital grant for • Grant conditions • How to apply for a capital grant - with particular attention given to the Outcome Measures, the partnership funding calculator and the requirement of a map with a 'polygon' showing the project's benefit area. • The Board were advised that Local authorities can lead flood risk management projects. Where possible The EA and LLFA can help support LAs with the EA offering assistance with the process by advising and supporting the completion of project proposal forms and grant forms.
Supplementary guidance notes have been produced to help RMAs when producing OBCs for low value, low risk projects. For projects seeking less than £30,000 FDGiA the EA have reduced the amount of paperwork and evidence required for approval.
Following the presentation Councillor Page advised that if the project requirements were met but there was a funding shortfall, this could possibly be met from Levy Monies from the relevant Local Regional Flood Committee.
The Board agreed the following recommendations as set out in the report:
1. Where possible, the EA and LLFA will support and facilitate local authorities’
Page 12 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 7 ______project proposals. 2. Local authorities familiarise themselves with the grant funding process and conditions. 3. Local authorities look for potential future opportunities within the 6 year capital investment period.
9 Flood Communications The Board received a verbal update from Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager, regarding flood communications and a recent wraparound newspaper and residents flood survey on Canvey Island.
Ms Shepherd gave the Board a presentation which included:
• Recent national headlines regarding the Association of British Insurers proposals to include flood risk symbols on property sale particulars, along with articles promoting better community resilience and property level protection. • A demonstration of the new www.essex.gov.uk/flooding website pages, including the ‘check your flood risk’ map viewer tool.
- 141 responses were received with the key findings highlighted to the Board. It was confirmed that the surveys were distributed by way of a local newspaper and that the findings would now be carefully analysed. A discussion followed with some members expressing concern at the low level of responses and with Councillor Howard expressing his disappointment at not having been consulted on the means of distribution in his capacity as the local Member. The discussion concluded with the view that there was a need to look at improving future means of communication with local residents.
Rosanna Briggs Deputy Head of Emergency Planning then advised the Board that The EA has set up the Extended Floodline Local Authority Information Service.
This Service is offered free of charge to all local authorities to enhance the information provided by the existing Floodline service. Local authorities will have the ability to provide more local detailed information which should reduce the necessity for the public to be asked to call another number. Essex County Council has now been registered on the scheme and have through the emergency planning team established frequently asked questions from key services within ECC. The service is available to all local authorities and it can be updated on a daily basis. Members will be able to view the site provided they are registered with the person nominated to undertake this work on behalf of their LA. Each LA’s will need to sign up individually as part of the terms and conditions by the EA.
Finally the Board were informed about "Get ready for Winter" which is a national campaign delivered at a local level and may authorities around the county will be involved in some form. ECC will be working in Chelmsford town centre with key partners including FWM on the 27th October 2016.
Page 13 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 8 ______
10 SWMPs – Loughton Launch - Tier 1 areas now complete The Board received a verbal update from Councillor Breare-Hall and Quasim Durrani , Epping Forest District Council regarding their experience of the Loughton Surface Water Management Project (SWMP) .
The Board were advised that the Loughton project also included the areas of Buckhurst Hill and Chigwell and that it was a very good example of "joined up working".It was confirmed that the Tier 1 priority area competition was now complete and that validation had already identified the particular area but it was very useful in that new areas had been identified. It was also pointed out that this was very useful timing for Local plans and that going forward critical drainage risks will also be examined. District Councils were encouraged to fully engage in the progress.
Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager advised the Board the Tier 1 areas have been completed with good progress being made in respect of Tier 2 areas.
Jonathan Glerum, Anglian Water Flood Risk Manager and Graham Verrier, Environment Agency Area Flood Risk Manager praised Essex County Council for their pro-active work as the LLFA.
11 Any Other Business With the agreement of the Chairman the Board received an update from Paul Hayden, Regional Flood Coast Committee (RFCC) Anglian Eastern Chairman. Mr Hayden advised the Board that he had recently met with the new Government Minister responsible for Flooding who was very encouraged with the workings of the Eastern RFCC. He advised that during the aforementioned meeting the issue of BREXIT was discussed with the minister advising that the RFCC should continue with its work programme and not make any changes to any long term plans.
He further advised that future changes may be made to the funding calculator.
He also gave the Board an update on "DEFRA" issues advising that the National Flood Resiliance Review was now online and that Annual Maintenance Fund was being protected in real terms with additional funding available until 2020. The autumn statement is due to be given shortly and it is expected that additional funds will provided therein.
12 Date of Next Meeting The Board noted that meetings in 2016/17 would be held as follows:
Thursday 19 January 2017 at 10.00am County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 6 April 2017 at 10.10am County Hall Chelmsford
Following the meeting it was noted that the January meeting would take place on Page 14 of 52 Thursday, 13 October 2016 Minute 9 ______26th January 2017 at 10.00am County Hall Chelmsford.
There being no urgent business the meeting closed at 11.50 am.
Chairman
Page 15 of 52
Page 16 of 52 Report to: AGENDA ITEM 5 Essex Flood Partnership Board Report Number: (EFPB 01/17) Date of report: 12/01/2017 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : The Essex Capital Flood Programme
Report by : David Chapman Delivery and Enforcement Manager
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management
Enquiries to: John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management 07827 976397
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To update the Flood Board on the Capital Flood Programme progress in 2016/17
2. Background
2.1 The Capital Flood Programme has a £19 million ECC budget broken down over 5 years. Last year the budget of £1.5 million was met. It has an ambitious programme in 2016/17 of £3.5 million for grants and projects. Next year the PLP element will come from Revenue so the Capital programme was reduced by £600,000 so the total programme now stands at £18.4 million. In addition ECC received a contribution of £800,000 for the Chelmsford Flood Alleviation Scheme from the SE Local Enterprise Partnership, reducing the Capital Programme to £17.6 million.
Page 17 of 52
2.2 The Capital Flood Programme is broken down into 3 elements
1) Property Level Protection (PLP) is a scheme that offers previously flooded properties an opportunity to apply for individual protection. The applications are then vetted and prioritised. The latest PLP information will be covered by Oladipo Lafinhan.
2) The latest Community Flood Improvement Fund information will be covered by Oladipo Lafinhan.
3) Capital funded Flood Alleviation Schemes (FAS) forms the bulk of our programme; this area focuses on delivering projects on the ground in the areas most at risk of surface water flooding. Below is more specific detail on the Capital Programme Flood Alleviation Schemes.
3. Capital Programme Flood Alleviation Schemes (FAS) 2016/17
3.1 The aim of the Capital Programme is to deliver schemes which reduce the risk of surface water flooding to properties in Essex. Schemes on the programme go through a 3 step process as follows;
• Feasibility/Optioneering • Detailed Design • Construction
At the end of the Feasibility and Optioneering stages a review of each scheme is carried out to make sure it is still financially viable and delivers the benefits we are after.
3.2 Completed Feasibility/Optioneering studies
The Flood Team have completed 23 feasibility studies this year at a total cost of £417k, of which the EA have funded £142k through FDGIA and ECC have funded £275k.
Page 18 of 52
• The 10 Jacob’s feasibility studies are complete and 5 were progressed into optioneering. The 5 Optioneering studies are now complete and they are all progressing to Detailed Design. • The 10 feasibility schemes being delivered by CH2M via the WEM framework are complete and 7 have progressed to the next stage which starts in January.
• The 3 feasibility studies being carried out by the Thames EA region are complete and all 3 have progressed to the next stage which starts in January.
3.1. New Feasibility Studies
The opportunity to complete more feasibility studies this financial year has been agreed with our consultants and 26 new sites have been identified. 11 new studies will be carried out by CH2M via the WEM framework with an estimated cost of £154k; these studies will be funded through FDGIA. 15 new studies will be carried by Jacobs with an estimated cost of £127k; these studies will be funded by ECC.
The rationale for preparing a substantial number of feasibility schemes is twofold: firstly to have schemes ready to start earlier in the year before the weather turns wet and reduces our delivery capability; and secondly to have as many schemes as ready as possible for the last 2-3 years of the programme when we will concentrate on delivery. Please see appendix A for the list of new studies.
3.2. Detailed Design
The 6 schemes originally in the detailed design phase of the programme have been complete and 8 new schemes have entered the detailed design phase. With the progression of the 5 year programme the aim for our capital programme is to complete the feasibility/optionering and detailed design stage the year before a scheme is scheduled for delivery. By doing this it gives us greater control over delivery and we can start work on the ground earlier in
Page 19 of 52 the year, which is good in spend monitoring terms and avoids the winters months which can delay delivery.
3.3. Construction
• The Hockley FAS is the first of our 2016/17 priority schemes to be completed. Work started on the 24 th October and was completed in the 16 th December.
• Mill Road, Foxearth started on the 12 th September and is programmed to be completed on the 3 rd February. The scheme has been delayed due to additional work being required on phase 4 and the two week Christmas shut down.
• Planning application approval has been granted for Rayleigh West PH1, West Horndon is expected by the 20 th January and the East Thundersley application is going to committee on the 27 th January.
• As part of the construction requirements for Rayleigh West PH 1&2, East Thundersley and West Horndon ground investigation surveys are being carried out to determine the suitability of locally sourced material to construct the bunds. The surveys will cost an estimated £107k
• Work on removing timber from Garnetts Wood has started. The timber will then be transported to Thaxted where construction of the 13 leaky dams is programmed to start in February 2017.
4. Total ECC capital programme costs for 2016/17
4.1 The cost for the completed Feasibility/Optionering studies is £289k. 4.2 The estimated cost for the new Feasibility studies is £127k. 4.3 The estimated cost for schemes in the Detailed Design stage of the programme is £333k. Page 20 of 52 4.4 The cost of Ground Investigations, staff time and consultant fees is £179k. 4.5 The estimated cost for the Construction stage of the programme is £2.4m. 4.6 The value of PLP contributions are £375k. 4.7 The estimated CFIF contributions is £462k. This may change if more applications are received or if applicants fail to sign up to our legal agreement which releases the funds. Adding all 3 parts of the capital programme together including Ground Investigations, staff time and consultant fees, the total spend for 2016/17 is estimated to be £4.165m which is over budget by £665k. We are advised to over-programme to mitigate against problems and slippage creating underspend. The cost of construction may change due to difficult land owner negotiations that are ongoing for two of our priority schemes. If these two schemes do not get delivered then it will reduce spend by an estimated £560k, giving us an a potential overspend of £105k on a budget of £3.5m.
5. Recommendation
5.1 For Essex Flood Board Members to note progress on the Capital Flood Programme
Page 21 of 52
Appendix A
Capital Programme
Project Name Reference Location Consultant 1 Chequers Road, Loughton EPP6 Epping Jacobs 2 Loughton Station EPP4 Epping Jacobs 3 Upper Loughton Brook EPP3 Epping Jacobs 4 The Avenue and Valley Hill, Loughton EPP7 Epping Jacobs 5 Pyrles Lane and Colebrook EPP2 Epping Jacobs 6 The Meadway Burkhurst Hill EPP5 Epping Jacobs 7 Old Harlow HAR13 Harlow Jacobs 8 Hawk, Lane Chelmsford FIR Chelmsford Jacobs 9 Temple Fields HAR12 Harlow Jacobs 10 Rivermill HAR9 Harlow Jacobs 11 Pitsea BAS17 Basildon Jacobs 12 Great Stambridge ROC8 Rochford Jacobs 13 Victoria Gate HAR7 Harlow Jacobs 14 Limebrook Area MAL1 Maldon Jacobs 15 Little Hallingbury, Uttlesford FIR Uttlesford Jacobs 16 Stock Road BAS3 Basildon CH2M 17 Bowers Giffords BAS16 Basildon CH2M 18 Pilgrims Hatch BRENT -B Brentwood CH2M 19 Brentwood High Street BRENT -A Brentwood CH2M 20 Hutton BRENT -H Brentwood CH2M 21 Thrift Green BRENT -F Brentwood CH2M 22 Heybridge INGATE -C Brentwood CH2M 23 Moulsham CHE12 Chelmsford CH2M 24 Chelmer Village CHE9 Chelmsford CH2M 25 The Causeway MAL3 Maldon CH2M 26 The Lane, Mersea Colchester CH2M
Page 22 of 52 Report to: Forward Plan reference nu mber: Essex Flood Partnership Board (EFPB/02/17) AGENDA ITEM 6
Date of report: 26/01/2017 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : Essex Property Level Protection update
Report by : Dipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator.
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Planning and Environment
Enquiries to : Dipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator - 03330 139512
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To highlight the progress made during the 2016/17 phase of the PLP project, outline various updates, highlight potential risks which might potentially influence the delivery of the project and inform on the issues that would have to be dealt with in the delivery of the project.
2. Background
2.1. Essex County Council set aside £375,000 for the delivery of 60 PLP installations to flooded residents of the County in 2016/17.
2.2. Aquobex were the preferred contractors and were contracted to deliver the project for the 2016/17 duration with the initial brief to complete 60 PLP installations by 31 March 2017.
3. Issues
3.1. There was a slight delay in the start of the 2016/17 phase of the project as a result of the slippage from the previous year. In 2015/16, Aquobex were initially tasked with delivering 20 PLP by 31 March 2016, however due to the high number of applications, the target was changed from 20 to 50 Installations. Therefore this caused a slight delay at the start of the 2016/17 phase.
Page 23 of 52 3.2. The project management team in Aquobex for the delivery of the Essex PLP scheme consisted of John Alexander, the Managing Director of Aquobex who more often than not is usually busy with delivering other projects in the country and abroad.
3.3. Another potential risk to the timely delivery of the PLP project is the property survey to installation lag time. The time between when each PLP applicant receives their survey report and when installations would be complete varies from 3 weeks to 8 weeks. This depends on a number of factors including how fast orders for the PLP products can be delivered (this can be predicted) and perhaps more importantly the time it takes the applicant to either make their mind up with regards to which PLP to go with or whether the applicant would be available for installation as people are unavailable for a number of reasons i.e. holidays, unanswered emails and telephone calls.
3.4. Dealing with Council owned properties, especially in Castle Point. The Housing manager in CPBC left her post late last year and this delayed the scheme as we were at the time unaware if CPBC had restrictions as to what could or couldn’t be installed in their properties.
3.5. The opportunity arose to attract additional funding from the Environment Agency. We could make up to 2 applications of £100,000 each to deliver an additional 40 PLP during the 2016/17 phase of the project.
4. Project progress
4.1. 21 surveys were conducted July 2016 (all on Canvey Island), 33 surveys were conducted in August 2016 and 27 completed December 2016. This brings a total of 81 pre-installation surveys completed to date with additional surveys planned for January 2017.
4.2. 52 PLP installations have been completed to date and Aquobex are on track to achieve the target outlined. *The installations include airbricks, sump pumps, flood barriers, water proofing properties and Non-return valves. But flood doors have not been installed yet because of the current 8 week lag time needed for the bespoke manufacturing. Installation of the doors would commence January 2017 (Appendix 2 ).
4.3. The Business Case and Partnership funding application for Environment Agency and Anglian Water funding have both been confirmed and approved. Thus the PLP scheme has attracted external funds totaling £155,000 in 2016/17.
Page 24 of 52
5. Recommendations
5.1. As a result of the external funding, the initial target of 60 installations outlined to Aquobex has changed and the goal is to complete 88 PLP installations by 31 March 2017.
5.2. A contract extension has been agreed with Aquobex to accommodate any potential slippages beyond 31 March 2017 and also to continue with the PLP project in 2017/18.
6. Looking Ahead
6.1. All the Issues raised have been dealt with and reported to the Flood Programme Board.
6.2. Outline plans have begun for the potential delivery of the 2018/19 PLP scheme with the full understanding that ECC funding might be unavailable. Progress on partnership working with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency would be reported to the Flood Programme Board meeting.
Page 25 of 52 Appendix 1 (PLP Applications)
Page 26 of 52 Appendix 2 (PLP installations)
Page 27 of 52
Page 28 of 52 Report to: Essex Flood Partnership Forward Plan reference number : Board (EFPB/03/17) AGENDA ITEM 7
Date of report: 26/01/2017 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : Essex Community Flood Improvement Fund
Report by : Dipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Planning and Environment
Enquiries to : Dipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator - 03330 139512
1. Background
1.1. Essex County Council set-aside £400,000 of its Capital Flood Prevention Programme to provide a Community Flood Improvement Fund grant for other authorities, charities, community groups, farmers and or landowners committed to delivering projects resulting in the reduction of flood risk to Essex residents.
1.2. Starting from 1 April 2016 we have received a total of 46 grant applications across a wide range of sectors and the applicants include
• Essex Highways • Rochford District Council • Tendring District Council • Epping Forest District Council • Colchester Borough Council • Maldon District Council • Great Bromley Parish Council • Cambridge Housing Society • Essex Wildlife Trust and • Boreham Primary School
2. Applications Received
2.1. As of 19 December 2016, we had received a total of 46 applications with the total grant applied for at £2,367,865 and the total number of properties to be protected from the proposed projects is estimated at 170 residential properties as well as critical infrastructure such as schools and a hospital.
2.2. The first phase of applications received was discussed at the Flood Programme Board on 20 September 2016 and subsequent successful
Page 29 of 52 applications have been discussed in the Flood Programme Board and forwarded to Cllr Walsh for formal endorsement.
2.3. Based on the criteria outlined in the CFIF guidance notes such as the number of residential properties the project would protect, cost and deliverability of the scheme, 20 applications have been successful this time.
2.4. The successful applications total about £469,158.01protecting a total of 101 properties therefore this works out to £4,645 per property. To put this in context, our current Property Level Protection grant is a maximum of £5,000 per residential property. Therefore the CFIF provides value for money.
2.5. Grant letter and Legal Grant Agreements have been sent out to all successful applicants and the grant funding would be made available to the applicants when a signed copy of the Grant Letters have been returned. We would also have oversight and a monitoring mechanism for all the grant funded projects. The Legal Agreement specifies that successful grant applicants have to provide monthly updates to the ECC Flood and Water Management team via the grant reporting tool on the ECC website: http://flood.essex.gov.uk/get-a- flood-grant/community-flood-improvement-fund/apply-for-a-community-flood- scheme-grant/submit-a-project-update/
2.6. Appendix 1 outlines the locations of all the CFIF applications received this year within the county
2.7. Appendix 2 outlines the locations of all of the successful CFIF applications within the county
2.8. Appendix 3 provides details on the successful grant applications.
2.9. Consequently we are still encouraging stakeholders to make further applications.
3. Issues
3.1. As a result of undertaking proactive engagement with prospective grant applicants, it is possible that the total grant awarded this financial year exceeds £400,000.
3.2. A risk to the grant programme now includes the long tag time between when the successful applicants receive the Legal Grant Agreement and when this is returned. The grant cannot be paid out to the applicants until a signed copy of the Legal Grant Agreement is returned to the Flood and Water Management team.
3.3. As a result of the need to fully comply with internal requirements on the use, storage and maintenance of the Watergate Flood Barriers, Essex Fire and Rescue Service have asked for that their grant application be put on hold until such time the organization determines it can fulfil these requirements.
Page 30 of 52 4. Recommendations
4.1. As a result of the number of applications received, there is the potential to consider increasing the amount of grant funding available in the 17/18 financial year from £400,000 to £600,000 in order to make up for any potential shortfall in the Capital Programme delivery.
4.2. We would encourage our partners and other stakeholders in Essex to endeavour to continue to make more applications in order to provide relief to Essex residents affected by very frequent local flooding.
Page 31 of 52
Appendix 1
Page 32 of 52
Appendix 2
Page 33 of 52
Appendix 3
Applicants (scheme) Number of Scheme Cost Risk factor L: Low; M: Medium and Scheme Notes Recommendations properties at (£) H: High) risk Colchester Borough 1 4,910 This is a very low risk project as the • Project costs are based on It is recommended that Council (Hobstevens total spend is below £5,000 which actual preferred contractor this project is provided full Cottages) incidentally is the limit for the PLP quotes grant funding. grant and delivery is planned • Resident has already begun before the end of the financial year. the process of undertaking maintenance work on the ditch adjacent to her property • Application includes pictorial evidence of last flooding episode Epping Forest District 9 16,100 Very Low: ECC funds can be utilized • Project costs are based on It is recommended that Council (Pynest Green within the current financial year. actual contractor quotes this project is provided full Lane Watham Abbey) Total grant funds applied for are • Maintenance protocol grant funding. actual preferred contractor quote between EFDC and Essex Highways • Application includes pictorial evidence of last flooding episode Epping Forest District 4 5,430 This is a medium risk scheme as • Project costs are based on It is recommended that Council (Lower Forest) although the scheme is deliverable actual preferred contractor this project is provided full within the financial year and the quotes grant funding. grant applied for is an actual quote • Ditch maintenance
Page 34 of 52 from the preferred contractor, responsibility of City of maintenance would be the London conservators and responsibility of a third party but riparian owners EFDC have enforcement protocols. • Pictorial evidence provided • EFDC are willing to enforce riparian duties Essex Fire and Rescue N/A 36,000 This is a very low risk scheme as the • These barriers can be It is recommended that Service (Water-Gate – Watergate barriers can be deployed by EFRS during the Water Gate barriers Protecting local purchased and deployed as soon as extreme events to should be funded. communities) practicable. EFRS have agreed to minimize flood risks in place these barriers in their Maldon hotspots depot where these would be • Members of the public and deployed and subsequently other organizations i.e. returned for cleansing and storage. Parish Councils or community groups can request for the barriers Maldon District Council 9 18,927.01 Very Low: ECC funds can be utilized • Project costs are based on It is recommended that (Katonia Avenue) within the current financial year. actual preferred this project is provided full Total grant funds applied for are contractor quotes grant funding actual preferred contractor quote. • Mayland Parish Council Letter from Parish Council stating have agreed to maintain they would be responsible for the the flood alleviation assets maintenance of the alleviation and scheme project asset. management to be overseen by Maldon District Council • Preferred option has been outlined and delivery plan is in place. Maldon District Council 2 7,821 Very Low: ECC funds can be utilized • Project costs are based on It is recommended that (Bakersfield) within the current financial year. actual preferred this project is provided full Total grant funds applied for are contractor quotes grant funding. actual preferred contractor quote. • Mayland Parish Council Letter from Parish Council stating have agreed to maintain they would be responsible for the the flood alleviation assets maintenance of the alleviation and scheme project Page 35 of 52 asset. management to be overseen by Maldon District Council • Preferred option has been outlined and delivery plan is in place. Harlow District Council Commercial 24,000 Medium risk: there are no • Grant sought is based on It is recommended that (Stort Valley Meadows) properties in residential properties at risk and EA quotes from preferred this project is provided full Harlow Town consents would have to be sought contractor grant funding. centre for any works on Main rivers • Benefits to the scheme will be the increased movement of surface water away from local businesses, particularly at times of excessive rainfall • Additional benefits would include enhancing the biodiversity value of the Maymeads Marsh (AKA Honeymeads Marsh), by restoring the open water aspect of the 5.5ha Marsh and open water ditch system. Harlow District Council Princess 20,000 Medium Risk: although there are no • Grant sought based on It is recommended that (Oakwood Pond) Alexandra reports of residential property quotes from preferred this project is provided full Hospital flooding, there are reports of contractor grant funding. extensive flooding in a critical • Benefits of the scheme are infrastructure, the Princess multiple folds: the hospital Alexandria Hospital, especially the car park would be car park. protected from frequent inundation and the surface water would be re- directed back to the Oakwood pond thus providing some alleviation.
Page 36 of 52 Essex Highways (St 4 20,000 This is a high risk scheme as the • Grant applied for is an It is recommended that Nicholas Rd Witham) amount of grant applied for is not estimate, there is a this project is provided full based on any actual feasibility possibility of the actual grant funding based on the study but rather an estimation of works costing more than documented flooding what the proposed works would grant applied for issues the Flood and cost. There is a risk of the actual • Letter provided from Water team are aware of work costing more than the grant Essex Highways to the in the area applied for. In addition, there is Flood COG providing cost breakdown of the preferred assurances that the remedial option, no proposed scheme would be project delivery plan has been delivered produced. *Essex Highways (Ferry 4 30,000 This is a high risk scheme even Grant applied for is an It is recommended that road Hullbridge) though more information has been estimate, there is a this project is provided full provided in the form of GIS files possibility of the actual grant funding based on the indicating the specific location for works costing more than documented flooding the schemes and this corresponds grant applied for but letter issues we are aware of in with our PLP applications which produced by Highways to the area indicate at least 3 applications in the Flood COG providing the area affected. assurance that the scheme would be delivered. *Essex Highways 3 30,000 This is a high risk scheme even Grant applied for is an It is recommended th at (Greenstead Green) though more information has been estimate, there is a this project is provided full provided in the form of GIS files possibility of the actual grant funding based on the indicating the specific location for works costing more than documented flooding the schemes. In addition, the plan grant applied for but letter issues we are aware of in to reduce flood risk to properties in produced by Highways to the area the area involves the installation of the Flood COG providing new gullies on Church Road and an assurance that the scheme increase in pipe size to 225mm would be delivered. from Church Road to Burtons Green Road *Essex Highways 1 20,000 This is a high risk scheme even Grant applied for is an It is recommended that (Mitchell Avenue) though more information has been estimate, there is a this project is provided full provided in the form of GIS files possibility of the actual grant funding based on the indicating the specific location for works costing more than documented flooding
Page 37 of 52 the schemes. In addition, the plan grant applied for but letter issues we are aware of in to reduce flood risk to properties in produced by Highways to the area the area involves the installation of the Flood COG providing four new gullies and a new 225mm assurance that the scheme pipe to connect into existing system would be delivered. Rochford District Council 10 2,800 This is a low risk scheme as there To alleviate the flood risk the It is recommended that (Briar Close/Hazelwood, have been reports of flooding to existing ditch requires this project is provided full Hawkwell, Hockley) gardens and footpaths due to the excavation works to enable a grant funding based on the insufficient capacity of the ditch free flow of surface water documented flooding bordering the properties in Briar and so remove the flood risk issues we are aware of in Close to the residential properties. the area Rochford District Council 2 1,200 This scheme has been brought to The installation of the flap It is recommended that (Ironwell Lane, the attention of offices at ECC and valve to the existing this project is provided full Hawkwell, Hockley) RDC from residents of Oak Road, concrete head wall structure grant funding based on the Rochford, and The existing outlet will prevent tide water documented flooding serves as the discharge point for backing up the surface water issues we are aware of in the residential development at Hall system. The grant applied the area Road, Rochford. Without a flap for is based on actual valve at this outlet location there is contractor quotes. risk that water from Hawkwell Brook will enter the surface water system of the residential development putting these properties at risk together with the properties in Oak Road. Tendring District Council 1 18,405 This is a medium risk scheme. The The preferred option is to It is recommended that (6 Maltings Lane Kirby- property is located at the lowest install a flood gate, 2 pumps this project is provided full le-soken) point in the area and is vulnerable and flood fencing to protect grant funding but this is in three different locations. And the property and also re- contingent upon the Tendring Council’s emergency instate the adjacent ditch to property owners’ planning team has had to attend to help water flow away from acquiescence. this property multiple times. The the property quicker resident is aged. Cambridge Housing 14 84,000 This is a low risk scheme as Preferred option for the It is recommended that Society (Barnards Field properties have recently suffered scheme (PLP) was outlined in this project is provided full Flood Protection) from surface water flooding in July a FRA completed by Royal grant funding based on the
Page 38 of 52 2014 and June 2016. Water runs Haskoning. strength of the evidence of down from adjacent site this site is flooding provided and the currently farmland but the delivery plan. landowner has expressed his interest in developing it for residential purposes which could further enhance the problem. Rochford D istrict Council Flooding of the 3,850 This is a medium risk scheme and it To alleviate the flood risk the It is recommended that (Ashingdon Hill, adopted public has also been identified as a existing ditch requires this project is provided full Ashingdon Road. Flood highway priority at the Rochford Flood excavation works to enable a grant funding based on the Alleviation Scheme) Forum. This is predominantly free flow of surface water strength of the evidence of flooding to the Highway. between the two surface flooding provided and the water pipes and so remove delivery plan. the flood risk to the public highway. Great Bromley Parish 12 5,000 This is a low risk scheme. Severe GB PC is seeking to It is recommended that Council (Great Bromley) surface flooding occurred in June better protect its residents this project is provided full 2016. This affected local areas in by means of deployment of grant for the purchase of Ardleigh/ Colchester Road and Hall these temporary flood 5 Watergate barriers to Road. Several properties needed to barriers at time of form part of overall GB PC be pumped and others were in heightened risk Emergency Response Plan need of protection by means of e.g. Tendring District Council sand bag deployment. severe weather warning.
Essex Highways (Church 10 50,000 This is a high risk scheme. Flooding Th ere are currently two It is recommended that End, Great Dunmow) affects sections of the Church End options being considered: this project is provided full carriageway, including a row of installing new drainage on grant as we have records terraced houses south of the road existing alignment or detailing flooding in this where property thresholds are installing new drainage on area which the evidence in below road level and a cluster of new alignment to provide the grant application properties just upstream of the increased drainage capacity supports. crossing bridge. along church road
Page 39 of 52 Essex Highways 10 100,000 This is a high risk scheme. The There are currently two It is recommended that (Downham Road, flooding problem is caused by options being considered: this project is provided full Chelmsford) surface water runoff ponding at the installation of gullies outside grant funding based on the eastern end of Downham Road the flooded properties to strength of the evidence of which results in flooding to convey flood water to outfall flooding provided which properties into existing ditch or Install details the extent of the gullies and new carrier existing flood risk drains along the south side of Downham Road Boreham Drains 3 6,720 This is a low risk scheme as there is A CCTV survey showed one It is recommended that improvement and documented flood risk to section of the pipe this project is provided full replacement (Boreham properties along Haselfoot road. underneath the school grant funding based on the Primary School) Number 11 Haselfoot road has grounds is completely documented flooding flooded repeatedly in the past 4 blocked with sand and silt. It issues we are aware of in years while Numbers 7 and 9 have has been recommended to the area flooded in the past 12 years. replace and reroute the Flooding to No 11 has breached the collapsed section and to front door once and flooded the reline the remainder of the garden and garage on 6 different pipe with the addition of a occasions. manhole. TOTAL 101 469,158.01
Page 40 of 52 Report to: AGENDA ITEM 9 Essex Flood Partnership Board Report Number: (EFPB 04/17) Date of report: 26/01/2017 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : Business Accelerator – Feedback on Services in Scope
Report by : John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management
Enquiries to : John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management 07827 976397
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To update the Flood Board on the Business Accelerator process the Floods Team are currently engaged in.
2. Background
2.1. The 3 Floods teams: the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Sustainable Drainage team and the Enforcement team, have been invited to enter a business process called the Business Accelerator. It is approximately a 3 month programme which seeks to advise the team on how to be more commercial and consider different ways to achieve this. We are in the second month of the process.
2.2. Broadly speaking the team representatives participate in diagnostics sessions identifying the issues which will form part of a Business case. There are then 5 Masterclasses covering:
• Marketing • Sales • People and Change • Systems and Processes • Financial Management
Page 41 of 52 2.3. The process finishes with the team presenting their Business Case to an Assessment Panel to test the robustness of the Plan and give feedback.
2.4. The 7 services considered currently are:
• Development and Flood Risk - planning consultancy • Pre-app/information services • Other Flood and Water Consultancy • SUDS maintenance • Environment Agency funding • LLFA SUDs consultee role • Other LLFA Statutory
2.5. Details on these services are given below in Appendix 1.
3. Potential Outcomes
3.1. The conclusions of the process are yet to be determined but they could result in one of the three following scenarios:
• The teams continues in current structure, but have a much improved ability to raise funding
• A separate Commercial entity is created possibly called Flood Services which trades in and out of the ECC organisation
• Flood Services become a substantial part of the existing Place Services which currently trades in and out of the ECC organisation
3.2. Alternatively, the final scenario may be variants of the above.
4. Summary of Accelerator Conclusions so far
4.1. Size of market for products / services and sales potential - Major developments need flood risk assessments (500 PA) - ~150 national LLFAs to sell statutory services to - Every local authority to sell sequential test and SFRAs to - 50,000 properties at risk of flooding to sell info requests to
Page 42 of 52
4.2. Market access and routes to market - Know who developers are, don’t have direct links. - Need to establish relationships at the right level - Organise Events as a route to market - Needs a plan to win work
4.3. Position relative to competition - Usually not tied in contract, but existing relationships - Perception of lack of speed and professionalism - One stop shop - Skill base & resources - we are good - Need to market ourselves
4.4. Sub-branding brand awareness / potential - Association with Council expertise - Difference in private and public sector needs - ET to provide assessment and recommendations
4.5. Staff capability, professionalism and development potential - Existing skills are good - Delivering statutory duty as BaU - Further training needed to keep competitive in the market - Young and enthusiastic team open
4.6. Commercial capability - Chinese walls issue - Team are commercially minded - Keen to obtain private sector experience - Tenders have been completed - Currently lack structure and experience
4.7. Leadership and management - Service is currently leading initiative - Full backing and support - Some uncertainty around organisational change, but traded services are supportive
Page 43 of 52 4.8. Culture and culture change potential - Young and enthusiastic team open to training/development/change - Technologically skilled, able to pick up new systems/processes easily. - Have already instigated time-recording practices.
4.9. Scalability - 13 LPAs in Essex inc Minerals and Waste - Neighbour LLFAs - Growth areas in Essex - Flooding being a growing problem – national headlines
4.10. Current and potential revenue streams - Know the size of the market - Have existing customer base - Exceeding existing income targets - Already delivering a number of the services - Strong idea of potential new revenue streams
5. Recommendation
5.1. For Essex Flood Board Members to note progress on the Accelerator process and seek further reports at the next Flood Board when the process is completed.
Page 44 of 52
Appendix 1:Flood and Water Products and Services in Scope
Service Product Description Development and Flood a.) Flood Risk Provision of site specific Risk - planning Assessments flood risk assessments consultancy associated with planning applications. b.) Strategic Flood Risk Provision of strategic flood Assessments risk assessments associated with planning and growth, local plans etc. c.) Sequential Test Assessing suitability of proposed development sites as part of Local Plan process. Pre -app/information • SuDS pre application Already in place services advice • Watercourse pre-app advice • Info request (basic or detailed)
SWMP model data (tbc) SWMP output data (tbc) Online purchase tool to allow above (subscription service tbc) Other Flood and Water a.) Flood alleviation Providing flood alleviation Consultancy scheme design option and design reports, e.g. for use in support of FDGiA bids. b.) Highway scheme Providing flood alleviation design option and design for highway schemes. c.) Community resilience Training for other LLFAs training package or community groups on Where Does Water Go and ditch clearance initiatives. d.) Flood modelling Flood model design and build using specialist software.
Page 45 of 52 SUDS maintenance One-stop shop for developers to organise approval, adoption and maintenance of new SuDS systems. Environment Agency a.) Bid consultancy Technical expertise in: funding Bid development EA/Govt Requirements Partner Liaison Timelines/Approvals b.) Maximising ECC As above income LLFA SUDs consultee a.) SLA with LPAs SLA to provide SuDS role advice outside statutory role. Currently under SLA with 6 districts. b.) Consultee role for Such as provision of LPAs/LLFAs outside statutory SuDS role for Essex Thurrock Council. Other LLFA Statutory a.) S19 Flood Production of Flood Investigations Investigation Reports on request b.) S21 Asset Register Asset Register data scoping/gathering, plus recommendations for publishing and asset management c.) S9 Flood Strategies Production of Local Flood Risk Management Strategies on request d.) S23 Watercourse Support on the consenting Regulation of changes to Consenting watercourses e.) S24/25 Watercourse Support with enforcement Regulation against unconsented Enforcement changes to watercourses or lack of maintenance.
Page 46 of 52
Report to: AGENDA ITEM 10 Essex Flood Partnership Board Report Number: EFPB/05/17 Date of report: 26/01/2017 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report : Flood Risk Management Strategy Update
Report by : Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager
Head of Service: John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management
Enquiries to : John Meehan Acting Head of Environment and Flood Management 07827 976397
1. Background - the need for change
1.1. Essex is considered a nationally high flood risk area with a total of 108,000 properties at risk from sources including the sea, main rivers, and surface water or rainfall flooding. In recent years we have seen some severe downpours and multiple cases of properties flooding internally. This has increased the focus on our role in managing flooding, matched with a higher level of customer expectation.
1.2. Essex County Council’s current Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) was produced as an early response to our new statutory duties under the Flood and Water Management Act of 2010. The existing document being developed in 2012 and finally completed in February 2013.
Figure 1: Current version of the LFRMS and red, amber, yellow ‘tiered’ areas of priority based on properties at risk in Essex.
Page 47 of 52
1.3. With our Flood and Water Management service now working on a number of new priorities for 2016/17 and beyond, the existing ‘statutory’ strategy does not truly reflect our vision or outcome objectives for the future. Nor does it set out how these will be monitored or measured for success.
1.4. Our strategy should reflect our well-publicised capital allocation for local flood risk investment, with a clear steer towards partnerships and community self- serve/resilience.
1.5. Our work in the council’s business accelerator process is also driving the team to create income opportunities by selling subject matter expertise. Promoting more sustainable and informed decisions with regard to flood management across a number of markets.
2. Who is involved?
2.1. An internal Flood Strategy Steering Group has been brought together to forward plan the Essex strategy update.
Table 1: Flood Strategy Steering Group
Officer Title Capability/Role in Steering Group Name Lucy Lead Local Flood Providing PM role until Feb 2017 (maternity Shepherd Authority Manager leave). Subject matter expert. Flood and Water Management Team Jon Wilson Head of Commissioner and critical friend – focus on Commissioning outcomes/performance. Ensuring value for Sustainable Essex money. Place Commissioning Nicole Senior Policy and Corporate and place overview, strategy North Strategy Advisor expert. Links with cabinet office and Place governance, will check and challenge. Jenni Organisational Looking at performance of services - data, Carter Intelligence Analyst evidence, further research and analysis. Organisational Customer insight and engagement with the Intelligence and community. Commissioning Delivery Paul Martin Director Strategic External Marketing Experts. Focus on and Marketing business improvement. Delivering results, Richard Better Agency sales and analytics. Creative marketing and Brenkley strategy. David Delivery and Capital programme and watercourse Chapman Enforcement regulation subject lead, support on policy and Manager protocol Page 48 of 52
Flood and Water Management Team Kathryn Senior Sustainable Sustainable Drainage lead, support on Dedman Drainage Officer planning and growth, key stakeholders are Flood and Water developers and local planning authorities. Management Team Emily Patel Senior Ensure fits with overall organisational comms, Communications overall comms plan with political cycle, Officer internal and external, linked to partners. Place Media relationship. Use as the ‘public service’.
3. Progress to date
3.1. To date our Senior Policy and Strategy Advisor has reviewed the existing document. Key feedback includes:
• Comprehensive, but long. • Meeting statutory requirements but lacking user focus and comprehensible structure • Lacking some clarity on objectives and outcomes • Content does not reflect current situation/legislation
3.2. Our Organisational Intelligence group is also taking an early look at our flood history and risk maps for the County, overlaying these with tools which examine the demographic and public receptiveness to issues such as waste, climate change and sustainability. This work will help us to target any comms and marketing in the most effective way.
4. Marketing Plan - Identifying user needs
4.1. A marketing workshop was held in December to identify user groups and needs.
4.2. There are a total of 19 Flood Risk Management Authorities covering the Essex County area (we are covered by 3 RFCC committees, twelve Local Planning Authorities and 2 Water Companies). So ensuring that the document links with existing plans, maintenance strategies and other approaches and priorities will be a challenge.
4.3. In terms of Essex residents, our initial feeling is that customer groups can be represented within Figure 2 illustration below. Targeting different messages to each user group will be key, rather than a blanket approach.
Page 49 of 52
Figure 2: Spread of customer flood risk vs awareness across Essex. The user need from our strategy will vary.
5. What next?
5.1. The attached approach document (Appendix 1) sets out the broad structure of the project gateways ahead.
5.2. We are mindful that Essex County Council is currently undergoing an organisational restructure, with a new digital strategy playing a central role across all services. Our LFRM Strategy must adhere to any corporate direction on communications and marketing in this respect.
5.3. Ultimately we hope to deliver a clear strategy that meets a wider range of user needs and can quantify our success.
5.4. We are open to provide consultancy support for other LLFA’s wishing to follow a similar strategy approach and will be glad to report on progress to various RFCC’s and partners.
Page 50 of 52 CHECKPOINT; Is this the right strategy given ECC’s digital strategy Marketing Content Content Campaign Development Build Strategy Plan Audit delivery
Stages
Deliver new content Align content with Review current content customer journey . . . platform, engagement Establish marketing inputs against content Complete all core build • Identify topics, Create activity plan action plans & promote assumptions . . . plan requirements elements . . . needs, questions to be outlining all build, • Deliver content • Audience groups, • content delivery platform addressed for Address: ‘A full review campaign and reporting • key messages platform • Promote content audience groups by of the existing LFRMS stages • public engagements • major content pieces platform (tech & Objective content and updated content requirements • outreach prep outreach) • Determine objective (with ECC Flood Team • marketing metrics • Engagement plan & metric for support)’ audience/content • Outreach plan type
Audit of existing Reflect back findings Use earned, owned and content. What • objectives How Conduct workshop with key stakeholders paid media to engage • can be used as is • performance measures with audiences • needs updating, into a project • needs origination • campaign activity plan
RESULTS!! Successful reach to Marketing strategy and project direction Content resource plan Development plan Build completion Outcome audiences = changed perception and behaviours
Page 51 of 52
Page 52 of 52