E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk

Direct line: 01403 215465

THE CABINET Thursday 20th March 2014 at 5.30 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: Ray Dawe Leader Helena Croft Deputy Leader and Communication, Horsham Town & Special Projects Andrew Baldwin The Environment Jonathan Chowen Arts, Heritage & Leisure Gordon Lindsay Resources Roger Paterson The Local Economy Sue Rogers Safer & Healthier District Claire Vickers Living & Working Communities

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA Page No. 1. Apologies for absence.

2. To approve as correct the record of the meeting of 30th January 2014 1 (herewith).

3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Cabinet.

4. To receive any announcements from the Leader, Cabinet Members or Chief Executive.

5. To receive questions from and provide answers to the public in relation to matters which in the opinion of the person presiding at the meeting are relevant to the business of the meeting.

6. To consider the following reports:

(a) Report of the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities on 11 The Horsham District Sport, Open Space and Recreation Assessment

Horsham District Council, Park North, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley (b) Report of the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities on 17 The Horsham District Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment accompanies this agenda as a separate document)

(c) Report of the Cabinet Member for a Safer & Healthier District on the 23 approval of the West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Appendices 2 and 3 accompany this agenda as a separate document)

(d) Report of the Cabinet Member for Resources on Business Rates 33 Retail Relief

7. To consider any matters referred to Cabinet by the Scrutiny & Overview Committee - There are no matters currently outstanding for consideration.

8. To consider matters of special urgency.

EX140130

THE CABINET 30TH JANUARY 2014

Present: Councillors: Helena Croft Deputy Leader and Communication, Horsham Town & Special Projects Andrew Baldwin The Environment Jonathan Chowen Arts, Heritage & Leisure Gordon Lindsay Resources Roger Paterson The Local Economy Sue Rogers A Safer & Healthier District Claire Vickers Living & Working Communities Apologies: Ray Dawe Leader

Also Councillors: John Bailey, Peter Burgess, George Cockman, Leonard present: Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes

EX/27 RECORD OF THE MEETING OF 21ST NOVEMBER 2013

The record of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 21st November 2013 was approved as correct and signed by the Deputy Leader.

EX/28 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

EX/29 ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Cabinet Member for Arts, Heritage & Leisure advised that:  The Environment Agency, in consultation with the Council, had postponed the start of the agreed works at Warnham Mill Reservoir until September but that the situation regarding the Mill Pond was being carefully monitored.  A press release was being prepared regarding the danger of trees and the responsibilities of land owners, with particular reference to the impact of the recent weather.

The Cabinet Member for the Local Economy advised that a new Director had now been appointed for the Rural West Sussex Partnership. The cost of employing the Director was being shared between four District Councils (Arun, Chichester, Mid Sussex and Horsham), the South Downs National Park Authority and Coast 2 Capital. Horsham District Council’s share of the cost was £5,000.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Communication, Horsham Town & Special Projects:  Referred to the good news regarding the John Lewis Partnership development proposed for the Bishopric area of Horsham town, indicating that the planning application had recently been considered favourably by the Development Control (North) Committee.

1 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/29 Announcements (cont.)

 Advised that West Street Phase 2, which was mainly the greening of the street and the upgrading of the electrics for the lighting, would be commencing in the Spring. Her Task and Finish Advisory Group would be looking at signage and wayfinding in the next few months.

EX/30 PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Mr Paul Kornycky asked the following questions:

In the MTFS report presented tonight under paragraph 4.3 it shows the Recycling Support Grant received from WSCC reducing by £115,000. As my expectation would be that this Grant of around £1.5m would normally attract an inflationary increase, can the reasons for the reduction (including absolute before/after amounts) be explained?

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, can it be confirmed that in the same report the charges for Green Waste for 2014/15 are assumed as being at the same level as they were on implementation in 2013/14?

Councillor Andrew Baldwin, the Cabinet Member for the Environment replied as follows:

The recycling support grant is a local arrangement made under the provisions of Section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) known as ‘Recycling Credits’. The grant is paid in lieu of the recycling credit as allowed by the legislation.

The current grant paid to Horsham District Council is £1,436,471 and is not subject to any inflationary increase.

Funding for these grants is partially supported by a share of the income derived from materials recycled in West Sussex. This income has been seriously affected by the recession and is significantly lower than when the scheme was set up.

In view of the reduction in available funds the West Sussex authorities are examining ways to ensure that the recycling grant scheme is sustainable and affordable in future years.

Discussions are currently underway with all District & Borough Councils across West Sussex and it is certain that there will be a reduction in the grants paid to all districts and boroughs although the level of this reduction is still subject to negotiation.

As part of the budget process a reduced grant has been included based on the ‘worst case scenario’ of options currently under discussion.

2 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/30 Public Questions (cont.)

Last year Horsham District Council decided to do what all other councils in West Sussex were already doing, that is to make a charge for the collection of garden waste.

In arriving at the £29 charge, we consulted with other councils throughout the Country and were influenced by their experiences. We also consulted with Councillors who were on my Advisory Group.

We deliberately set the charge much lower than neighbouring councils because we wanted to ensure a good participation rate. Our aim was at least 40%. The fact over 28,500 homes have signed up, which is approximately 57% if you exclude flats, proves that most residents believe that £29 represents excellent value for money.

In West Sussex the cheapest after Horsham is £45 in Chichester, if you pay by Direct Debit, and the most expensive is £72 in Arun.

In response to your specific question, the price for garden waste collections will remain unchanged at £29 for the first bin at a property and £15 for subsequent bins.

REPORT BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR A SAFER & HEALTHIER DISTRICT

EX/31 Multi-agency Agreement for the management of Unauthorised Encampments across West Sussex through the provision of a Transit Site

The Cabinet Member for a Safer & Healthier District submitted a report proposing that the Council worked in partnership with other local authorities in West Sussex to jointly fund the provision and running costs of a Transit Site for Gypsies and Travellers.

The number of unauthorised encampments across the District had increased over the last couple of years, causing concern to the communities affected and expense to the Council. As there were currently no public transit sites in West Sussex, the powers available to the Police to move unauthorised encampments off public land was very limited.

Early in 2013, all the West Sussex authorities had jointly commissioned an independent study into the pros and cons of providing a Transit Site in West Sussex. The Study recommended that the West Sussex authorities should develop a Transit Site as a County-wide resource; that the partners, together with Sussex Police, should develop a holistic, multi-agency approach of managing both the Transit Site and unauthorised encampments; and that the West Sussex approach should be based on the successful East Sussex model.

3 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/31 Multi-agency Agreement for the management of Unauthorised Encampments across West Sussex through the provision of a Transit Site (cont.)

It was therefore recommended that the Council should enter into a multi-agency arrangement with all West Sussex authorities. A potential County-wide Transit site had been identified in the Chichester District (Westhampnett Depot) with potential to provide 9-10 pitches. All authorities would contribute equally to both the running costs and the capital costs of the project.

It was noted that, since the report had been prepared, Chichester District Council had been successful in its submission to the Homes and Communities Agency, securing a grant of £630,000 for the provision of nine pitches at the Transit site. This would reduce the capital amount originally sought from this Council from £162,500 to £83,750.

RESOLVED

(i) That the Council enters into a multi-agency arrangement for the effective management of unauthorised encampments across West Sussex.

(ii) That the Director of Community Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for a Safer & Healthier District, be authorised to agree the details of the multi-partnership arrangements with counterparts across West Sussex.

(iii) That it be noted that the proposed Transit Site would be located in Chichester District and that West Sussex County Council would be responsible for the management of the site once developed.

RECOMMENDED

(iv) That, subject to all partners formally confirming their commitment to the scheme:

(a) A sum of no more than £83,750 of capital investment be approved as this Council’s equal contribution towards the capital costs of constructing the Transit Site in 2014/15.

(b) A contribution of up to £15,000 per annum be made towards the running costs of the Transit Site and that this becomes part of the annual revenue budget for the Council from 2015/16 onwards.

4 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/31 Multi-agency Agreement for the management of Unauthorised Encampments across West Sussex through the provision of a Transit Site (cont.)

REASONS

(i) The model of providing a Transit site relies on all eight local authorities jointly contributing to its provision. A multi-agency agreement will clearly set out the parameters of such an agreement between the parties.

(ii) To provide clarity as to where the identified Transit site will be located and who will be responsible for its management.

(iii) To ensure that the appropriate capital and revenue sums are available if the proposal is agreed.

REPORT BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR LIVING & WORKING COMMUNITIES

EX/32 Charging for Planning Advice

The Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities reported that the principle of charging for planning advice was now well established and was operational in a number of neighbouring planning authorities in both West Sussex and Surrey. Additionally, the South Downs National Park Authority had also introduced charging in January 2013.

It was noted that Section 93 of Local Government Act 2003 (Power to charge for discretionary services) gave planning authorities a discretionary power to charge for giving pre–application planning advice in order to recover some of the costs incurred before an application was submitted. However, any such income raised was not allowed to exceed the cost of providing the service.

Details of the approach taken by other planning authorities to charging (including scales for charging and fee income) were submitted for information.

The Cabinet Member was therefore seeking approval for the principle of charging, with the roll-out of specific charges and the categories for exemption from charging being agreed by her in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the two Development Control Committees. The operation of the scheme would be reviewed on an annual basis.

In response to issues raised by Members, the Cabinet Member indicated that users of the service would be advised that all advice given was without prejudice.

5 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/32 Charging for Planning Advice (cont.)

RESOLVED

(i) That charging be introduced for pre-application advice.

(ii) That the details of the charging schedule including level of charge; the categories to which charging would apply and exemptions be delegated to the Planning Services Manager in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities; the Cabinet Member for Resources and the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Development Control (North) and (South) Committees.

(iii) That charging be introduced for pre-application advice by the Council by no later than 1st April 2014.

REASONS

(i) To ensure that the costs of the service are covered by the income received and to improve customer service and delivery by setting clear targets for response times.

(ii) To ensure that income is received to meet the costs of the service provided in line with the Council’s Financial Strategy.

EX/33 Report on Performance Indicators for Quarter 2 2013/14; District Plan Priorities; and Tracked Project List Progress

The Cabinet Member for Resources reported on the outcome of the quarterly review of the set of performance indicators for the second quarter of 2013/14 and the review of the Tracked Project List by the Scrutiny & Overview Committee’s Finance & Performance Working Group.

It was noted that the priorities identified in the District Plan were reviewed on a monthly basis by the Corporate Management Team and quarterly by the Finance & Performance Working Group.

Areas of positive performance noted by the Finance & Performance Working Group were:

- the level of attendance at sports centres and swimming pools against targets set; and - the level of attendances at Horsham Museum.

6 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/33 Report on Performance Indicators for Quarter 2 2013/14; District Plan Priorities; and Tracked Project List Progress (cont.)

The main areas of concern highlighted by the Finance & Performance Working Group in respect of the quarterly review of performance indicators related to:

- the percentage of planning appeals allowed; - the number of planning enforcement cases received/closed; - Acorn recycling rates; and - number of households in temporary accommodation/B&B accommodation.

The responses of the Heads of Service were noted and the relevant Cabinet Members gave an update on the current position and action being taken.

The Cabinet Member for Resources drew particular attention to the percentage of planning appeals allowed, with reference to the cost to the Council. The Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities referred to the loss of S106 benefits and the danger of being put into special measures for not making good decisions. Members discussed this issue and the Director of Corporate Resources indicated that information regarding costs paid in respect of appeals lost would be provided to Members. The Chief Executive also undertook to provide information regarding the Council’s position in relation to the threshold for special measures in respect of appeals lost on major applications.

In response to issues raised, the Chief Executive agreed that performance management was an important part of the Council’s business process and one of the means by which the Scrutiny & Overview Committee could hold the Cabinet to account. In this respect, the Chief Executive had had discussions with the Chairman of that Committee’s Finance & Performance Working Group as to how the process could be improved and would be reporting on this to a future meeting of the Working Group.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

REASON

Performance Management is part of the duty of Best Value to drive up service improvement.

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE RESOURCES

EX/34 Budget 2013/14 – Progress Report to end of December 2013 and Outturn Forecast

The Director of Corporate Resources submitted a report that compared expenditure and income with the profiled budget for the period 1st April to 31st

7 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/34 Budget 2013/14 – Progress Report to end of December 2013 and Outturn Forecast (cont.)

December 2013 and provided a forecast for the full year outturn. It was noted that the forecast underspend for the year now stood at £639,000. This forecast would continue to be updated as the year progressed.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

REASONS

Monitoring of the Council’s budget is essential, so that if necessary action can be taken to safeguard the Council’s financial position.

EX/35 Budget 2014/15 and Medium Term Financial Strategy

The Director of Corporate Resources submitted a report setting out details of the proposed 2014/15 revenue and capital budgets and reviewing the Medium Term Financial Strategy. As a result of the decisions taken by the Council in December 2012 to introduce charging for Green Waste; to increase car parking charges; and the implementation of the on-going business transformation programme the Council was able to set a balanced budget for 2014/15 without making any decisions that might impact the delivery of services to its residents.

However, due to the continuing drive to reduce Government debt, the pressure on Council finances remained with indications from Government that it would continue with its policy to reduce the payment of grant to local authorities. The future of current Government policies such as Council Tax freeze grant, New Homes Bonus, Housing Benefit and grant payment would remain uncertain until the next national election.

Current estimates for the future deficit for the Council, after allowing for savings delivered by the business transformation programme, was just under £1,000,000 for 2015/16 increasing to just under £2,000,000 for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

It was proposed that a payment of £1,500,000 should be made to the pension fund from the Council’s reserves to make good the current deficit, as the Fund was able to invest more widely and should generate a higher return than if the funds were left in the Council’s reserves. This should also help to ensure that the Fund remained in a healthy position.

The Government had encouraged councils to freeze Council tax by making available freeze grants to those who did so and, in December 2013, it had announced that 2011/12 and 2013/14 Council Tax freeze grant would be built into

8 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/35 Budget 2014/15 and Medium Term Financial Strategy (cont.)

the Settlement Funding Assessment. This meant that the ‘cliff-edge’ effect when Council Tax freeze grants ended would be eliminated. The Government had also pledged to include 2014/15 and 2015/16 freeze grants in the spending review baseline. This gave greater assurance that these grants would form part of the authority’s grant for future years but could not give full assurance. It was widely expected that Revenue Support Grant would be eliminated entirely by 2020. On the other hand, an increase in Council Tax would give an assured continuing income to the Council into the future. At the time of the submission of the report an announcement was still awaited from the Government on the level of tax increase which would trigger the requirement for a referendum under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. Therefore, a recommendation on the level of Council Tax for 2014/15 would be submitted direct to Council on 26th February 2014.

In accordance with Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Director of Corporate Resources reported on the robustness of estimates and the adequacy of reserves.

The report also set out a series of prudential indicators that were a statutory requirement to demonstrate that the Council’s capital programme was affordable and prudent in the context of the Council’s overall finances.

Cabinet Members supported the proposals in the report. In response to Members’ queries the Director of Corporate Resources explained the current position regarding Business Rate income and appeals against Business Rate valuations; ‘spending power’ assumptions; the need for further income generation/savings in future years to address the predicted deficit; and that future projections were based on realism and best estimates. Members also discussed rural car park issues, the need to attract new businesses to the District, the development of the Broadbridge Heath Quadrant and its importance in the context of economic development; and the future funding of the town tourist leaflet.

RECOMMENDED

(i) That a payment of £1,500,000 to the pension fund to cover the pension fund deficit be approved.

(ii) That Special Expenses of £265,827 and a Band D charge of £23.71 be agreed in respect of the unparished area for 2014/15.

(iii) That the net revenue budget for 2014/15 of £13.350m be approved.

9 The Cabinet 30th January 2014

EX/35 Budget 2014/15 and Medium Term Financial Strategy (cont.)

(iv) That the capital programme for 2014/15 be approved, as submitted, and that the indicative capital budgets in the programme for future years be noted.

(v) That the projected future deficits on the revenue account be noted and the Medium Term Financial Strategy continue to be reviewed and refined to ensure that decisions are taken to develop a balanced budget in 2015/16 and subsequent years.

(vi) That the Minimum Revenue Provision Statement be approved, as submitted.

(vii) That the prudential indicators and limits for 2014/15 to 2016/17 be approved, as submitted.

REASON

To meet the Council’s statutory requirement to approve the budget and the prudential indicators before the start of a new financial year.

EX/36 SCRUTINY & OVERVIEW COMMITTEE – MATTERS REFERRED TO CABINET

There were no matters currently outstanding for consideration.

EX/37 MATTERS OF SPECIAL URGENCY

There were no matters of special urgency to be considered.

The meeting closed at 7.06pm having commenced at 5.30 pm.

LEADER

10 Agenda Item 6(a) Report to Cabinet th 20 March 2014 Cabinet Member for Living and Working communities INFORMATION REPORT Not exempt

The Horsham District Sport, Open Space and Recreation Assessment

Executive Summary

As part of the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework, it is necessary for the Council to have a clear understanding of the level of sport, open space and leisure provision in the District, and to identify whether there are any deficiencies in provision, or whether there are areas which need specific protection.

In response to this, this Council has reviewed and updated an existing assessment of sport, open space and leisure provision (the PPG17 Assessment) which was published in 2005. This report sets out a summary of this process and its findings together with the recommendations for future provision within the District.

Recommendations

The Cabinet is recommended: i) to note the contents of this report ii) agree to the publication of this report as part of the evidence base which is being used to inform the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

Reasons for Recommendations i) To enable the preparation of the Horsham District Planning framework.

Background Papers: The Horsham District Sport, Open Space and Recreation Assessment Consultation: Parish Councils, Leisure and Economic development, Development Management Wards affected: All Contact: Catherine Howe – x 5505

11 Agenda Item 6(a) Background Information

1 Introduction

1.1 As part of the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework, it is necessary for the Council to have a clear understanding of the level of sport, open space and leisure provision in the District, and to identify whether there are any deficiencies in provision, or whether there are areas which need specific protection.

1.2 In response to this, this Council has reviewed and updated an existing assessment of sport, open space and leisure provision (the PPG17 Assessment) which was published in 2005. This report sets out a summary of this process and its findings.

2 Statutory and Policy Background

2.1 Under the previous planning ‘regime’, Planning Policy Guidance note 17 (PPG17) required that Councils undertook an assessment of open spaces and sport and recreation facilities. The overall purpose of such assessments was to ensure that there will be sufficient provision, of an appropriate quality and in the right place, to meet local needs. In response to this, Horsham District Council commissioned Kit Campbell associates to undertake this work, and it was completed in 2005. This study was used in the preparation of both the Core Strategy policy CP14, and the General Development Control policies 21 and 22.

2.2 The previous system of PPGs has now been replaced by the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF). This document promotes sustainable development, but as part of this recognises that greenspace and sport and recreation provision are essential components of sustainable communities. Paragraph 73 therefore states:

“Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up to date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.”

2.3 Given the age of the existing PPG17 Assessment, it was considered that it was necessary to update this study in order to ensure that the open sport, open space and recreation facilities could continue to be protected into the future, and where necessary identify what level of provision is required to support new developments taking place in the District.

2.4 This study was undertaken jointly with the Council’s Leisure services directorate - this was considered essential, as knowledge of the leisure provision across the District helps to inform that are provided, and also underpin strategies developed by this directorate such as the Greenspace strategy, and the Sport and Physical Activity Strategy.

12 Agenda Item 6(a) 3 Details

3.1 The Sport Open Space and Recreation study examined the current provision of a wide range of facilities across the District. Existing locations were identified by a range of mean, including through discussions with Parishes across the District and through discussion with Council officers. The provision of the following was investigated:

 Allotments  Bowling Greens  Built sports Facilities  Village and Community Halls  Play provision for children  Golf Facilities  Multi functional greenspace  Sports pitches  Tennis and multi-courts  Youth activity areas

3.2 The study identified that there is generally good provision of these facilities across the District, but some deficiencies do exist. The nature of the deficiency varies in type and location, but detailed maps illustrating these are provided in the main report which is available to view in the Members Room.

3.3 Using the findings of the study it was recommended that towns and larger villages should provide  Sufficient artificial turf pitches to accommodate a significant proportion of local football demand  Floodlit tennis courts, ideally managed by a tennis club  A bowling green, ideally managed by a club  One or more multi-courts with a suitable all-weather surface, designed to be suitable for 5-a-side football  At least one youth activity area with at least a teenage shelter plus additional facilities such as a skateboard area, ball court or basketball area  Equipped play areas for children of different ages.

It was also recommended that smaller towns and villages should provide:

 A recreation ground at least large enough for a football pitch, and where there is a local club using the site as its “home” ground, there should also be a changing pavilion  A multi-court with an appropriate all-weather surface designed for at least tennis and 5-a-side football  A childrens’ play area  A teenage shelter  A village hall

13 Agenda Item 6(a)

3.4 The quantity and accessibility standards recommended in this assessment are:

Allotments Quantity Standard 1.25 -2.0sqm per person according to demand Distance threshold 1 km Equipped Play areas Quantity Standard 0.5 sq m/person Distance threshold 400 m Multi-functional Quantity Standard 17 sq m/person greenspace Neighbourhood spaces Quantity Standard 5.5 sq m/person Strategic/sub-district spaces Distance threshold 300 m Neighbourhood spaces Distance threshold None Strategic/sub-district spaces Tennis and Multi Quantity Standard 0.75 sq m/person Courts Distance threshold 1 km Village and Quantity Standard As in the relevant parish community halls in Distance threshold 1 km rural areas Youth Areas Quantity Standard 0.4 sq m/person Larger settlements Quantity Standard 0.2 sq m/person Smaller settlements Distance threshold 400 m

4 Next Steps

4.1 The next step is to publish this document as part of the Horsham District Planning Framework evidence base and background documents. This will help to ensure that the HDPF is sound. In addition, the publication of this document will also ensure that officers within Development Management are using the most up to date evidence when determining planning applications, in relation to the provision of Sport, Open Space and recreation facilities.

4.2 This document will be used by Leisure Officers when commenting on planning applications, and also to inform their wider areas of work, including the preparation of strategies and working towards the future provision and upgrades to these facilities across the District.

5 Outcome of Consultations

5.1 The Sport, Open Space and Recreation study has been prepared jointly with Leisure and Economic development, and officers within this directorate have been involved in the review of evidence, and commenting on draft versions of this study. In addition, officers within Development Management who will also use this study as part of the determination of planning applications were also consulted on draft versions of this document, and their comments have helped influence future

14 Agenda Item 6(a) iterations of the study, and in particular the potential requirement for an SPD in the future. In addition, Parish Councils were consulted by Kit Campbell associates as part of the preparation of this study, as it was recognised that local knowledge is required to gain an accurate understanding of the level of sport, open space and recreation facilities across the District.

6 Other Courses of Action Considered but Rejected

6.1 One course of action that could have been taken would have been to continue to rely on the existing PPG17 assessment. This study is however nearly 10 years old and is getting out of date. As it is a requirement of the NPPF to undertake an assessment of sport and leisure provision, it was considered that this existing evidence would not be sufficient to inform the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework, and without an update of this original document, there is a risk that the plan would not be found ‘sound’.

7 Staffing Consequences

7.1 There are no direct staffing consequences arising from this report other than normal officer time involved in finalising and publishing this report.

8 Financial Consequences

8.1 The review and update of the 2005 PPG17 report and the preparation of the Sport, Open Space and Recreation study was undertaken by Kit Campbell Associates, in conjunction with input from officers across the Council. Agreement for the funding of this study was made in 2011, and no further financial costs are anticipated other than those which would be incurred in printing any copies of the study that may be required.

8.2 It should be noted that the provision of the appendices which underpin this report have been provided with guidance as to how they can be updated. This will enable officers within the Council to undertake future updates to the Sport, Open Space and Recreation Study in-house, and therefore minimise the need for the commissioning of consultants to undertake this work, and should therefore minimise any future financial impact to the authority.

15 Agenda Item 6(a) Appendix 1

Consequences of the Proposed Action

What are the risks No specific risks have been identified in relation to this associated with the proposal. proposal?

Risk Assessment attached No How will the proposal N/A help to reduce Crime and Disorder? How will the proposal N/A help to promote Human Rights?

What is the impact of the proposal on Equality and Diversity?

Equalities Impact Assessment attached Not relevant How will the proposal The report will help to ensure that sport, open space and help to promote recreation facilities are protected and where necessary Sustainability? provided in the future. This will ensure that existing and future developments have access to a range of facilities, therefore retaining the balance of social, economic and environmental needs within the District.

16 Agenda Item 6(b) Report to Cabinet th 20 March 2014 Cabinet Member for Living and Working communities  INFORMATION REPORT Not exempt

The Horsham District Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Executive Summary

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Authorities to maintain an adequate supply of housing sites in their area. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, hereon in referred to as the ‘SHLAA’, is the process of gathering together this information to create a portfolio of housing sites which may be picked for future planning purposes. The assessment helps the Council to identify potential locations for housing, either to be allocated through the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework or Neighbourhood Plans

The SHLAA is a core piece of evidence that will be used to support the development of the Horsham District Planning Framework. It is a live document which will be updated on an annual basis. The March 2014 SHLAA report summarises the assessment of the deliverability and developability of sites submitted to the Council up to the 8th July 2013.

Recommendations

The Cabinet is recommended: i) to note the contents of this report ii) agree to the publication of this report as part of the evidence base which is being used to inform the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

Reasons for Recommendations i) To enable the preparation of the Horsham District Planning framework.

Background Papers: The Horsham District Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Consultation: Parish Councils (HALC) Councillors (Drop in Session) Public Consultation (Interim SHLAA 2009) Wards affected: All Contact: Emma Parnaby x5575

17 Agenda Item 6(b) Background Information

1 Introduction

1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Authorities to maintain an adequate supply of housing sites in their area. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, hereon in referred to as the ‘SHLAA’, is the process of gathering together this information to create a portfolio of housing sites which may be picked for future planning purposes. The assessment helps the Council identify potential locations for housing, either to be allocated through the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework or Neighbourhood Plans.

1.2 The SHLAA is a core piece of evidence which will be used to support the development of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

2 Statutory and Policy Background

2.1 Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning authorities should

“identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years growth of housing against their housing requirements …to ensure choice and competition in the market for land” In addition the NPPF also requires that planning authorities “ identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 and where possible, for years 11-15”.

2.2 The identification of these sites has been undertaken by undertaking the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment or SHLAA. Horsham District Council is in the process of reviewing its adopted Core Strategy through the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). This document will cover the plan period from 2011 to 2031, and the SHLAA will form part of the evidence base to support the preparation of this document. The SHLAA does not set policy or designate sites for housing development. Inclusion of sites within the SHLAA does not mean that a site would be granted planning permission, should an application for housing be submitted on a SHLAA site.

2.3 The SHLAA practice guidance, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG), July 2007, sets out the primary role of the SHLAA as being to:

 Identify sites with potential for residential development;  Assess their housing potential; and  Assess when they are likely to be developed.

2.4 The aim of the Assessment is to identify as many sites with housing potential as possible so that the strategic housing requirement within Horsham District can be met for the plan period and that housing delivery in the future is secured as far as possible by identifying and assessing the deliverability and developability of sites that have the potential for housing development.

18 Agenda Item 6(b) 3 Details

3.1 In 2009 Horsham District Council prepared an Interim SHLAA Report to inform the development of Core Strategy Review consultation document ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and beyond’. The aim of the Interim report was to set out emerging SHLAA findings and highlight potential strategic site options for addressing development requirements as discussed within the ‘Leading Change in Partnership’ document. This work is available to view on the Council’s website.

3.2 The updated SHLAA follows on from the work undertaken for the Interim SHLAA Report 2009, containing a review of the sites originally submitted together with any additional sites put forward since the 2009 Report was published. The cut off date for the submission of sites included within this SHLAA was July 8th 2013. The draft report (without appendices) is appended to this report.

3.3 Sites included in the SHLAA assessment have a range of sources and include refused applications, sites submitted to the Council by developers or landowners, and broad locations of search. Preliminary desktop studies have been undertaken for each site, and certain sites have been excluded from the study. Those include sites submitted to the Council in 2009 which are now in the National Park, and remote areas of land away from villages and towns.

3.4 Sites remaining in the study were then visited to examine the characteristics of the site in terms of access, landscape, potential land assemblage issues and so forth. The results of these site visits were used to assess the each site according to three criteria: suitability, availability and achievability. This resulted in an overall conclusion for each site, as follows:

 Deliverable sites are available now, are in a suitable location for development and can be achievable within the next five years.  Developable sites: are in a suitable location, but due to certain constraints which limit the developability of the site in the short term, be available and achievable within 6-10 or 11+ years.  Not currently developable sites: are sites where it is not known whether a site could be made available or developed in the short to medium term.

3.5 As part of the work to update the 2009 Interim SHLAA Report, a targeted consultation was undertaken with Parish Councils in June 2013 to review the information currently held by the council on the SHLAA database, and also to invite the Parish Councils to suggest any alternative sites which they considered suitable for development. A series of drop in sessions have also been held by Strategic Planning to enable Councillors to review the SHLAA information for sites within their parish or neighbourhood.

Results of the Assessment

3.6 As indicated earlier in this report the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific ‘deliverable’ sites sufficient to meet five years worth of housing. An additional 5% buffer is required above the identified housing number to ensure choice and competition in the market.

19 Agenda Item 6(b)

3.7 The most recently tested annual requirement for the Council is the figure set out in the recently revoked South East Plan. This stands at 650 dwellings per year. A five year supply of housing incorporating an additional 5% buffer equates to 3,412 units for years 1-5, with an additional 3,250 units for years 6-10 and 11-15 thereafter. This equates to a requirement of 6,662 homes over the next 10 years.

3.8 The results of the SHLAA indicate that within the District there is potential for the delivery of 4,858 dwellings on sites in the SHLAA which are considered ‘deliverable’ within the next 5 years. The assessment also identifies 4,599 units which the Council considers developable within years 6-10. This results in a total of 9,457 units, which exceeds the requirement of 6,662 homes and is sufficient to meet a ten year supply of housing sites as required through the NPPF.

3.9 The contribution of the respective components towards the ten year housing supply is set out in the table below:

Deliverable sites without Planning Permission years 1-5 (green) 387 Developable sites 6-10 years (yellow) 1,167 Broad locations of search (1-5 and 6-10 years) 1,750 Non Strategic sites with planning permission 1,697 Existing strategic sites 1-5 years 2,274 Existing strategic site delivery 6-10 years 2,182 TOTAL 9,457

4 Next Steps

4.1 The next step in the production of the SHLAA is to publish the document on the Council’s website as part of the evidence base informing the Horsham District Planning Framework.

4.2 The SHLAA Practice Guidance requires the SHLAA assessment once finalised be kept up to date on at least an annual basis. Following the publication of this report, the SHLAA sites will be reviewed and new sites assessed in order to produce an updated assessment that will be published alongside the Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

4.3 The SHLAA process will then be updated annually as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process.

5 Outcome of Consultations

5.1 The SHLAA has been prepared by the Strategic Planning team in conjunction with the Northern West Sussex Housing Market Partnership (HMP) who jointly agreed the methodology used in the assessment process. The Northern West Sussex HMP

20 Agenda Item 6(b) is a partnership between Horsham District Council, Mid Sussex District Council, Crawley Borough Council and a selection of experts who are involved with the housing industry. Their involvement in the SHLAA has added a significant amount of technical knowledge to the site assessment process which has strengthened the outputs and findings of the SHLAA assessment.

5.2 Consultation has also taken place with the Parish Councils, with sites presented to the relevant Parishes at the HALC meeting on 8th June 2013. District Councillors have also had an opportunity to comment on the sites, through series of ‘drop-in’ sessions held during February 2014.

6 Other Courses of Action Considered but Rejected

6.1 No other courses of action have been considered – it is a requirement of the NPPF that the Council identifies a supply of sites on an annual basis. In addition, it will not be possible for the Council to complete the preparation of Horsham District Planning Framework without this key piece of evidence.

7 Staffing Consequences

7.1 There are no direct staffing consequences arising from this report other than normal officer time involved in finalising and publishing this report.

8 Financial Consequences

8.1 There are no direct financial consequences arising from the publication of this report.

21 Agenda Item 6(b) Appendix 1

Consequences of the Proposed Action

What are the risks If the production of the SHLAA is delayed, it would delay the associated with the preparation of the HDPF. proposal?

Risk Assessment attached No How will the proposal N/A help to reduce Crime and Disorder? How will the proposal N/A help to promote Human Rights? What is the impact of Not relevant the proposal on Equality and Diversity?

How will the proposal The report identifies a portfolio of potential development sites help to promote which are assessed in terms of their suitability, achievability Sustainability? and availability. The SHLAA assessment will ensure the most sustainable sites are considered for development over those which are considered less sustainable.

22 Cabinet 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 9(b) abcd

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Horsham District Council

March 2014

Glossary

CLG Communities and Local Government (government department)

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework PCT Primary Care Trust RSL Registered Social Landlord SAC Special Area of Conservation SEP South East Plan SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

TPO Tree Preservation Order

1 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Background 3

3. Progress to Date 8

4. Methodology 10

5. Updating the SHLAA 32

6. Site Surveys and Results 33

7. Housing Land Supply & Housing Trajectory 34

8. Conclusion 35

10. Monitoring & Next Steps 36

Appendix 1: Site Assessments and Maps

Important Information about the SHLAA

2 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

In order to avoid any unnecessary confusion, the Council would like to make the following disclaimer in relation to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and any other reports relating to its findings;

 The SHLAA only identifies opportunities for housing development on sites, which are considered to be deliverable, developable and available. It does not allocate sites to be developed. The allocation of sites for future housing development will be identified through the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) or Neighbourhood Plans.

 The identification of potential housing sites within the SHLAA does not imply that planning permission would be granted if an application were to be submitted. All planning applications incorporating residential development will continue to be considered against the appropriate policies and having regard to any other material considerations.

 The inclusion of potential housing sites within the SHLAA does not preclude them from being considered for other uses. The boundaries of sites are based on the information available at the time of the assessment. The SHLAA does not limit an extension or contraction of these boundaries for the purpose of a planning application.

 The exclusion of sites from the SHLAA (e.g. because they fall below the required SHLAA threshold of 6 units) does not preclude the possibility of a planning application for residential development being submitted on that site and later granted. Suitable sites will continue to come forward (particularly small sites) for residential development that have not been identified in the SHLAA.

 The classification of sites in terms of when they are likely to come forward for delivery (i.e. green 1-5 years, yellow 6-10 and 11+ years) is based on an assessment of the site at the time the SHLAA was undertaken. Circumstances or assumptions may change which may mean that sites could come forward sooner or later than originally envisaged.  The classification of a site is based on the classification of the developable area within that site, therefore if part of a site is considered ‘developable’ – i.e.

3 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

that it is likely to be delivered within years 1-5, then the whole of the site would be coloured green. That is not to say that the whole site would be developed, only that there is potential for some form of development to be delivered within the wider site boundary. Once an application has been permitted for a site, the site area is either re-drawn according to the application boundary or the number of units permitted is removed from the overall site total and the remainder of the site is assessed for its development potential. If no other portion of the site remains developable or deliverable, the remainder of the site is excluded or returned to ‘not currently developable’ depending on the characteristics of the site.

 The SHLAA is a living document which will be updated on an annual basis. All SHLAA sites will be reviewed as part of the next SHLAA review.

 Should any further information be submitted which would change the status of a site following the publication of this SHLAA report, it will be saved on file and used to re-assess the sites, when the SHLAA is reviewed – currently timetabled for autumn 2014.

 The Report has a base date of 8th July 2013 and the findings are a snap-shot of information held in our database at this time. It is therefore likely that some of the information presented in this report has changed since publication. For example, sites that are identified as not having planning permission may have secured permission since the information was compiled and published. Similarly planning permission may have lapsed on other sites.

 In addition, the information that accompanies the SHLAA is based on information that was available at the time of the assessment. There may therefore be additional constraints on some sites that were not identified as part of the study. Likewise, some of the identified constraints may have been removed since the information was compiled. Applicants are therefore advised to carry out their own analysis of sites to identify any constraints or other information for the purpose of a planning application and not rely solely on the findings of the SHLAA.

4 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

 The housing capacity of a site in the study either relates to the number of dwellings granted in a planning permission (where applicable) or is an estimate based on an assessment of what could be an appropriate density for the site in question. Please note that the site capacities in the study do not preclude different densities being applied on sites, subject to details.

 There is no limit to the amount of land that can be included within the SHLAA, and therefore there is no limit on the number of sites which can be submitted. Any sites submitted after the cut off date for this SHLAA (8th July 2013), will be included in the review of the SHLAA, currently timetabled for autumn 2014.

 The HDPF and any decisions made are informed by a number of studies and background documents. The SHLAA is only one of these documents and any decisions regarding planning policy must have regard to all the relevant studies and comments received during consultation.

 The SHLAA is one of a number of background documents used to inform the preparation of the HDPF.

5 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

1. Introduction

1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Authorities to maintain an adequate supply of housing sites in their area. As part of this process, Councils must give consideration to where housing development would be best located and must assess all potential opportunities for development locations. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, hereon in referred to as the ‘SHLAA’, is the process of gathering together this information to create a portfolio of housing sites which may be picked for future planning purposes. The assessment will assist Horsham District Council (HDC) identify potential locations for housing, either to be allocated through the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework or Neighbourhood Plans.

2. Background

2.1 Horsham District Council is in the process of reviewing its adopted Core Strategy through the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). This document will cover the plan period from 2011 to 2031. The SHLAA forms part of the evidence base supporting the HDPF and is used to ensure sufficient delivery of land for housing throughout the District. It does not set policy or allocate sites for housing development; nor does the inclusion of sites within the SHLAA pre-determine the consideration of a future planning application. This will be considered as part of the HDPF plan preparation and/or planning application process in full consultation with all interested parties, including local communities.

2.2 The aim of the SHLAA is to identify as many sites with housing potential as possible so that the strategic housing requirement within Horsham District can be met for the plan period and housing delivery is secured as far as possible by identifying and assessing the deliverability and developability of sites that have the potential for housing development.

6 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

2.3 The DCLG SHLAA Practice Guidance, 2007 states that as a minimum a SHLAA assessment should provide the following core outputs;

Table 1: CLG Core Outputs of SHLAA Assessment

1 A list of sites, cross-referenced to maps showing locations and boundaries of specific sites (showing broad locations, where necessary) 2 An assessment of the deliverability/developability of each identified site (in terms of its suitability, availability and achievability) to determine when an identified site is realistically expected to be developed 3 Potential quantity of housing that could be delivered on each identified site or within each identified broad location (where necessary) or on windfall sites (where justified) 4 Constraints on the delivery of identified sites 5 Recommendations on how these constraints could be overcome and when

2.4 Sites included in the SHLAA are subdivided into three categories and assessed according to suitability, availability and achievability as set out in Table 2. Further detail on how this assessment is made is set out in section 5.

Table 2: Classification of SHLAA sites Deliverable – To be considered ‘deliverable’ a site should be available now, be in a suitable location for development and be achievable within the next five years (i.e. that development of the site is economically viable) These sites are coloured GREEN on the maps Developable – To be considered ‘developable’ sites should be in a suitable location and there be a reasonable prospect that the site can be available and achievable in 6-10 or 11+ years. These sites are coloured YELLOW on the maps Not currently developable – If it is not known when a site could be made available or viably developed, it is considered ‘Not Currently Developable’ and is coloured RED on the maps.

7 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

3. Progress to Date

3.1 HDC began work on the SHLAA in 2009 to inform the Councils ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and beyond’, consultation document. The Interim SHLAA Report, 2009 was published alongside the 2009 consultation document setting out the emerging SHLAA findings and identifying potential strategic site options for addressing development requirements.

3.2 It was intended that a final SHLAA Report would be published soon after the ‘Leading Change in Partnership’ consultation to support the development of the Core Strategy Review. However, work on the Core Strategy was put on hold whilst the team focused efforts on addressing the short term need for housing in the District.

3.3 This report follows on from the work undertaken for the Interim SHLAA Report, 2009, containing a review of the sites originally submitted together with any additional sites put forward since the 2009 report was published. The SHLAA is a ‘live’ document, therefore the information available for many of the original sites is likely to have been updated, meaning these sites could have changed in status or been removed from the database if they are now developed.

3.4 In addition, a number of the sites within the Horsham District originally submitted to the SHLAA, are now located within the South Downs National Park. The South Downs area was given National Park status in 2011 and a new local planning authority was established. The South Downs National Park Authority, hereon in referred to as the ‘SDNPA’, are in the process of undertaking their own SHLAA to feed into the preparation of the emerging National Park Local Plan. Any sites previously submitted to the SHLAA which fall within the National Park boundary have been transferred to the SDNPA for consideration where the landowner has expressed an intention to do so. Where it was not possible to contact the landowner or agent representing a site, the sites have been excluded from the HDC SHLAA assessment and details have not been transferred to the National Park Authority. A detailed list of all sites excluded from the SHLAA is available in Appendix 1.

8 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

3.5 The 2007 Practice Guidance sets out a standard methodology for undertaking a SHLAA. Table 3 demonstrates the stages in the assessment which have been undertaken to date:

Table 3: SHLAA Process as set out in the CLG Practice Guidance, 2007 Stage 1 Planning the assessment; Stage 2 Determining the source of sites to be included in the assessment (refused planning applications, allocated sites, submitted sites) Stage 3 Desktop review of existing information (inc. landscape assessment); Stage 4 Site surveys; Stage 5 Undertaking the SHLAA survey Stage 6 Estimating the housing potential of each site; Stage 7 Estimating likely timescales for delivery Preparation of Interim SHLAA Report Stage 8 Review of existing information Stage 8a Consultation with Parish/ Neighbourhood Councils and adjoining authorities Stage 9&10 Assessment of broad locations and windfalls (if required) Preparation of SHLAA report We are here Repeat Annual review of SHLAA stages 3-8

9 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4. Methodology

4.1 The following paragraphs provide a summary of the methodology adopted by Horsham District Council in preparing the SHLAA. The methodology complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Practice Guidance (DCLG, July 2007)

4.2 The NPPF identifies that local authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area and should prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period.

Stage 1: Planning the Assessment

Timetable

4.3 The SHLAA is used to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and achievability (including viability) of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period. As specified in paragraph 47 of the NPPF, the SHLAA is required to identify a supply of deliverable sites to provide housing for 5 years, and a supply of developable sites or broad locations for 6-10 years and where possible 11+ years.

4.4 The SHLAA is a ‘live’ document and we continue to invite submissions on an ongoing basis for consideration in future assessments. In order to undertake this assessment it is necessary for each SHLAA report to have a base date to enable an accurate analysis of available sites to be undertaken. The base date (or ‘cut off date’) for this report is the 8th July 2013. This means that all sites submitted to the SHLAA prior to this date have been included in this assessment, whilst all sites submitted after this date will be included in the review of the SHLAA later this year. Similarly sites which were granted planning permission or completed following the 8th of July will be updated/ removed from the assessment in the next review of the report.

10 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Partnership Working

4.5 The 2007 Practice Guidance encourages local planning authorities to work together at a sub-regional level for separate housing market areas (HMAs).

4.6 Within Horsham District there are two separate identified housing markets. The ‘Northern West Sussex Housing Market Area’ covers the majority of the District and is influenced by Crawley and Gatwick, whilst the southern edge of the District, is influenced by the ‘Coastal Housing Market Area’ comprising Brighton and the coastal settlements.

Northern West Sussex Housing Market Partnership

4.7 The Housing Market Partnership (HMP) for Northern West Sussex is a partnership between Horsham District Council, Mid-Sussex District Council, Crawley Borough Council and a selection of experts who are involved with the housing industry. The idea behind the partnership is that the involvement of industry experts will add significant technical knowledge to the SHLAA and increase the strength of the site assessments. The Northern West Sussex HMP had the opportunity to actively participate in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process through a series of joint meetings held with housing providers in 2009/2010, the outcome of which fed into the production of the Interim SHLAA Report 2009.

4.8 The HMP provided an opportunity to debate the suitability, availability and achievability of a selection of sample sites, which were considered representative of a number of different site categories. The HMP raised issues which could potentially impact the development of the sample sites and also provided advice as to how these issues could be overcome. Whist some of the points discussed related to site specific issues, the broader principals were consistently applied to all relevant sites within each category. These principals were applied in the absence of site-specific-evidence and are only one of a number of considerations during site assessments.

11 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.9 Later in the process HMP was given another opportunity to review a selection of sites to confirm that the principles were being applied appropriately and make any further suggestions/ comments. The HMP agreed that the sue of sample sites, followed by a larger review sample, was acceptable in terms of their degree of involvement given the resource constraints associated with reviewing all the SHLAA sites across the Housing Market Partnership area.

Adjacent Authorities

4.10 Horsham District Council has a different Local Plan timetable to its surrounding authorities, therefore the decision was taken proceed with the SHLAA at a District level, undertaking regular liaison with the authorities in the Northern West Sussex HMA as it is this housing market area which has the greatest influence on the district.

4.11 In order to maintain this regular contact, an Officer working group comprising Horsham District Council, Crawley Borough Council and Mid Sussex District Council was established and regular meetings were held. The outcome of these meetings was to ensure a consistent approach to the SHLAA agreed by all three authorities. In addition, the common approach to the SHLAA enables the three assessments to be easily be compared and viewed in a wider regional context. The parameters agreed by the working group are set out in detail below;

 Site Thresholds: A minimum threshold of six units per site was set for sites to be included within the SHLAA. This threshold increases the overall strength of the SHLAA, as smaller sites are difficult to predict when (or if) housing will come forward for development and also improves manageability. The threshold is also in alignment with the annual Housing Land Supply Assessment undertaken with West Sussex County Council.  Excluded Sites: The Practice Guidance states that certain areas or types of land can be excluded from the assessment so long as reasons are justified and agreed by members of the HMP. The group agreed sites falling within land designations listed under Table 4 should be excluded from the SHLAA.

12 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Excluded Sites

4.13 Members of the West Sussex HMP Group agreed that sites falling within the following land designations should be excluded from the SHLAA together with Sites which are in very isolated locations away from built up area boundaries. Sites located in the South Downs National Park; and sites falling below the SHLAA threshold (<6 units).

Table 4: Areas of land to be excluded from the SHLAA:

 Sites of Special Scientific Interest  Special Protection Areas  Scheduled Ancient Monuments  Historic Parks and Gardens  RAMSAR sites

4.14 These excluded sites represent areas which are formally protected for national, regional or local environmental, nature conservation or historical reasons. These designations form only a small proportion of the total area of the district (8.07%) therefore, it was envisaged that sufficient land could still be included, capable of meeting the needs of the District without necessitating the inclusion of highly sensitive locations of this nature. Table 5 below provides the area figures for the excluded designations.

Table 5: Excluded designations

2 Percentage of Designation Total Area (km ) 1 District Area Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 14.61 2.75 Special Protection Area (SPA) 5.30 1.0 Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) 1.55 0.29 Historic Park and Garden 21.38 4.03 RAMSAR site 2 5.30 1.0 TOTAL 42.84 8.07

4.15 Remote Sites: In addition to sites within the land designations listed above, sites severely segregated from the edge of villages or towns in the District were also assessed as having nil housing potential and excluded from the SHLAA due to their inappropriateness for residential development.

1 Total Area of HDC is 530.93km2 2 In HDC the only RAMSAR site is also designated as an SPA. The figures in the RAMSAR category have not therefore been included when calculating the total areas / percentages, as to do so would constitute double counting.

13 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.16 South Downs National Park: From the 1st of April 2013 the South Downs National Park Authority began directly receiving all SHLAA site submissions within its area. The details on sites within the SDNP were therefore transferred over to the National Park Authority and all SHLAA sites within the National Park boundary were excluded from the HDC SHLAA.

4.17 Sites falling below the SHLAA threshold: Any site considered to have an estimated yield falling below the agreed SHLAA threshold of 6 units has been excluded from the assessment.

4.18 Other Designations: Other designations which were considered for exclusion were flood risk areas, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI’s) and areas of Ancient Woodland. Although development in these locations is not preferable, it may, in some instances be possible to appropriately mitigate adverse impacts through development design; therefore sites containing small areas of these designations were permitted within the assessment. The designation was however noted as a potential constraint, subsequently impacting the viability and therefore suitability of that site. Sites wholly within any of the designations were however excluded from the SHLAA as they were not considered suitable, available or achievable.

14 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Stage 2: Determining which sources of sites will be included in the assessment

4.19 Sites within the SHLAA can come from a variety of sources as identified in Table 4 below.

Table 5: Sources of sites with potential for housing

Sites in the planning process

 land allocated for employment or other land uses which are no longer required for those uses  Land allocated for housing through the Local Development Framework (CP4, CP9)  Existing housing allocations and site development briefs  Sites with unimplemented planning permissions for housing  planning permissions for housing that are under construction

Sites not currently in the planning process

• vacant and derelict land and buildings • surplus public sector land • land in non-residential use which may be suitable for re-development such as commercial buildings. • additional housing opportunities in established residential areas, such as under- used garage blocks • large scale redevelopment and re-design of existing residential areas • sites in rural settlements and rural exception sites • urban extensions • new free standing settlements

Source: SHLAA Practice Guidance 2007

4.20 As can be seen from Table 5, the SHLAA includes details on both greenfield and brownfield (previously developed land) sites. Whilst policies in the emerging HDPF seek to make optimal use of brownfield land, it is not possible to accommodate all future development on previously developed land (PDL) given the predominantly rural nature of the District and the number of houses the Council have to provide. The SHLAA, therefore provides a basket of potential greenfield sites and brownfield sites which could be considered for future planning purposes.

15 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.21 In addition to the list above, it is also possible to include refused planning applications and sites submitted to the authority by landowners, developers and/or agents;

Refused applications: It is possible to include sites which have previously been refused planning permission because it may be possible to overcome the reason for refusal at a later stage. For example, an application may have been refused previously on the grounds of density, meaning an application for fewer units on the same site could be feasible.

Submitted sites: Sites can be submitted to the Council for inclusion within the assessment by individuals, landowners or agents.

Broad Locations of search: Broad locations of search can be identified by the Council for consideration for future housing growth. Further details are included in Section 6.

Stage 3: Desktop Review of existing information

Search for potential sites 4.22 An initial desktop search was undertaken in 2009 to identify potential housing sites for inclusion within the SHLAA. This review used the following sources of data to identify sites. A minimum yield threshold of 6 units was applied to the search process as per the parameters agreed with the Northern West Sussex HMP.

Table 7: Existing data sources for site identification

Document Title/ Data Source

 Vacant and derelict land and buildings  Site specific development briefs  Planning application refusals – particularly those applications refused on grounds of prematurity  Urban Housing Potential Study 2004 – 2018  Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007)  National Land Use Database  Reserve Housing Sites  Employment Land Review  Sites submitted by stakeholders via the SHLAA consultation process

16 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.23 Submitted sites were collated via a Site Assessment Form, which recorded site specific information and the contact details of land owners and/or developers. In addition, each site was mapped at a suitable scale, usually on a 1:1250 map base in preparation for the site surveys.

Call for Sites

4.24 An initial ‘call-for-sites’ exercise was undertaken in 2008 where third parties were asked to submit sites they would like to see included in the assessment. Since then a copy of the Site Submission form has been available on the HDC website and it has been possible to submit at any time prior to the cut off date for this report which was on the 8th July. Sites submitted since the 8th July 2013 will be included in the 2014 assessment.

4.25 In order to ensure the database of SHLAA sites was accurate and up to date, a second round of consultation was undertaken in June 2013 targeting Parish Councils. During this consultation each Parish was given an information pack containing details on the SHLAA sites currently within their boundaries, together with information on how they could submit alternative sites to those already within the database. This method of consultation was seen to be successful and a further 30 sites were identified by the parishes. These sites can also now be used to form the basis of neighbourhood planning.

4.26 In addition to the parish consultation; stakeholders who had submitted sites previously to the SHLAA were contacted to identify whether they wanted those sites to remain in the SHLAA, and if so, whether they had any additional information that could help with the updated assessment of the site.

Office Accommodation

4.27 An assessment of office accommodation was undertaken in 2009 to help identify surplus, potentially redundant, office space which could be suitable for conversion to residential. This was done in collaboration with various departments at HDC. The report concluded that ‘the majority of buildings targeted in the study were performing well as offices at that time and did not advocate converting these buildings to residential use.’ The sites were subsequently excluded from the assessment.

17 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.28 Since the 2009 study was undertaken, it has become clear that a number of the office units are no longer fit for purpose and may now be suitable for residential accommodation. These sites have been added back to the SHLAA and assessed as ‘not currently developable’ until further work on the potential capacity of these units can be undertaken. This work will be carried out as part of the SHLAA Review scheduled for autumn 2014.

Stage 4: Determining the sites and areas to be surveyed

4.29 All sites submitted to the Council for inclusion within the SHLAA were visited in order to complete the site assessment process.

Stage 5: Carrying out the Survey

4.30 The Site Assessment form completed to accompany each site visit was used to identify various specific details of each site including the constraints and opportunities. The results of the assessments were then recorded into an Access database to provide an audit of the sites identified and the outcomes of the assessment. Table 8 summarises the information collected for each site surveyed.

18 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Table 8: Information to be collected and stored for each site. Site Site Size Characteristics Site Boundaries Current land use(s)

Surrounding land use(s) Character of surrounding area (i.e. rural, urban etc) Constraints Physical constraints, e.g. access, topography, ground condition, flood risk (the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) and ways to alleviate them, also if any contamination may be present. Environmental/ amenity impacts, e.g. effect upon landscape features/ Conservation Areas etc. Planning Policy Constraints, e.g. designations. Infrastructure constraints, e.g. impact on highways, access to the site, proximity to public transport Development Ground works complete/ homes started / site built out.

Progress Total number of units proposed/permitted Units Built Suitability & Initial assessment of whether the site is suitable for Deliverability housing including where applicable as part of a mixed use development Likely timescale for commencement of development

4.31 The initial assessment of the relating to housing or mixed use development provided a preliminary guide for the housing potential of the site. This judgement was based on criteria such as; size of site, availability of suitable infrastructure; suitability of location; any necessary remediation costs or environmental mitigation and proximity to existing services.

Stage 6: Estimating the housing potential of each site

4.32 The housing potential of a site refers to the net number of dwellings that the site can be assumed to accommodate through its development or conversion of existing buildings. The housing potential for each site was assessed was based upon guidance provided in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

19 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.33 The initial figure for each site was based upon a density of 40dph. This clear, concise figure enabled easy comparisons between all sites, regardless of any site specific constraints. The figure was then revised based upon the information gathered during the site assessment according to site specific criteria. For example, for a purely residential site within a built-up high density residential area, it was often suitable to increase the density. If the site has constraints such as Tree Preservation Order’s (TPO’s) or was a mixed use scheme in a lower density housing area, then the revised figure would be lowered to reflect these individual characteristics. The revised figure could be a range or indication of density rather than a specific figure, as exact numbers would obviously be subject to further detailed site and design work as part of any potential planning application. However, it would provide an indication of the potential housing capacity of the site.

4.34 It should be noted that the Assessment does not pre-empt or prejudice any planning decision made in the future on any particular site and the assumptions made on densities or indicative yields should not be taken outside of the context of the SHLAA.

Stage 7: Assessing when and whether sites are likely to be developed

4.35 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Authorities to ‘identity and update annually a supply of specific ‘deliverable’ sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements….and a supply of ‘developable’ sites or broad locations for growth for housing over the longer term.

4.36 The footnote to paragraph 47 provides the following definitions for deliverable, and developable sites:

Deliverable: To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered onsite within five years and in particular that development of that site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within the first five years; for example if they are no longer viable or if there is no longer a demand for the type of units, or if sites have long term phasing plans.

20 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Developable – To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

4.37 If it is unknown when a site could be developed, then it will be regarded as ‘not currently developable’, this could be, for example, because of severe constraints to development and not knowing when or if they might be overcome.

4.38 The assessment criteria for determining whether a site is to be considered suitable, available or achievable is summarised below:

7a: Assessing suitability for housing

4.39 Factors which make a site suitable for housing development include consideration of physical constraints which may impact development such as;  Noise;  Landscape and character of the surrounding area;  The natural and historic environment (including listed buildings);  Neighbouring amenity;  Flood risk;  Contaminated land;  Protected trees;  Biodiversity constraints;  Accessibility and proximity to local services;  Public Rights of Way; and  Supporting infrastructure.

7b: Assessing availability for housing

4.40 The 2007 SHLAA Practice Guidance states that for a site to be considered available for development there needs to be confidence that there are no legal or ownership problems such as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of landowners. An available site is classified as such if it is under the control of a housing developer who has expressed an interest to develop or a landowner who has expressed an intention to sell.

21 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.41 The following issues have therefore been taken into consideration when assessing the availability a site for housing development:  Ownership and/or control of the land;  Intention of the landowner to deliver;  Planning status and planning history of the site;  Potential legal constraints/ ownership problems;  Timescales required to bring a site forward.

4.42 A secondary issue to consider when assessing availability is the timescales required to overcome any identified constraints. In the majority of cases, sites included in the first five years are those with full planning permission or allocated and with a firm commitment by the developer to bring the site forward for development. If a constraint to development exists but it is felt that this constraint could be overcome in the longer term, then the site is classified as ‘available’ but deliverable in the longer term 6-10 or 11+ years, depending on the nature or complexity of the constraints on the site.

4.40 The availability of the majority of sites has been established by contacting the developers / land owners and checking relevant planning history to help clarify the legal status. Where problems have been identified an assessment has been made as to how those problems could be realistically overcome. This has been based upon details provided from the land owner(s), the expert judgement of the Planning Officers on the basis of local knowledge and information collected during site visits.

7c: Assessing achievability for housing

4.41 The assessment of whether a site is achievable or not is based on a judgement about the economic viability of the site, coupled with the ability of a developer to complete the scheme within a given time period. The assessment of a sites achievability takes into account the following factors:

 Market Factors such as: . Effect adjacent land uses may have on site; . The attractiveness of the locality; . Potential marketability of the site.

22 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

 Cost Factors including: . Site preparation costs and/or exception costs; . Affordable housing provision; . Highways improvement works; . Access issues and impact on Strategic Road Network; . Third party land requirements; . Availability and capacity of local utilities/ connection costs.  Delivery Factors including; . an assessment of projected build out rates; . Single or multiple developers; . Size & capacity of the developer; . Is third party land required?

4.42 For a site to be considered achievable, and therefore deliverable, there should be a ‘reasonable’ prospect that housing will be delivered on the site at a given point in time. In essence this is a judgement about the economic viability of the site and the ability of the developer to complete and sell housing over a certain period. If there is clear evidence that sites with planning permission will not be implemented before the permission expires, they should not be identified as achievable or deliverable. In order to feed into this assessment work, the Council commissioned a viability appraisal to investigate whether each of the individual SHLAA sites was considered viable on a ‘traffic light’ red, green, amber approach in light of their projected development trajectory. This information was then added to the SHLAA database and used to inform the final assessment of each site. Details of the SHLAA Viability Appraisal undertaken by Nationwide CIL Service consultants in 2013 is available on the Horsham District Council website under strategic planning.

4.43 Each site in the SHLAA has been assessed against the criteria above to determine whether it is suitable, available and/or achievable. The information was then used to determine whether the site should be classified as ‘Deliverable’, ‘Developable’ or ‘Not Currently Developable’ for housing development. A summary of each site assessment is available in Appendix 1, together with a map delineating the boundary for each site.

23 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

7d: Overcoming constraints

4.44 Where constraints have been identified, there may be an opportunity to overcome such constraints and the assessment has included a review of what further actions would be necessary to remove them. Actions have included; investment in infrastructure, dealing with fragmented land ownership, environmental improvement etc.

Stage 8: Review of the Assessment

4.45 Once the initial stages of the assessment had been undertaken and an assessment of deliverability and developability had been made, the housing potential of all sites was collated to produce an indicative housing trajectory setting out how much housing could be provided in the District and at what point in the future it was likely to be delivered. This work also included a risk assessment to consider whether sites would come forward as anticipated. If it was found that a site was unlikely to be delivered within the anticipated timescale, then the classification of the site was changed to reflect the most likely delivery rate. This trajectory is presented overleaf and categorises the availability of potential sites into five year blocks:

 1-5 years (April 2014 – March 2019) - Green;  6-10 years (April 2019 – March 2024) - Yellow; and  11+ years (Beyond 2029) -Yellow.

4.46 Sites which are considered suitable for development but are unlikely to come forward within the plan period of the forthcoming Horsham District Planning Framework (i.e. to 2031), have not been included in the trajectory work. These sites have been classified as ‘not currently developable’ and listed under the appropriate parish heading in Appendix 1 with a commentary explaining why these sites are considered not developable at the present time.

24 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.47 As has already been stated, it is emphasised that the inclusion of a site within the assessment does not imply that that site will definitely be granted planning permission. The SHLAA is a technical document used to identify a portfolio of housing sites which may be picked for future planning purposes. However the final decision as to whether a site should be granted permission would be decided through the planning application process.

Initial Findings:

4.48 The NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific ‘deliverable’ sites sufficient to meet five years worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional 5% buffer (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market. LPA’s are also required to identify specific ‘developable sites’ or broad locations for growth sufficient to meet the needs of years 6-10 and where possible years 11-15.

4.49 The housing requirement for the Horsham District is currently assessed against the housing allocation set out in the South East Plan (SEP), 2009. Whilst the SEP has now been revoked, recent Case Law applicable to the Horsham District, made it clear that the evidence supporting this plan is the most recent to be tested through the examination process. The Council therefore continues to monitor its five year housing land supply against the 13,000 units required through the South East Plan. This requirement equates to 650 dwellings per annum. Adding on an additional 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market, the Districts housing requirement for years 1-5 is 3,412 units and a further 3,250 units for years 6-10 and 11-15 thereafter.

4.50 An initial review of the SHLAA assessment identified 15 sites (equating to 837 potential units) without planning permission which were likely to come forward within the first five years (2013-2018). These sites are classified as ‘Deliverable’ (green) and are listed in Table 9:

25 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Table 9: Sites without Planning Permission considered deliverable 1-5 years SHLAA Ref Site Name Unit Capacity SA072 Land north of Old Guildford Road. BBH 125 SA108 Land at Home Farm, Itchingfield 30 SA083 Cowfold Glebe, Cowfold 6 SA080 Rusper Glebe, High Street, Rusper 12 SA055 Land at Smugglers Lane, Upper Beeding 25 SA025 Land north east of Cowfold 14 SA115 Land West of Storrington Road, Thakeham 15 SA274 Land north of the Rise, Partridge Green 55 SA337 Land to the East of Hayes Lane, Slinfold 30 SA339 Land at Threals Lane, Thakeham 8 SA045 Station Works, Billingshurst 12 SA360 Former Build Center, Southwater 11 SA285 Anchor Press Ltd, Old Pumping Station, Horsham 24 SA128 Old Goods Yard / King Edwards Close, Southwater 20 TOTAL 387

4.51 The initial assessment also identified 30 sites (equating to 1,192 potential units) without planning permission which were likely to come forward between years 6-10 (2018-2023). These sites are classified as ‘Developable’ (yellow) and are listed in Table 10.

26 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Table 10: Sites without Planning Permission considered developable 6-10 years SHLAA Ref Site Name Unit Capacity

SA085 Ashington Glebe Land, Ashington 30 SA039 Land at High Bar Lane, Thakeham 20 SA072 Land north of Old Guildford Road. BBH 125 SA102 Land at Lower Broadbridge Farm, Slinfold 50 SA153 RAFA site, Storrington 15 SA086 Storrington Glebe, Storrington 10 SA364 One Acre, North of Foster Lane, Ashington 18 SA088 Land north of Forest Road, North Horsham 8 SA087 Pulborough West Glebe, Pulborough 30 SA071 Land South of Bell Road, Warnham 20 SA070 Land north of Bell Road, Warnham 45

SA057 Land at Little Clovers Farm, Colgate 50 SA067 Ravenscroft Allotment Site, Storrington 25 SA320 Land North of the Rosary, West Grinstead 50 SA162 Land south of Roman Way, Billingshurst 24 SA336 Land off Church Street & Guildford Road, 12 Rudgwick SA355 Swallowfield Nursery, Mannings Heath, 6 SA066 Hatches Estate, Holding 121, West Chiltington 15

SA125 Knights Field Off Furze Road, Rudgwick 18 SA361 Land to the north of Melton Drive, Storrington 70 SA317 Sandgate Nursery, Henfield 30 SA167 Fire Station, Denne 15 SA165 Tanfield Garage, Denne 16 SA026 Sendalls Yard, North Horsham 6 SA031 General Combustion, Brookers Road, Billingshurst 10 SA137 Vauxhall Stevens, Broadbridge Heath 45 SA145 Roffey Sports and Social Club 70 SA308 South side Middle Street 10 SA030 Eagle Industrial Estate, Brroks Road 12

SA096 Schenectady Europe Ltd 20 SA131 Chanctonbury Nurseries 25 SA048 Land south of Forest Road 6 SA356 Land at Old Holbrook 240 TOTAL 1,167

4.52 In both instances, the potential supply was below that required by the NPPF.

27 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Stage 9: Identifying and assessing the housing potential of Broad Locations

4.53 The 2007 Practice Guidance states that if there are insufficient sites available to meet a ten year housing supply, then the local planning authority should consider the identification of broad locations for future housing growth within and outside settlements; and/or the used of a windfall allowance.

4.54 Broad locations are areas where housing developments may be considered feasible and could potentially be encouraged, but where specific sites cannot yet be identified.

4.55 The advantage of identifying broad locations is that it gives communities an idea of where future development may be directed and it will provide developers with a greater degree of certainty about where development may be encouraged. It is a proactive approach to planning, which reflects positive choices about the direction of future housing developments, rather than a reactive approach to development opportunities as they arise. Examples of broad locations include:

 Within and adjoining settlements – for example, areas where housing developments are or could be encouraged and small extensions to settlements; and  Outside settlements – For example, major urban extensions, growth points, growth areas, new free-standing settlements and eco-towns.

4.56 The Council identified nine broad locations for potential housing growth through the 2009 ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and beyond’ consultation document and these sites are listed in Table 9.

4.57 Since the publication of the 2009 document, a further area of search has been identified which could be the potential location of a new market town. Such an option would need to be extensively explored to ensure that a bold comprehensive approach to future housing and economic growth is investigated, but is within the environmental limits of the area.

28 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Table 11: Broad Locations of search

SHLAA Site Name Status Ref. Yield Potential Permitted

SA101 West of Ifield Not Currently Developable

SA295 Greater Faygate Not Currently Developable

SA296 Chennells Brook 2,500 Taken forward to Preferred Strategy (North Horsham) as ‘Developable’ 6-10 (1,250 units) and 11+ years (1,250 units) SA297 Holbrook Park Excluded Duplicate site. Assessed as (North Horsham) part of SA296 SA298 Chesworth Not Currently Developable Farm, Horsham SA119 West of 500 Smaller site area for c500 units Southwater identified through Preferred Strategy (SA413). Wider site area now considered ‘not Currently Developable’ SA118 East of 1,200 542 Application for 67 units permitted at Billingshurst appeal (SA349) Application for 475 units permitted (SA412) and identified through Preferred Strategy. Remainder of site considered suitable for development of c1,200 homes and is considered ‘Developable’ 6-10 years. SA294 Adversane Not Currently Developable /North Heath SA113 Pulborough 203 Three applications for a collective total Expansion of 203 dwellings have been permitted around this settlement since the 2009 consultation and are underway. These sites are recorded as SA036, SA079 and SA113 SA414 New Market Not Currently Developable Town TOTAL 4,200 745

4.58 Since publication of the 2009 consultation document, further sustainability appraisal work, together with wider planning assessments and site visits has been carried out meaning five of the ten broad locations are now classified as ‘not currently developable’. This is due to various issues including land ownership and lack of infrastructure capacity which would need significant investigation and investment in order to bring them into the potential 6-10 or 11+ years supply.

29 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

4.59 The potential developable area on the Land West of Southwater site has also been reduced from 2,750 units to c500 units to reflect the infrastructure capacity of the village. Further sustainability appraisal work identified that should development in this location go beyond 500 units, the site would need a substantial amount of infrastructure including a new road access, and village centre. This limits the deliverability of the scheme in the short term and potential viability of the wider site in the longer term. An application for c500 units was submitted on this site in 2013. Whilst this application has since been withdrawn, the reduced site area site remains in the SHLAA as additional site SA413. The remainder of the wider site area identified through the ‘Leading Change in Partnership’ document is now classified as ‘not currently developable’.

4.60 An application for 67 units was granted permission on the land East of Billingshurst site in 2013 and a further 475 units were permitted in early 2014. 542 units have therefore been deducted from the overall site total of 1,750 to avoid double counting. The application sites have been assessed in the SHLAA as additional sites SA349 and SA412 respectively and are considered green (1-5years) due to their current planning status. The remainder of the site is still considered developable and has been classified as ‘yellow (11+) years. The capacity of the remaining site area is approximately 1,200 units.

4.61 Three applications have been permitted on the area of land around Pulborough which was identified as the Pulborough Expansion in the 2009 consultation document. Collectively these applications equate to 203 units and it is now considered that there is no further capacity available at this broad location. Of these 203 units 13 units on Land at North of Glebelands have now been completed, these have subsequently been removed from the future supply.

4.62 The two sites to the North of Horsham (Chennells Brook and Holbrook Park) have been merged into a singular site and taken forward to Preferred Strategy. This site is included in the SHLAA assessment as SA297 and is categorised as Developable 6-10 and 11+ years.

30 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Stage 10: Determining the housing potential of windfall sites

4.63 The National Planning Policy Framework enables local planning authorities to make an allowance for windfall sites in their five-year supply if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the SHLAA, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends, and should not include residential gardens. The review of this SHLAA to support HDPF Submission document will consider whether there is evidence to support the inclusion of windfalls.

31 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

5. Updating the SHLAA

5.1 It is intended that stages 3-9 of the SHLAA will be reviewed annually. This will feed into the preparation of the HDPF and subsequent planning documents such as Neighbourhood Plans.

5.2 The SHLAA is a live document therefore if any member of the public, developer, landowner/agent or Parish Councillor has any further information they would like to submit in relation to a site or if they have an additional site they would like put forward for inclusion in the SHLAA, the relevant information should be sent to the Strategic Planning Team at:

Email: [email protected] Mail: Strategic Planning Team Park North North Street Horsham West Sussex RH12 1RL

5.3 This information will then be considered and (where appropriate) included within the next review of the SHLAA. The next review of the SHLAA is currently scheduled for publication in Autumn 2014. The cut off date for the publication of this report will be made available on the Strategic Planning web pages: www.horsham.gov.uk/environment/planning-policy.aspx.

32 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

6. Site Surveys and Results

6.1 This section of the report presents the analysis of the SHLAA following the assessment of all sites surveyed by Horsham District Council since the beginning of the project until the cut of off date on the 8th July 2013. A summary of all site assessments can be found in Appendix 1 together with a map identifying the boundary of each site and the classification of whether it is considered deliverable (green), developable (yellow) or not currently developable (red).

6.2 Sites which have been excluded from the assessment due to the criteria listed in paragraph 5.14, have been listed under each parish in a separate table called ‘Excluded Sites’. These tables also include an explanation as to why the site has been excluded from further assessment.

6.3 It should be noted that the classification of a site is based on the classification of the developable area within that site, therefore if part of a site is considered ‘developable’ – i.e. that it is likely to be delivered within years 1-5, then the whole of the site would be coloured green. This does not however mean that the whole site would be developed, only that there is potential for some form of development to be delivered within the wider site boundary. Once an application has been permitted for a site, the site area is either re-drawn taking into account the application boundary or the number of units permitted is removed from the overall site total and the remainder of the site is assessed for its development potential.

6.4 If no other portion of the site remains developable or deliverable, the remainder of the site is excluded or returned to ‘not currently developable’ depending on the characteristics of the site.

33 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

7. Housing Land Supply & Housing Trajectory

7.1 As referenced in paragraph 5.47, the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific ‘deliverable’ sites sufficient to meet five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market.

7.2 The assessment is also required to identify specific ‘developable sites’ or broad locations for growth sufficient to meet the needs of years 6-10 and where possible years 11-15.

7.3 The Districts housing requirement is currently assessed against the housing allocation set out in the South East Plan (SEP), 2009 which equates to 650 dwellings per year. A five year supply of housing with an additional 5% buffer equates to 3,412 units for years 1-5, with an additional 3,250 units for years 6-10 and 11-15 thereafter.

7.4 An initial assessment of sites without planning permission available for development within years 1-5 and 6-10, identified 2,023 units. This was below the combined 10 year requirement of 6,662 units.

7.5 Ten broad locations were then considered and three of these were taken forward to Preferred Strategy identifying potential for a further 4,200 units for growth. Part of the East of Billingshurst site (SA349 and SA412) (542 units) and the ‘Pulborough Expansion’ (SA113) (190) have been grated planning permission and are therefore classified as ‘deliverable’ 1-5 years. It should be noted that 13 units have been discounted from the overall total for this site as they are now complete. The land West of Southwater (500 units) (SA119), the remainder of the site East of Billingshurst (SA118) (1,200 units) and half of the strategic site at Land North of Horsham (SA296) is classified as developable 6-10 years (1,250 units) whilst the remainder of the site at North Horsham (1,250 units) is classified as developable 11+ years.

34 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

7.6 There are currently 6,618 units within the SHLAA (including 542 units on land East of Billingshurst and 190 units at the Pulborough broad location), which have been granted planning permission but not yet delivered. These sites are listed under Table 12.

Table 12: Sites with Planning Permission which have not yet been delivered SHLAA Site Ref Site Name Total SA113 Oddstones, Stane Street, Pulborough 87* SA289 West of Bewbush, Strategic Site Option 2500*

SA349 Land East of Daux Avenue, Billingshurst 46 SA110 Land East of Stane Street, Billingshurst 67 SA036 Land at Stane Street, Pulborough 103 SA331 Millfield, Southwater 131

SA346 Land South of Hilland Farm, BBH 67 SA283 Land West of Horsham (East), Horsham 983*

SA161 Shipley Road, Southwater 32 SA160 Land east of Manor Close, Henfield 102 SA281 Land West of Horsham (West), BBH 963*

SA054 Land south of Gillman's Industrial Estate, Marringdean Road 150

SA228 Martindale Farm/Hilland Farm, Southwater 44

SA141 Council Depot, 68 / 70 East Street, Horsham 49 SA147 Foxmead, Storrington 31 sa134 Charles Wadey Builders Yard, Billingshurst 14

SA154 Parsonage Farm, Henfield 130 SA149 Land at Hammonds, Billinhrshurst 14 SA135 Station Mills, Daux Road, Billingshurst 14 SA284 Southern Counties Glass 12 SA345 60A Queen Street, Horsham 14

SA152 St. Joseph's Abbey, Storrington 40 SA007 Former Agates Sawmill, Faygate 157

SA151 Windacres Farm, Rudgwick 43 SA243 Bracklyn, West Chiltintong 9

SA150 Land at The Plough, Lower Beeding 39 SA003 Washington Workshops, Storrington 78 SA114 Abingworth Farm and Nurser, Thakeham 146 SA003 Washington Workshops, Storrington 78 SA412 Land East of Billingshurst 475* TOTAL 6,618 Total without Strategic Sites 1,697

35 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

7.7 These sites are known as ‘commitments’ and are classified as green 1-5 years in the SHLAA assessment – with the exception of the strategic locations West of Bewbush and West of Horsham which are likely to be delivered over the broader plan period. The East of Billingrshurst site is also likely to span 6 years with 450 units coming forward in years 1-5 and the final 25 units coming forward in years 6-10. The delivery potential for these sites is set out in Table 13.

Table 13: Estimated phasing of the West of Bewbush and West of Horsham Strategic Developments

Years 1-5 Years 6-10 11+

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total West of Expected 0 30 80 120 160 220 280 280 290 300 275 275 190 2500 Bewbush (SA289)* Completed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West of 0 63 267 313 282 289 216 171 122 118 105 0 0 Horsham Expected 1946 (SA281 & 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SA283)* Completed 61 East of Billingshurst 0 50 100 150 150 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 (SA412) Expected 475 *Trajectory taken from Table 12 of the 2012/13 Authority Monitoring Report

7.8 This table shows 2,274 units coming forward in years 1-5 (2013-2018) and 2,182 units coming forward in years 6-10 (2018-2023) from each of these strategic sites.

7.9 Taking all of the above into consideration, the estimated housing capacity of SHLAA sites to be delivered in years 1-5 (2013-2018) and 6-10 (2018-2023) is 9,482 units. This is summarised in Table 14.

Table 14: Estimated housing capacity of all SHLAA sites Deliverable sites without Planning Permission years 1-5 (green) 387 Developable sites 6-10 years (yellow) 1,167 Broad locations of search (1-5 and 6-10 years) 1,750 Non Strategic sites with planning permission 1,697 Existing strategic sites 1-5 years 2,274 Existing strategic site delivery 6-10 years 2,182 TOTAL 9,457

36 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

7.10 The contribution of the respective components of future housing supply is set out in the trajectory below:

SHLAA Trajectory

Table 15: SHLAA Housing trajectory Years Potential Sources Number

Years 1-5 (2013 – Commitments (1,697), deliverable sites 4,858 2018) -Green (387), strategic sites (2,274), broad locations (500) Years 6-10 (2018- Developable sites (6-10) (1,167), broad 4,599 2024) - Yellow locations (1,250), strategic sites (2,182) Years 11+ -Yellow Developable sites (11+) (459), strategic 3,374 sites (465), broad locations (2450) TOTAL 12,831

37 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

8. Conclusions

8.1 The SHLAA trajectory demonstrates that the Council has enough potential development sites, not only to meet its five and ten year housing requirements (in accordance with the requirements set out in the South East Plan). But also that there is a surplus of sites which will enable the Council to progress those sites which are considered most sustainable.

8.2 The Districts housing requirement assessed against the housing allocation set out in the South East Plan (SEP), 2009 equates to 650 dwellings per year. A five year supply of housing incorporating an additional 5% buffer as required through the NPPF equates to 3,412 units for years 1-5, with an additional 3,250 units for years 6-10 and 11-15 thereafter. This equates to a 666,2 requirement for housing over the next 10 years.

8.3 The Council identifies 4,858 dwellings on sites which are considered ‘deliverable’ within years 1-5 or which have at least in principle been given support through the planning process by being granted permission, resolution to permit or allocation through the Core Strategy, 2007 or Site Specific Allocations of Land DPD, 2007. These sites are less constrained and the land owner has expressed an intention to develop within the first five years.

8.4 The assessment also identifies 4,599 units which the Council considers developable within years 6-10. These have varying degrees developability having regard to a range of considerations such as viability, multiple ownership and infrastructure capacity. Further work would need to be undertaken to bring these sites forward, however it is anticipated there is sufficient potential to consider these sites within a ten year supply.

8.5 Taking the above into consideration, the potential supply of identified sites considered ‘deliverable’ (1-5 years) or ‘developable’ (6-10 years) would yield up to 9,457 units (4,858+4,599) sufficient to meet a ten year supply of housing sites as required through the NPPF and SHLAA Practice Guidance.

38 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

9. Monitoring & Next Steps

9.1 The SHLAA Practice Guidance, 2007 requires the assessment, once completed, to be kept up to date (at least annually). Following the publication of this SHLAA Report, the SHLAA process will be repeated to feed into the preparation of the Horsham District Planning Framework Submission Document. Sites submitted to the Council since the 2013 cut off date on the 8th July 2013 will be considered as part of the next SHLAA review together with any additional information available on each of the sites considered in this report.

9.2 The SHLAA process will then be updated annually as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process. The AMR is published annually on the 31st December.

39 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

APPENDIX 1:

Summary of Site Assessments & Site Maps (To be made available on website)

40 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

Important Information about the SHLAA

In order to avoid any unnecessary confusion, the Council would like to make the following disclaimer in relation to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and any other reports relating to its findings;

 The SHLAA only identifies opportunities for housing development on sites, which are considered to be deliverable, developable and available. It does not allocate sites to be developed. The allocation of sites for future housing development will be identified through the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) or Neighbourhood Plans.

 The identification of potential housing sites within the SHLAA does not imply that planning permission would be granted if an application were to be submitted. All planning applications incorporating residential development will continue to be considered against the appropriate policies and having regard to any other material considerations.

 The inclusion of potential housing sites within the SHLAA does not preclude them from being considered for other uses. The boundaries of sites are based on the information available at the time of the assessment. The SHLAA does not limit an extension or contraction of these boundaries for the purpose of a planning application.

 The exclusion of sites from the SHLAA (e.g. because they fall below the required SHLAA threshold of 6 units) does not preclude the possibility of a planning application for residential development being submitted on that site and later granted. Suitable sites will continue to come forward (particularly small sites) for residential development that have not been identified in the SHLAA.

 The classification of sites in terms of when they are likely to come forward for delivery (i.e. green 1-5 years, yellow 6-10 and 11+ years) is based on an assessment of the site at the time the SHLAA was undertaken. Circumstances or assumptions may change which may mean that sites could come forward sooner or later than originally envisaged.

41 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

 The classification of a site is based on the classification of the developable area within that site, therefore if part of a site is considered ‘developable’ – i.e. that it is likely to be delivered within years 1-5, then the whole of the site would be coloured green. That is not to say that the whole site would be developed, only that there is potential for some form of development to be delivered within the wider site boundary. Once an application has been permitted for a site, the site area is either re-drawn according to the application boundary or the number of units permitted is removed from the overall site total and the remainder of the site is assessed for its development potential. If no other portion of the site remains developable or deliverable, the remainder of the site is excluded or returned to ‘not currently developable’ depending on the characteristics of the site.

 The SHLAA is a living document which will be updated on an annual basis. All SHLAA sites will be reviewed as part of the next SHLAA review.

 Should any further information be submitted which would change the status of a site following the publication of this SHLAA report, it will be saved on file and used to re-assess the sites, when the SHLAA is reviewed – currently timetabled for autumn 2014.

 The Report has a base date of 8th July 2013 and the findings are a snap-shot of information held in our database at this time. It is therefore likely that some of the information presented in this report has changed since publication. For example, sites that are identified as not having planning permission may have secured permission since the information was compiled and published. Similarly planning permission may have lapsed on other sites.

 In addition, the information that accompanies the SHLAA is based on information that was available at the time of the assessment. There may therefore be additional constraints on some sites that were not identified as part of the study. Likewise, some of the identified constraints may have been removed since the information was compiled. Applicants are therefore advised to carry out their own analysis of sites to identify any constraints or other information for the purpose of a planning application and not rely solely on the findings of the SHLAA.

42 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014

 The housing capacity of a site in the study either relates to the number of dwellings granted in a planning permission (where applicable) or is an estimate based on an assessment of what could be an appropriate density for the site in question. Please note that the site capacities in the study do not preclude different densities being applied on sites, subject to details.

 There is no limit to the amount of land that can be included within the SHLAA, and therefore no limit on the number of sites which can be submitted. Any sites submitted after the cut off date for this SHLAA (8th July 2013), will be included in the review of the SHLAA, currently timetabled for autumn 2014.

 The HDPF and any decisions made are informed by a number of studies and background documents. The SHLAA is only one of these documents and any decisions regarding planning policy must have regard to all the relevant studies and comments received during consultation.

43 Horsham District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment February 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Report to Cabinet th 20 March 2014 By the Cabinet Member for a Safer and Healthier District  DECISION REQUIRED Not exempt

Approval of the West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Cabinet of the West Sussex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) and seek adoption and support for the projects and investigations listed in the work programme which are designed to reduce the risk of flooding to our communities.

Recommendations

Cabinet is recommended to:

i) Support and endorse the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) and the associated work programme.

ii) Note the Horsham District potential flooding areas as detailed in section 3.4 in the report (LFRMS Report Page 37)

iii) Delegate to Officers to continue to input and improve the LFRMS and annual work programme working alongside WSCC colleagues.

iv) Note that a future budget request may be made to this Council, pending the outcome of the associated work programme.

Reasons for Recommendations

To assist West Sussex County Council, as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and Horsham District Council, as a Flood Risk Management Authority, to comply with their responsibilities under the Flood & Water Management Act 2010 - which is to co-operate and co-ordinate the managing local flood risk.

Background Papers

WSCC Draft Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Appendix 2)

WSCC Works Programme (Appendix 3) 23 Agenda Item 6(c)

West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group on Flooding (Response Appendix 4)

Future Water, the Government’s water strategy for England, (Feb 2008)

Flood Risk Regulations 2009 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/125459.aspx

Flood & Water Management Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29/contents

Consultation;

Public Consultation - LFRMS

A consultation exercise ran from June to September 2013. The LFRMS was promoted to all Parish Councils and partner authorities. Additionally it was advertised through the media and made available to the public in libraries, council buildings and on the County Council web site. The consultation also included public drop-in sessions in Bracklesham, Bognor and Horsham which gave people a chance to speak with a flooding expert direct before responding.

In addition a West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group on Flooding was established and considered the LFRMS (Cllr. Duncan England was the HDC representative).

Wards affected; All

Contact: Martin Brightwell Drainage Engineer (Ext. No 5063).

24 Agenda Item 6(c) 1 Background Information

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Cabinet of the West Sussex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) (Appendix 2) and seek adoption and support for the projects and investigations listed in the work programme.

1.2 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 implemented recommendations from Sir Michael Pitt’s Review of the 2007 floods in the UK. Under the Act, the County Council became a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and was given a series of new responsibilities to coordinate the management of local flood risk. One of those responsibilities was to develop a LFRMS, of which a public consultation exercise was undertaken between June and September 2013.

1.3 Under the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act, District Councils have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:

. Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;

. Duty to act consistently with the Local and National Strategy;

. A coastline erosion risk management authority, under the Coastal Protection Act 1949;

. Duty to be subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic process;

. Permissive power to exercise parts of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (except in an Internal Drainage District) area;

. Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incidents under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, including dealing with recovery and resulting homelessness;

. Perform as the local planning authority and a duty to encourage the appropriate development and promote sustainable development;

. Under delegated powers, use statutory powers to ensure those responsible maintain the flow of water in a watercourse and to modify or remove inappropriate structures within channels. Take the appropriate action against those who inappropriately modify the watercourse.

2 Statutory and Policy Background

Statutory Background

2.1 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was passed to provide better management of flood risk, help safeguard community groups from unaffordable rises in surface water drainage charges and protect water supplies to the customer.

25 Agenda Item 6(c) Relevant Government policy

2.2 The Act places a duty on all flood risk management authorities, including Horsham District to co-operate with each other. The act also provides lead local flood authorities (West Sussex County Council) and the Environment Agency with a power to request information required in connection with their flood risk management functions.

Relevant Council policy

2.3 Improving and preventing flooding in our communities’ supports the following Council priorities: . Environment- A better environment for today and tomorrow . Safer and Healthier -Improving health and well being . Living, Working Communities -Working together to support the life of local communities

3 Details

Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS)

3.1 The purpose of the LFRMS is to set out how flooding is managed in West Sussex. It focuses on local flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, but also considers flooding from rivers and the sea. It identifies the responsibilities for managing flood risk and flooding within the county, and enables a range of organisations to work together to improve the management of flood risk.

3.2 The LFRMS defines the roles and responsibilities of the designated risk management bodies and riparian (private) owners.

3.3 The LFRMS identifies the main flood risk areas as ‘wet spots’, which ensures local communities become aware of the risk of flooding in their areas. Wet spots have been classified as areas where a significant number (generally greater than ten properties and/or businesses) of adjacent properties may be susceptible to flooding. The LFRMS focuses on the most likely areas of flooding. There are 53 wet spots identified in West Sussex, 10 of which are priority wet spots, affecting a significant number of households. The priority wet spots are where existing work is being undertaken, and, where future work will be considered first. Projects in other wet spot locations will still be undertaken as funding permits.

3.4 The Horsham District contains six wet spots that are susceptible to surface water and river flooding; Horsham, Pulborough, Storrington, Southwater, Bramber & Upper Beeding and Billingshurst. Surface water flood risk poses the most likely flood risk in each of these areas. Horsham represents the largest cluster of properties in the district susceptible to flooding from a rare rainfall event. Storrington and Southwater are also susceptible to surface water flooding, and to a lesser extent Billingshurst and Pulborough. River flooding contributes to the surface water flood risk in Beeding and Bramber. However, none of these areas have been designated as ‘priority’ wet spots.

26 Agenda Item 6(c) 3.5 Ultimately the LFRMS will incorporate a long term drainage asset management plan setting out routine maintenance, upgrading and new improvements in response to flooding issues. The LFRMS will be used to inform investment decisions. The output of the LFRMS is the work programme that will be maintained and updated by the West Sussex Drainage Strategy Team, of which this Council is represented. The work programme contains projects to be undertaken by all risk management authorities, not just West Sussex.

3.6 This Strategy was also considered as part of the West Sussex Scrutiny Task & Finish Group, set up to examine the aftermath of the June 2012 flood event. Horsham District Council recently responded to the Chair of the Group in supporting the recommendations put forward by the group (Appendix 4).

3.7 The LFRMS has been prepared to ensure there is a clear and fair framework for managing local flood risk within the county. An appraisal was undertaken which considered the rural / urban prioritisation of projects, the wide range of information used to analyse flood risk and the negative social, economic and environmental impacts of the LFRMS. In addition the appraisal considered other key impacts and included:

 Risk areas previously not considered  Insurance issues  The housing market  Prioritisation of projects with better cost benefit  LFRMS future review responsibilities  Environmental impacts  The data used to support investment proposals

4 Next Steps

4.1 The LFRMS and the WSCC asset management works programme (Appendix 3) will become the mechanism by which West Sussex can secure funds through the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support flood defence works.

4.2 Recommendations 6 & 7 from the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group Report on Flooding states;

 That the County, District and Borough councils support a system of prioritising areas for investment for major flood and coastal risk management works within West Sussex.

 That a multi-agency group be created to prioritise areas for investment, develop opportunities for co-operative funding, and identify and access external funding sources.

Implications of the work programme

27 Agenda Item 6(c)

4.3 The LFRMS sets out how the County Council and its partners are approaching the threat of flooding, in respect of the new responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

4.4 The work programme represents what flood risk reduction work is schedule to occur in the short and long term, when funding is available. The new way projects will be funded means that partnership contributions will be required before many projects can proceed. This creates a challenge for the local authorities in times of austerity.

4.5 For the County Council the LFRMS is an overarching document that will incorporate a drainage asset management strategy which is an extension of their Capital Highway Works Programme through which around £1 million per year is currently spent on drainage renewals and improvements. Going forward this programme will extend beyond the highway and include flood risk projects which is welcomed.

Countywide Drainage Management Team

4.6 In addition it was recently agreed at the West Sussex Joint Leaders Group on 20th November 2014, that the establishment of a Countywide Drainage Management Team is to be investigated, and if viable, a resource contribution may be required from each District/Borough Council. This work has still to be undertaken. A further report on the outcome of this investigation will be reported to Cabinet.

5 Outcome of Consultations

5.1 This Strategy was also considered as part of the West Sussex Scrutiny Task & Finish Group, set up to examine the aftermath of the June 2012 flood event. Horsham DC recently responded to the Chair of the Group in supporting the recommendations, which were subject to resource Councillor Duncan England represented Horsham DC at this Group.

5.2 The Director of Corporate Resources comments have been included within this report.

5.3 The Council Solicitor/Monitoring Officer comments as follows: The 'adoption' of the Strategy by this authority does not extend beyond our commitment to co-operate and does not obligate the authority to fund works which are the responsibility of either the Environment Agency or the County Council as Lead Flood Authority.

6 Other Courses of Action Considered but Rejected

6.1 To not support and endorse the Strategy and work programme, will restrict the possibility of partnership working between the various risk management authorities in addressing local flooding issues. In addition it will also reduce the potential for successfully applying for grant aid towards flood alleviation works in the District.

28 Agenda Item 6(c) 7 Staffing Consequences

7.1 There are no direct staffing consequences as a result of this review the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS)

8 Financial Consequences

8.1 Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the County Council became the Lead Local Flood Authority. However, significant contributions (both in funding and wider resources) will need to be forthcoming from District and Borough Councils as Risk Partners, as well as other parties e.g. Environment Agency, Water companies in order for flood risk to be successfully managed in West Sussex. The strategy provides the ‘optional’ potential for Horsham District Council to make a ‘local’ contribution towards the overall cost of any flood mitigation scheme and based on this any flooding works will need to be considered on a case by case basis when appropriate.

8.2 ‘Operation Watershed’ is an £8.25 million funding stream provided and allocated by West Sussex County Council to fund flood improvement schemes, particularly in those areas affected by the 2012 floods. Some of these funds have been secured locally and allocated to small scale projects in the District.

8.3 In addition, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which came into force in April 2010, allows Lead Local Flood Authorities/Planning Authorities to raise funds for flood risk management from new development. The Planning Act 2008 covers the Infrastructure Levy and states the levy can contribute towards a variety of infrastructure including flood defences.

8.4 The Council currently doesn’t have any specific budget provision to address particular flooding issues. When specific projects are proposed requests for budget will be made to Council. Recently the Council allocated circa £600k towards reservoir improvements at Warnham Nature Reserve which contributes towards flood mitigation measures in the Horsham wet spot.

29 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 1

Consequences of the Proposed Action

What are the risks The LFRMS work programme represents what flood risk associated with the reduction work is scheduled to occur in the short and long proposal? term, when funding is available. The way EA grant aided projects are funded means that partnership contributions will be required before most projects can proceed. This creates a challenge for the public sector and local communities in times of austerity; however, as can be seen in West Sussex at the current time, very good progress can still be made with the resources available.

How will the proposal No implications help to reduce Crime and Disorder?

How will the proposal No implications help to promote Human Rights?

What is the impact of No implications the proposal on Equality and Diversity?

How will the proposal By supporting and endorsing the Strategy and work help to promote programme, it enables the District Council together with WSCC Sustainability? as the lead local authority and other Risk Management authorities, to collectively carry out their responsibilities under the Flood & Water Management Act and progress with an agreed programme of flood alleviation works.

The Strategy also enhances the local ability to address flood risk irrespective of any parameters other than drainage need and available funds. It provides a method of applying for grant aid, in conjunction with other Risk Management authorities.

30 Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Page | 1

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Incident Reporting To report an emergency please dial 999.

To report flooding from rivers or the sea please contact the Environment Agency Floodline on 0845 988 1188.

To report surface water flooding or flooding of roads please call the contact centre of West Sussex County Council on 01243 642105.

To help during an emergency, contact your Parish or Town Council to see what actions are underway.

Contact details are on West Sussex County Council website.

PARTNERS OF THE WEST SUSSEX LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Page | 2

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Document information

Title West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS 2013 – 2018)

Owner Stuart Smith – Highways Commissioning Manager, WSCC

Version Final for Approval

File status

File Location West Sussex County Council Website (Living/Environment & Planning/Environment/ Flooding)

Revision History

Summary of changes Completed by Date Current version

Inception Document V5 Joss Carter 13/12/2012 ˟ LFRMS First Draft V6 Joss Carter 25/02/2013 ˟ LFRMS Consultation Draft Joss Carter 10/05/2013 ˟ LFRMS Consultation V3 Joss Carter 07/06/2013 ˟ LFRMS First Final Draft Joss Carter 01/10/2013 ˟ LFRMS Final Draft v1 Joss Carter 25/10/2013 ˟ LFRMS Final Draft v2 Joss Carter 27/11/2013 ˟ LFRMS For Approval Process Glen Westmore 17/12/2013 

Approvals (Draft)

Name Name Signature Date

Page | 3

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Foreword (Draft)

I am pleased to introduce the 2013 – 2018 West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The flooding experienced in West Sussex in 2012 highlighted many of the planning and emergency response challenges we face. The unprecedented rainfall, over 10cm in 24 hours, further underlined the need for responsibilities to be identified and tightened up.

It is currently surface water flooding that causes the most regular impact to communities. Flooding from rivers and the sea occurs less frequently, but still presents a great impact when it does. Although the focus is on surface water and other local flooding, we have included all flooding sources to consider the whole picture.

To manage the impacts of flooding we will invest in flood risk projects and maintenance, we will fully support the planning process and promote water sensitive urban design, and we will do all we can to make those riparian owners with responsibilities aware of their own duties with respect to maintenance.

This is the first Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the County since we received new flood management duties and powers under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It sets out how we as a Lead Local Flood Authority will work alongside other risk management authorities to deliver improvements together. It represents a positive step forward for West Sussex County Council and our partners because it will allow us to prioritise and invest money in flood risk for local benefit.

Some of the immediate questions that this strategy answers are; who is the responsible authority? What is the risk? Where do you invest? What should we do next?

There are tough challenges ahead because we cannot do everything. We cannot undertake every flood reduction project in this strategy, but it is important to have risk and projects highlighted so when we can progress it is in a prioritised and sensible way. By answering these questions the strategy enables West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to deliver the new responsibility of local flood risk management with our partners.

This strategy identifies the actions that we need to take over the coming years to bring about a better, more sustainable approach that works with nature. It provides direction on what activities we should undertaking and what the strategic local objectives are. It helps us to plan for the likely impacts of climate change and further urban development in the river catchment area. We Iook forward to using the strategy to help us target our efforts, use our precious resources in a better way, and reduce flood risk to the residents of West Sussex.

Louise Goldsmith

West Sussex County Council Leader

Page | 4

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Contents Executive Summary 8 Glossary and Acronyms 13

Chapter 1 – West Sussex Flood Risk

What is flood risk? 17 What is the likelihood of this happening and what does this mean? 17 What is the flood risk in the County? 18 Historic flood events 18 Surface water flooding 23 Groundwater flooding 23 Main river flooding 24 Ordinary watercourse flooding 24 Coastal and tidal flooding 25 Reservoir flooding 25 Sewer flooding 26 The wet spots - areas susceptible to flooding 27 What are the priority areas at risk? 34 Adur District 35 Arun District 35 Chichester District 36 Crawley Borough 36 Horsham District 37 Mid Sussex District 37 Worthing Borough 38

Chapter 2 - Roles and Responsibilities

Background and National Context 39 Local Context 42 Flood risk management responsibilities 43 West Sussex County Council 44 West Sussex Highways Authority 45 Environment Agency 45 Internal Drainage Boards 46 Southern and Thames Water 46 District and Boroughs - Second Tier Authorities 47

Page | 5

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Highway Authority 47 Other Stakeholders 48 Utility and infrastructure providers 48 Riparian owners 48 Parish and Town Councils 49 Property owners and residents 49 Responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 50 Strategic leadership 50 Permissive powers to reduce surface water and groundwater flooding 50 Requesting information 50 Duty to investigate flooding 50 West Sussex flood asset register 51 Power to designate structures 51 Sustainable drainage systems approving body 52 Ordinary watercourse consenting 52 Enforcement 53 Sustainable development 53 Responsibilities outside of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 54 Actions as a result of the June 2012 flooding in West Sussex 54 Requirements under the EU Flood Directive : Flood Risk Regs 2009 54 Planning 54 RRegsRegulations 2009 Response, rescue and recovery 55 The Water Framework Directive 56 Partnership working 57 The community and public involvement 59 Flood Action Groups 59 Parish and Town Councils 60 West Sussex Community and Economic Development Teams 60

Chapter 3 – Work Programme and Action Plan

Objectives 61 The local programme and funding 63 The work programme 65 What is being done in my area? 65 How will projects make on the work programme get funded? 66 Environmental assessment of the work programme 67 The Action Plan 68 Next Steps 72

Page | 6

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix A

The Project Team 74

Appendix B

The Wet Spot Maps (available as a separate document) 75

Appendix C 70

Legislation relevant to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 76

Appendix D

The West Sussex Work Programme (available as a separate document) 77

Appendix E

Funding 78

Appendix F

The Action Plan 80

Figures

Figure 1 : Properties at risk in the county by flooding source 19 Figure 2 : The West Sussex County Council Surface Water Flood Map 21

Figure 3 : The West Sussex County Council River and Sea Flood Map 22

Figure 4 : The West Sussex County Council Wet Spot Flood Map 29

Figure 5 : The Appendix B Wet Spot flood map information 30 Figure 6 : The West Sussex Wet Spot areas and number of residential and 31 fffffffffffffff business properties susceptible to flood risk by flood source Figure 7 : Properties at risk Nationally by flooding source 39

Figure 8 : Who overseea which type of flooding? 42

Figure 9 : Who manages what within West Sussex? 43

Figure 10 : Partnership groups and governance within West Sussex 57

Figure 11 : The funding avenues available for flood risk management works 64

Figure 12 : Old ‘all or nothing’system versus new ‘payment for outcomes’ 67

Page | 7

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Executive Summary

This local flood risk management strategy (2013 – 2018) sets out how West Sussex County Council operates its flood risk responsibilities that are a statutory requirement of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Following the 2007 floods and independent Pitt Report, the Act transposed local flood risk leadership into UK Law. As part of this fundamental change in flood risk management responsibility, West Sussex County Council have become a Lead Local Flood Authority and are required to have a strategy to carry out this new role.

Working in partnership is integral to the local flood risk management strategy. Regular communications between all risk management authorities are central to this partnership. To embrace this partnership approach all types of flooding are considered within this strategy so that the complete flood story can be told. The work of neighbouring Lead Local Flood Authorities and other risk management authority partners is taken into account so that our management of flooding risk can be joined up, and not be restricted by our administrative borders.

The structure and contents of this strategy are directly informed by the Environment Agency’s National Strategy and the guiding principles of the Local Government Association Framework ‘Living Document’ (2nd Edition November 2011). The Environment Agency’s National Strategy objective is to take forward a risk based approach to flood risk management.

Understand the risks

Improve flood prediction, Manage the warning and post Flood Risk likelihood recovery Management Partnership Working

Prevent Help people to inappropriate manage their own development risk

The overall aim is to ensure the risk from flooding and erosion is properly managed by using the full range of options in a coordinated way. To do this local authorities, communities, individuals and voluntary groups need to work together to:

Page | 8

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

1. Manage the risk to people and their property; 2. Achieve environmental, social and economic benefits, consistent with the principles of sustainable development; 3. Facilitate decision-making and action at the appropriate level – individual, community, or local authority, river catchment, coastal cell or national.

Using the approach set out in the National Strategy (shown above/overleaf), the Government will work with organisations, communities and individuals. To reflect the Government’s strategic objectives in the local context, West Sussex County Council have agreed objectives to guide local focus and progress. These are to:

• Understand the areas that flood 1

• Manage the flood risk in West Sussex 2

• Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together 3 more effectively

• Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents

The local flood risk management strategy summarises flood risk knowledge. Historical, current and future flood risk in West Sussex has been well documented in partnership flood risk plans - Catchment Flood Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans. The River Basin Management Plans required under the Water Framework Directive, links our flood risk and water quality strategy. Other strategy level documents such as surface water management plans, tidal, coastal and river strategies provide further detail needed to define risk and scope options for improvement work. Our understanding of flood risk and what we need to do about it is drawn from these plans and strategies and this knowledge provides the basis for the initial programme of work identified by this strategy.

Around 76,600 residential properties and 20,100 businesses were identified as being susceptible to surface water flooding from a 1 in 200 year event (WSCC PFRA 2011). 15,000 residential properties and 3,000 businesses are within areas at risk from rivers or sea flooding (Environment Agency Nafra 2008/09, counting moderate and significant risk). 5,500 of these residential and business properties fall within both sets of mapping and are susceptible to either source of flooding. Overall around 109,000 properties are judged to be at risk using the best information available at the time of production.

Page | 9

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Analysis of flood risk in this strategy has identified 53 ‘wet spots’ in West Sussex. These are areas that have an increased risk of flooding compared to the rest of the county. The concentrated clusters of properties that are in flood risk areas have been identified so that this data can inform our activities, decision making and investment. This strategy collates the outstanding actions and projects from previous reports and analysis, and forms a work programme that is agreed by the risk management authorities. The programme enables future investment to be managed in a prioritised and organised way. There will not be the resource to design, build and maintain every option, but when funding is available, the appropriate authorities can act and reduce flood risk by carrying out the most cost effective works. From our analysis, previously identified projects and from knowledge of historic flooding, West Sussex County Council has identified ten areas where risk management authorities will initially prioritise work. This does not guarantee work will be implemented in these locations. These are higher priority areas where risk management authorities believe the risk warrants further investigation and where improvement work will achieve the best cost benefit. Work will not exclusively be undertaken in these areas and improvement works will continue in other locations across West Sussex. These higher priority wet spot locations are subject to change as further investigation work is carried out and projects are completed. The priority areas are: Angmering, Barnham & Walberton, Bognor Regis, Earnley and Bracklesham, East Wittering, Middleton & Elmer, Pagham & Nyetimber, Littlehampton, Shoreham & Lancing, Worthing.

Page | 10

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Since 2010 flood risk in West Sussex has been managed jointly between a number of risk management authorities that includes West Sussex County Council, District and Borough Councils, the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards, the Highways Agency, Thames Water and Southern Water. This strategy explains the role that each of these organisations play. To ensure flooding is managed in an integrated way across these organisations, the strategy and work programme is inclusive and considers all functions and sources of flooding. The intention of this is to recognise where flood risk responsibilities coincide, and where partnership working and jointly funded projects could be undertaken.

As resources are limited, and in line with the new government funding policy risk management authorities are actively looking to draw in funds from beneficiaries to boost the likelihood of projects going ahead. This is a challenging task as commercial or private contributions will not be available everywhere. The strategy has been reviewed by, and will be supported by each risk management authority in the county.

West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority are required to set out how to deliver local flood risk management under the Flood and Water Management Act. Strategic flood risk assessments, sustainable drainage systems approval, and ordinary watercourse consents each play their part in managing development and local flood risk. The strategy explains how West Sussex County Council will perform these duties.

The strategy fully supports the existing planning processes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure development is directed away from areas at flood risk. However, recognising the development pressures within West Sussex, where proposals are within the flood plain or in an area susceptible to surface water flooding, the strategy provides further evidence and information to ensure that the development is safe. All new development near water needs to be appropriate, and requires building design and drainage to be scrutinised. When building on the floodplain or in an area susceptible to surface water flooding, a developer contribution is just one part of the overall requirement to reduce flood risk to an acceptable level. New development should not be granted permission if their proposals will increase flood risk to others. The planning process, operated by District and Borough Councils and the National Park Authority, remains vital in securing a sustainable future for the residents of West Sussex.

The risk management authorities recognise the importance of forward planning, response and recovery. The June 2012 flooding events tested the resilience of all the emergency responders during one of the wettest periods on record. The local flood risk management strategy supports the recommendations of the investigation into the summer 2012 flooding, and the associated improvements to planning, warning and recovery. The Flood Report on the June 2012 Flood Event is available on the West Sussex County Council website.

Prior to 2010 and the Flood and Water Management Act there were gaps in flood management responsibility. Stronger accountability now exists, and those responsible authorities are required to cooperate and share information. The strategy provides the tools to allow joint progress. Tough decisions will need to be taken on priorities because there are

Page | 11

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

not sufficient funds to manage all flood risk across the county. It will not be possible to reduce flood risk to every property, but with the correct accountability in place outlined in this strategy, it will be possible to reduce flood risk overall.

It is the principal aim of this strategy to oversee the direct reduction in flood risk for residents. This aim will be met by the projects that are taken forward in the work programme, and by the actions set out in the action plan. The work programme is an evolving list of large capital projects. Investigations, new information, changing budgets and contributions, and subsequent flood events will alter what happens over the lifetime of the strategy, and minor changes may be made to the documents. Regular reviews of progress will be conducted so that we can monitor the flood risk situation and adjust priorities as necessary

The strategy covers the period 2013-2018 and so will be fully updated in five years. Any variations will be updated according to the review process (set out in Chapter 3 – next steps, page 72).

Page | 12

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Glossary and Acronyms

Term / Acronym Definition Category 1 Those Category 1 responders are organisations at the core of the responder response to most emergencies (the emergency services, Environment Agency, local authorities, NHS bodies). Category 1 responders are subject to the full set of civil protection duties. CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) give an overview of the flood risk across each river catchment. They recommend ways of managing those risks now and over the next 50-100 years. CLG CLG was established in May 2006 (replacing the Office of the Deputy Department for Prime Minister) and is responsible for building regulations, community Communities cohesion, decentralisation, fire services and resilience, housing, local government, planning, race equality & urban regeneration. The and Local Department works to move decision making power from central Government Government to local councils, helping put communities in charge of planning, increasing accountability, and enabling citizens to see how their money is being spent. Cluster A group or concentration of properties that may be affected by flooding. These properties are considered to be at risk of having internal damage from flooding. Coastal Groups Coastal Groups comprise of all the key partners in coastal management – principally the coastal managers from maritime Local Authorities, Ports Authorities and the Environment Agency. Culvert A culvert is a watercourse that has been enclosed in a structure such as a pipe. Combined A separate underground pipe system designed specifically for Sewer transporting sewage, excess rain and surface water from houses, commercial buildings and roads for treatment or disposal. Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. District and The second tier authorities. There are 326 district/borough level Boroughs subdivisions in England, of which seven are in West Sussex County. This level runs services such as planning, waste and council housing. Flood Defence Flood Defence Grant in Aid is the central funding pot of Defra (The Grant in Aid Department of Food and Rural Affairs) that is spent each year on flood (FDGiA) risk reduction measures. Flood Map The Flood Map is a multi-layered map which provides information on flooding from rivers and the sea for England and Wales. The Flood Map also has information on flood defences and the areas benefiting from those flood defences. The flood zones do not take into account flood defences. Flood Risk A flood risk asset is a built structure, embankment or natural feature that Asset acts to reduce flood risk to an area. Each asset varies in terms of its type, condition, length, and maintenance. Fluvial flooding Flooding resulting from water levels exceeding the bank level of a river or (River flooding) stream. Flood and Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The FWMA implements the Water recommendations from Sir Michel Pitt’s Review of the floods in 2007 and places a series of responsibilities on the council. The main aim of the Act

Page | 13

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

management is to improve flood risk management. Act (FWMA) Green Green Infrastructure (GI) refers to a strategically planned and managed Infrastructure network of green spaces and other environmental features vital to the (GI) sustainability of an area. It is defined as ‘network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities’ Groundwater Flooding that occurs when water levels in the ground rise above surface flooding levels. Most likely to occur in areas underlain by permeable geology. Internal An Internal Drainage Board is a public body that has been established Drainage under statute in areas of special drainage need. An IDB holds permissive Boards (IDBs) powers to undertake work to deal with matters affecting water levels, land drainage and flood risk within a defined boundary. Lead Local Lead Local Flood Authority – Local Authority (upper or unitary council) Flood Authority responsible for taking the lead on local flood risk management. In this (LLFA) area it is West Sussex County Council. ‘Local’ flood risk Local flood risk is defined as flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. If other sources of flood risk (river or sea risk for example) interact with local sources it is common for everything to considered together. This Strategy considers all types of flooding. Local Levy Local levy is a funding pot governed by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committees for flood alleviation schemes. Local LRFs are multi agency partnerships made up of representatives from local Resilience public services, including the emergency services. These agencies are Forum (LRF) known as category 1 responders, as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act. Main river The Environment Agency is the lead authority on main rivers. Main rivers are a Defra statutory designation and are identified on the Environment Agency’s ‘Main River Map’. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to carry out work on main rivers. NAFRA (flood The NaFRA includes flooding from all rivers with a catchment size greater 2 map) than 3 km , and all flooding from the sea (both along the open coast and Environment tidal estuaries). Smaller rivers are included in the assessment where they fall within the area that could be affected by an extreme flood (0.1% Agency chance in any year). It does not include other forms of flooding such as from highway drains, sewers, overland flow or rising groundwater. The assessment takes into account the type, location and condition of flood defences. National The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 required the Environment Strategy Agency to develop, maintain and apply a strategy, describing what needs to be done by all authorities involved. Non-public A sewer owned by a person or company that is not Water Company (private) sewer owned. Ordinary The Lead Local Flood Authority is the lead authority on ordinary Watercourse watercourses, they have permissive powers to carry out flood defence works. All watercourses that are not designated Main River are considered to be ordinary watercourses and are the responsibility of landowners. Note, ordinary watercourse does not imply a “small” river, although it is often the case that Ordinary Watercourses are smaller than Main Rivers. District and Borough councils carry out a consenting role as

Page | 14

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

part of a delegated arrangement with WSCC. Partnership The term partnership is used to refer to joint work and joint leadership of investigation or implementation work undertaken by the risk management authorities. The risk management authorities are members of a West Sussex Flood Group and Flood Board, both of which discuss projects and the work programme. Preliminary The PFRA provides a high-level summary of significant flood risk, based Flood Risk on available information, describing both the probability and Assessment. consequences of past and future flooding. A PFRA must consider flooding from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, and any (PFRA) interaction these sources may have with main rivers. Permissive These are powers set out by legislation to enable risk management Powers authorities to carry out works where it deems necessary and appropriate. There is no legal duty which means that the authorities have to carry out works. Pitt Review Comprehensive independent review of the 2007 summer floods by Sir Michael Pitt, which provided recommendations to improve flood risk management in England. Property level PLP is a term used to refer to resistance measures that slow down or stop protection (PLP) the ingress of water to a property. Examples include door-boards, airbrick covers and non-return valves. Riparian Owner If you own land or property next to a watercourse i.e. a river, stream, culvert or ditch (that is not owned by others), then you are a ‘riparian landowner’ and have riparian rights and responsibilities. Risk In flood risk management, risk is defined as a product of the probability or likelihood of a flood occurring, and the consequence of the flood. Risk All authorities with duties or powers to carry out work on the drainage management network, as described in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. authorities Sewer flooding Flooding caused by a blockage or overflow in a sewer or urban drainage system. South East A working group of seven Local Authorities with common interests that Seven (SE7) includes Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire, Medway, Surrey, Brighton & Hove. RFCC Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) and Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee are groups of elected members responsible for scrutinising and signing off the work programme. SMP Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) provide a long-term framework for dealing with coastal flooding and erosion over a large area. SMPs take into account risks to people and the developed, historic and natural environment. They also take climate change into account in planning long-term coastal management. SuDS Sustainable Drainage System. A drainage system designed to control surface water runoff close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage as closely as possible. Surface Water Rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which is on the surface of the ground (whether or not it is moving), and has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer. Surface Water Surface water management plans are projects to investigate local flooding Management issues such as flooding from sewers, drains, groundwater, and runoff from Plan (SWMP) land, small watercourses and ditches.

Page | 15

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The council West Sussex County Council ‘The strategy’ This document, the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for West Sussex (2013 – 2018) Watershed Operation Watershed is an £8.25 million commitment to invest in highway funding, drainage and environmental improvements in areas of the county worst Operation affected by floods. Watershed West Sussex Made up of senior officers from WSCC, all Borough and Districts Strategic Flood Councils, EA and Southern Water. The group’s role is to take a strategic Risk overview of the entirety of flood risk and drainage management across Management West Sussex. Board West Sussex The group comprises WSCC, the EA (Southern & Thames), Southern Flood Risk Water Services the seven Borough and District Councils within West Management Sussex. Its role is to plan and act to reduce the risk and consequence of Group flooding now and in the future in West Sussex. Wet Spots Strategy has focused on cluster areas of properties at risk. These are identified by the latest flood mapping and are referred at as ‘wet spots’ WSUD Water Water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) is a land planning and engineering Sensitive Urban design approach which integrates the urban water cycle, including storm Design water, groundwater and wastewater management and water supply, into urban design to minimise environmental degradation and improve aesthetic and recreational appeal.

Page | 16

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Chapter 1 - West Sussex Flood Risk

What is flood risk?

Flooding is a hazard as it has the potential to cause harm to human health and life, and effect the natural and built environment. The term ‘risk’ acknowledges the actual harm caused and is different to a hazard. Flood Risk is a combination of the probability/likelihood of a flood event occurring and the severity of its impacts:

Risk = Likelihood x Impact

Flooding is only a risk when the flood water affects people, property, agricultural land or another ‘receptor’. The ‘source’ of the flooding could be groundwater, surface water, from sewers, rivers or the sea. The route or path the flood waters take is known as the pathway.

Source Pathway Receptor

Risk captures the severity of, or related consequences produced by, a flood event. Impacts can be social, economic and environmental, for example the number of properties flooded and the level of associated economic damages. The consequences of a flood depend on the level of exposure and the vulnerability of those people or places affected.

What is the likelihood of flooding happening and what does this mean? Flood risk is often measured by a percentage probability or by stating how regularly it will occur. The industry refers to 1% annual probability floods, or 1 in 100 year floods, for example. This does not mean that they only happen every 100 years. In in betting terms the odds of such an event happening would be 100/1 in any year. Therefore, we may see two within a year, but then not for another 250 years. We may also experience any number of smaller flood events between the larger events.

To explain this information in another way the Bognor Regis rainfall event in June 2012 saw over 10cm of rain fall in 24 hours. This area may see an average of 60cm annually. In

Page | 17

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Bognor Regis this downpour equated to a 1 in 200 year rainfall event. In other words, the event had a 0.5 % annual probability event, or, had the betting odds of 200/1. Clearly, it was a very rare rainfall event. These rainfall events can consist of torrential rain over a short period of time, or, prolonged showers over a longer period. The important factors are the amount of rain that has fallen, and over how much time.

Rainfall rates can vary greatly from one town to another. In 2012 Bognor Regis recorded over 10cm in 24 hours, whereas inland at Itchingfield and Haywards Heath the totals were much less. It is important to interpret the flood risk maps with this in mind, because they model a uniform ‘Bognor Regis 2012’ rainfall event occurring everywhere in the county at the same time. This is necessary to see where we might experience the biggest problems, which then informs our work programme. In reality it is more likely we will see certain towns flooded as predicted on the flood maps, and others that received less rainfall, to a much lesser extent.

Drainage systems and flood defences are designed to protect against a certain magnitude event occurring. Most surface water drains and sewers are designed to cope with a 1 in 30 year event, whilst river and tidal defences are generally built to protect against a 1 in 100 year or 1 in 200 year event respectively. The dilemma in flood risk management is how much do you over engineer your design to account for very rare events. This is one of the cost benefit choices that risk management authorities make.

What is the flood risk within the County?

Historic flood events

West Sussex has a history of fluvial, coastal, surface water and groundwater flooding. There are records that extend back hundreds of years shown in previous research from our archives, provided by the fire brigade, media, academic papers, and the British Hydrological Survey. Often it is difficult to compare different events because the towns and rivers have been modified over time, and statistical information can be incomplete. The historic flood events that have occurred since 1968, and caused approximately 100 properties or more to flood, are shown in the diagram below. Hundreds of other smaller flood events have been recorded across the county from a range of flood risk sources. Some events affected properties, others just roads, and in some instances the information does not specify.

Flooding occurs within West Sussex at many locations. To identify these areas in the county existing plans and the latest flood risk mapping has been reviewed. It is not possible to prevent all flooding but we will work closely with our partners to manage the impact on our communities.

Page | 18

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

1968 1980/ 1993/ 2000 2012 Horsham 1981 1994 Chichester Manhood 422 properties (Rother /Ems Peninsula , Worthing & Chichester and Valley) Bognor Regis & flooded Littlehampton Barnham 98 Unknown coastal towns 600 properties properties flooded number flooded 800 properties flooded flooded

The property counts in Figure 1 are derived from the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PRFA 2011) and latest flood risk mapping from the Environment Agency (the National Flood Risk Assessment - Nafra 2008/09). These are described on page 27. Both data sets will be updated in late 2013, and any variations in property risk numbers included in the next review of the strategy.

Combined risk

Surface Water Flood Risk Sea & River Flood Risk*

Figure 1: Properties at risk in the county by flooding source (these figures includes flats above ground floor level that would be indirectly affected, *counting properties and businesses at moderate and significant sea and river flood risk)

76,600 residential properties and 20,100 businesses were identified as being within susceptible surface water flood risk areas in the PFRA. 15,000 residential properties and 3,000 businesses are within areas at risk from rivers or sea flooding (Environment Agency

Page | 19

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Nafra 2008/09, counting moderate and significant risk). 5,500 of these residential and business properties fall within both sets of mapping and are susceptible to either source of flooding.

This best available mapping indicates that over 100,000 properties are in areas susceptible to flood risk within the county. The flood risk in West Sussex can be attributed to the sea, rivers, watercourses, ditches, rifes, sewers (foul water, surface water and combined), groundwater and from surface water. Irrespective of the source of the water, the result and impact on a property or on a community is still the same. Flood damage is expensive and can take many months to repair.

For those responsible for managing flood risk, the source of flooding is very important in order to understand what potential solutions may be. To manage flood risk an assessment should identify the source of the water so that options for management and a solution, if appropriate and feasible, can be considered.

Over page

Figure 2: The West Sussex Surface Water Flood Map, showing the extent of surface water flooding from a 1 in 200 year rainfall event. The purple colour shows areas at risk.

Figure 3: The West Sussex River and Sea Flood Map, showing the extent of river and sea flooding from a 1 in 200 year river event, and 1 in 200 year sea event (The Environment Agency Flood Map, not accounting for existing flood defences). The dark blue colour shows areas at risk.

Page | 20

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Page | 21

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Page | 22

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Sources of Flooding

Surface Water Flooding

Surface water flooding results from excess overland flow and ponding. This can be caused by intense short duration storms or by any storm when the ground is already saturated. During intense storms, the water simply does not have time to soak into the ground, and when the ground is already saturated the water cannot soak in at all.

Within the built environment surface water will tend to collect more easily because the water cannot infiltrate or drain into the ground like it would do naturally. In the urban environment and on roads, water is normally funnelled into sewers, and when the drainage network blocks or when sewer capacity is exceeded, flooding can occur. It is difficult to predict if, where and when it will occur.

The residential areas that are most susceptible include Shoreham, Lancing, Worthing, Crawley, Horsham, Bognor Regis, Felpham, Elmer, Bersted, Middleton, Bosham, Selsey, Birdham, Barnham, Pulborough, Ifold, Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath.

Surface water flooding is not restricted to urban areas and can occur in rural areas when drainage is prevented by blockages or saturated ground. In rural areas, due to the landscape and topography of the South Downs, downland run-off can also cause flooding. Land management, such as the way farmers plough fields, the removal of hedgerows and infilling of ditches, can contribute to run-off rates. Most notably in the Rother Valley in West Sussex, the way the land is managed can significantly change run off and soil erosion.

Surface water has contributed significantly to flooding experienced in the county recently. Three Surface Water Management Plans are currently underway in West Sussex. These plans will identify improvement actions that will be included on the strategy work programme (Appendix D). Future Surface Water Management Plans are expected to be carried out within West Sussex depending on funding and priority (proposed at North Lancing, Manhood Peninsula, Bognor, Horsham, Haywards Heath and Shoreham) and are included in the work programme.

 Elmer Sands Surface Water Management Plan  Worthing Surface Water Management Plan  Lidsey (Waste Water Treatment Works) Catchment Surface Water Management Plan

Groundwater Flooding

Groundwater flooding can occur when groundwater rises up from the underlying water table. Water emerges at the ground surface, flooding both surface and subsurface infrastructure. This type of flooding is generally caused by rising water levels in permeable aquifers (primarily chalk in West Sussex) in response to prolonged above average rainfall or from

Page | 23

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

high water levels in adjacent rivers. Due to the chalk geology running across West Sussex, the lower slopes of the South Downs are the area’s most susceptible to experience this type of flooding. Though the underlying geology is fairly well understood it is actually difficult to predict when or where groundwater will emerge. Mapping of areas is based on the ground type and from areas historically known to have been affected. Groundwater can affect the areas in the upper reaches of the River Lavant (Singleton, East Dean and Charlton), Bosham Stream (Woodend, Funtington), River Ems (Walderton, Stoughton, Compton, West Marden), and North Lancing and Durrington. Other localised areas can be affected due to ground conditions or topography.

Main River Flooding

Main rivers are defined by Defra and are important watercourses that carry significant flood risk. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to undertake works on these rivers. The major river catchments in West Sussex are the River Arun, the River Adur and a number smaller watercourses that make up the West Sussex Rifes. Part of the River Mole catchment that drains north into the River Thames also falls within West Sussex. The River Arun and the River Adur both flow south through the county and discharge into the English Channel at Littlehampton and Shoreham respectively.

The risk of river flooding impacts a number of West Sussex towns including Arundel, Bognor Regis, Chichester, Littlehampton, Shoreham and Crawley. The rivers help drain on average 600mm of annual rainfall. Heavy rainfall can cause rivers to overtop their banks and spill onto the adjacent floodplain. The characteristics of the river catchments are dominated by their topography, with fast flowing streams emerging from the high Weald to the north, flowing into a low lying coastal plain where the gradient is less and the river flows are much slower. The flood risk on rivers is managed strategically by Catchment Flood Management Plans. The strategy work programme includes work not yet started from these plans:

 The Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan  The Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan  The Adur Catchment Flood Management Plan  The Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan  The Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy

Ordinary Watercourse Flooding

An ordinary watercourse is any watercourse (river, stream, ditch, cut, sluice, rife, dyke or non-public sewer) that is not identified as a Main River. Flooding can occur from an ordinary watercourse overtopping its bank level due to the volume of water or because the channel or culverts become blocked. Ordinary watercourses in West Sussex are maintained by riparian/adjacent landowners, five Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), the District and Boroughs, and West Sussex County Council.

Page | 24

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The IDBs have a schedule of maintenance works. Similarly, riparian owners have responsibilities to maintain their stretch of watercourse. West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority is responsible for undertaking consenting and enforcement on ordinary watercourses, and the District and Borough Councils have been delegated the consenting and initial enforcement role to link with their historic work and local planning role. Riparian owners have a responbililty to keep watercourses maintained and flowing freely. Together, the authorities ensure that work on ordinary watercourses is checked, approved, and that appropriate action is taken against landowners who undertake un-consented works or fail to carry out their responsibilities.

Coastal and Tidal Flooding

The coastline of West Sussex stretches from Hermitage, near Emsworth, to Southwick. High water caused by the tide, waves and storm surges can cause flooding to occur. Generally, where urban areas meet the coast the line is defended (Selsey, Shoreham, Worthing, Littlehampton, Bognor Regis), and where there is no property the coastline is managed in a semi-natural state. Areas at particular flood risk are the estuaries due to the tidal locking effect where river water and sea water meet. The Environment Agency and District and Borough Authorities manage the flood risk to coastal properties by managing the groynes and sea walls, replenishing the beach material and by maintaining the natural beach defence. Shoreline Management Plans guide the strategic management of the coastline. Investment is largely directed by coastal risk and erosion strategies that analyse the detail and consider project options. Within West Sussex there are currently seven strategies in progress or completed for coastal and tidal risk.

 North Solent Shoreline Management Plan:  Pagham Harbour Adaptive Management Study  Pagham to East Head Strategy

 Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan  Arun to Pagham Strategy  Emsworth to East Head Strategy  Arun to Adur Strategy  Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy  Shoreham to Brighton Marina Strategy

The work programme (Appendix D) that this strategy supports uses the outputs of these strategies so that the full picture of investment into flood risk is understood within the county.

Reservoir Flooding

Page | 25

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The Government recognises that a major reservoir flood event could have a significant impact on the downstream area. Reservoirs in the UK have an extremely good safety record with no incidents resulting in the loss of life since 1925. Reservoirs are carefully maintained to prevent flooding.

The Environment Agency oversees reservoir safety and enforces the Reservoirs Act 1975 and is responsible as an enforcement authority for some 2,000 reservoirs in England and Wales. All large reservoirs must be inspected and supervised. The Environment Agency ensures that reservoirs are regularly inspected and essential safety work is carried out.

The two largest reservoirs in West Sussex are at Ardingly and Weir Wood. Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) undertake the engagement with downstream communities to plan for emergencies. The Pitt Report recommended that communities be provided with reservoir flood maps to enable the emergency services and other responders to assess risks and plan for contingency, warning and evacuation.

Sewer Flooding

Foul sewers carry flows from business and domestic water use, for example kitchen and bathroom waste, to a wastewater (sewage) treatment works. Treated effluent is then discharged to the environment (a local watercourse or the sea) under a consent granted by the Environment Agency. Foul sewers can overflow due to groundwater entering the pipes (infiltration) entering the pipes or through surface water overflowing the system (inundation). This can cause flooding which is contaminated with foul effluent.

Surface water sewers carry rainwater to a suitable discharge point such as a local watercourse or the sea. These discharges do not generally require treatment or a licence from the Environment Agency. Sewer flooding occurs when an increase in the amount of water entering the system is greater than the capacity of the system causing surcharging, or if blockages occur. Flooding is most likely to occur where the sewer has a dual purpose, carrying both surface water run-off and foul sewerage, termed a combined sewer.

Flooding from sewers is the responsibility of the Water and Sewerage Utility companies (Thames and Southern Water). Investment to improve the sewer network happens as part of the periodic price review that sets aside an agreed amount to be spent on reducing flood risk. Areas previously known to have experienced regular sewer flooding are Worthing and Durrington, the Manhood Peninsula, Barnham, North Lancing, Shoreham and Burgess Hill. Problems can also occur along the base of the South Downs because, when groundwater levels are high, sewers can overspill into local watercourses. The water company price review in 2014 is being agreed by the economic regulator Ofwat. This will determine investment to the sewer infrastructure over 2015 - 2020. Water Companies can contribute to flood risk projects being proposed by the Lead Local Flood Authority and other partners.

Page | 26

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

- The wet spots - areas susceptable to flooding

West Sussex County Council has identified 53 ‘wet spot’ areas in the county. Wet spots have been classified as areas where a significant number (generally greater than ten properties and/or businesses) of adjacent properties may be susceptible to flooding. These property counts include flats above ground floor level.

Each wet spot area susceptible to flood risk has a corresponding map, these form Appendix B. Each community is illustrated showing the best county wide assessment of surface, river and sea flood risk. Figure 4 shows the size of the risk in terms of the quantity of housing with risk areas, and, whether the main risk is from surface water, from the rivers and the sea, or from a combination of sources.

The distribution of the wet spots in West Sussex falls into three main areas. The concentration of wet spots in Chichester District is due to the low lying land of the coastal plain. Secondly the major risk areas are the large inland towns where surface water flooding, river flooding or a combination of both can cause property to flood. Thirdly, the coastal strip of communities form a row of urban areas that are affected by both the tides and the draining of water from inland.

These locations have been highlighted in previous plans, notably Catchment Flood Management Plans, Shoreline Management Plans, the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and the June 2012 Flood Report. The modelled flooding data does not account for future climate change, but instead gives a flood outline of a large event with present day circumstances.

The locations are listed alphabetically in Figure 6 (page 31). Numbers of properties are reported according to which flood map they fall within (Figures 2 and 3 on page 21 and 22). Some properties fall within both maps, and are counted as ‘combined risk’ in the dark blue column in Figure 6. To help the reader understand this table it is necessary to read the ‘What is the likelihood of flooding happening and what does this mean?’ section at the start of Chapter 1. The flood risk has been assessed by considering the following size flood events:  Surface water flooding assessed from a 1 in 200 year rainfall event (0.5% annual probability rainfall event), the surface mapping simulates flooding accounting for drainage and the build environment;  River flooding assessed from a 1 in 200 year flood event (0.5% annual probability river flood event), the river flooding mapping simulates flooding including the current benefit from drainage and defences;  Sea flooding assessed from a 1 in 200 year flood event (0.5% annual probability sea flood event), the sea flooding mapping simulates flooding including the current benefit from drainage and defences.

Page | 27

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Data from each of the seven Districts and Boroughs has been considered. Mapping has been produced (Appendix B) to show where areas susceptible to flooding exist. The maps indicate the main risk from surface water, the rivers and the sea. For the purposes of this Strategy the Environment Agency’s groundwater map has been considered but is not published in the mapped communities. The wet spots have been selected to include those areas that are susceptible to groundwater flooding, and the property count of the surface water statistics can be taken to include groundwater risk areas.

The wet spots identified across the county are linked to actions in the work programme so that West Sussex County Council can track progress and the location of investment over the lifetime of the strategy. In the work programme significant existing flood risk projects or historic flood risk management is also referenced by wet spot so that improvements already undertaken can be understood.

The method of identifying wet spots uses the most up to date county wide mapping that exists, and the most recent flood reports. These two sources provide the basis for identifying the highest risk areas. There are many isolated properties at flood risk in the county that are outside of these cluster areas. The strategy has focused on cluster areas because funding for capital projects requires a high cost benefit ratio that is generally not met by single residential property projects. Single buildings providing public benefit, for example hospitals, are given high priority. The strategy supports household property level protection (PLP) measures. Work is currently being undertaken by the Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Scheme (2013-2015) to look at how property level protection can be implemented as well as other local resilience work.

Issues in these areas will be identified through the West Sussex County Council’s new flood investigatory role and ordinary watercourse consenting and enforcement responsibilities. The other Risk Management Authorities, local flood groups or parish councils should also bring flooding and maintenance issues to the attention of West Sussex County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority.

All of the wet spot areas feature in the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA), and in the West Sussex County Council Report on June 2012 Flood Event (Nov 2012). They include all areas at risk from river and sea flooding as identified by the latest Environment Agency flood mapping. The wet spots have been considered by local experts at the District and Borough level, the County Council, Southern Water and by the Environment Agency. Historic events and previous flooding issues have been taken into account and have contributed to the West Sussex wet spot list.

The purple and light blue areas are areas susceptible to flood risk. They are shown on each wet spot map and reflect where the flood risk exists, and why the area was identified as having clusters of properties within risk areas. Information shown on the maps includes the river obstructions such as weirs, dams, and the drainage network of rivers, canals and lakes.

Over page, Figure 4: The West Sussex ‘Wet Spot’ Flood Map

Page | 28

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Page | 29

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Figure 5: The Appendix B ‘Wet Spot’ Flood Map Information

Example Wet Spot

Number of Number of properties at

properties at combined risk surface water risk in 1 in 200 year event

Number of properties at river and sea risk in 1 in 200 year event

Figure 6 gives the full list of wet spots in West Sussex. The purple column (numbered 1) represents property numbers solely at surface water flood risk. This is flood risk posed from rainfall that is yet to reach a natural channel or sewer (the model accounts for drainage and buildings). The light blue column (numbered 2) represents property solely at river and sea risk. This is flood risk posed from rivers bursting their banks and from sea storms, surges and high tides (the model accounts for existing sea and river defences). The dark blue column (numbered 3) represents the property at risk from both sources. The total risk for the community (column 4) equals each number summed (the example in Figure 5 is 65 + 30 + 10 = 105 properties at risk). The numbers of properties are derived from address data and have been rounded to the nearest five properties, except where less than five properties are at risk.

Page | 30

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Figure 6: The West Sussex ‘Wet Spot’ areas and the number of residential properties and businesses susceptible to flood risk by flood source (including flats above ground floor level) 1 2 3 4

Wet Spots Surface River and Combined Water Flood Sea Flood Flood Risk* (Priority wet Risk* (no. of Risk* (no of (no. of TOTAL spots are Area properties) properties) properties) (no. of marked) properties) * property * property only * property only within both within surface within river/sea surface & water risk map risk map river/sea water risk maps Aldingbourne, Westergate & Arun District 300 110 85 495 Eastergate

Aldwick Arun District 275 0 0 275

Angmering Arun District 550 5 60 615

Arundel Arun District 215 15 0 230

Barnham & Arun District 400 200 100 700 hhhhWalberton

Horsham Billingshurst District 600 0 25 625

Chichester Birdham District 25 0 0 25

Bognor Regis & Arun District 900 1200 200 2300 jjjjjjjFelpham

Chichester Bosham District 50 100 0 150

Bramber & Horsham Upper Beeding District 325 60 0 385

Mid Sussex Burgess Hill District 2500 1 0 2501

Chichester Charlton District 25 0 10 35

Page | 31

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Chichester Chichester District 1750 385 95 2230

Chichester Chidham District 15 15 10 40

Mid Sussex Copthorne District 75 130 75 280

Crawley Crawley Borough 9000 625 425 10050

Chichester Earnley & 50 145 0 195 hhhhBracklesham District

Chichester East Dean District 30 0 1 31

Mid Sussex East Grinstead District 2200 0 0 2200

East Preston Arun District 400 0 0 400

East Chichester Wittering District 25 145 25 195

Ferring Coast & Arun District Rife 30 0 60 90

Chichester Fishbourne District 180 5 0 185

Mid Sussex Hassocks District 525 105 55 685 Haywards Mid Sussex Heath & District 2200 0 100 2300 Lindfield Horsham Horsham District 4000 0 0 4000

Chichester Hunston District 35 5 0 40

Littlehampton Arun District 1200 1200 240 2640

Littlehampton West & Arun District 35 180 10 225 Climping Chichester Loxwood District 55 5 5 65

Page | 32

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Middleton- on-Sea & Arun District 150 295 25 470 hhhhElmer

Chichester Midhurst District 600 30 35 665

North Mundham Chichester & Runcton District 20 30 5 55

Chichester Oving District 50 1 0 51

Pagham & Arun District hhhhNyetimber 170 145 35 350

Horsham Pulborough District 325 0 10 335

Rustington Arun District 550 0 0 550

Sayers Mid Sussex Common District 50 0 0 50

Chichester Selsey (West) District 350 150 30 530

Chichester Selsey East District 300 525 50 875 Shoreham & Adur District 4500 2400 650 7550 hhhhLancing Chichester Sidlesham District 55 145 5 205

Chichester Singleton District 75 0 15 90

Sompting Adur District 1100 0 0 1100

Southbourne, Chichester Hermitage & District 200 105 35 340 Nutbourne Horsham Southwater District 700 0 0 700

Horsham Storrington District 525 0 25 550

Tangmere & Chichester Boxgrove District 350 0 0 350

Page | 33

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Chichester Thorney District 25 145 0 170

Chichester West Itchenor District 10 15 5 30

Chichester West Wittering District 55 1 0 56

Chichester Westbourne District 250 0 10 260

Worthing Worthing 8750 1350 300 10400

What are the priority areas at risk?

Ten wet spot locations have been prioritised (marked with a in table 6) based on the modelling, the historical risk and the existing programme of work. The priority wet spots will be considered first for flood risk reduction or investigation work by the risk management authorities. This prioritisation does not mean funding is available, or has been agreed, nor does it exclude important work from happening elsewhere if a good cost benefit is achieved. The priorities will be reviewed as progress is made.

The prioritised locations will promote the areas and allow risk management authorities to consider partnership funding and implementation. Difficult decisions will need to be taken, because there is not enough money to carry out the entire work programme. The priority wet spots highlight those areas that contain groups of properties deemed most at risk, and, that are most vulnerable to flooding.

Page | 34

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Adur District

The Adur District contains the Shoreham-by-Sea & Lancing and Sompting wet spots. Both contain significant property numbers that are at risk of flooding from combined sources (river, sea and surface water flooding). Together a very large number of properties are in risk areas, largely from surface water flooding, but added to significantly by coastal flooding.

The area is predominantly urban, underlain by chalk geology with a flat topography. The wet spots are heavily influenced by the tides and coastal defences can be overtopped from purely tidal influence. The River Adur is unlikely to overtop from just heavy rainfall, but a combination of a heavy rainfall event and a high tide could cause significant flooding. Surface water flooding generated by run-off from the South Downs can cause flooding to property in Bramber, Lancing and Sompting, the Shoreham airport and West Beach Estate. The key flood risk prevention assets in the District include the existing Adur tidal wall embankments, and the coastal defences that afford Shoreham and Lancing protection. The District maintains the Lancing Brook network. The Internal Drainage Board, District Council and the Environment Agency carries out channel maintenance work on local watercourses north of the A27 to maintain good flow.

Arun District

The Arun District contains thirteen wet spots that are susceptible to surface water, river water and/or sea flooding. These areas stretch across the coastal plain from Ferring in the east to Pagham in the west. Bognor Regis & Felpham (river and sea) and Littlehampton (surface water risk, river and sea) contain the highest numbers at risk. Middleton-on-Sea & Elmer on the coastal plain include significant property numbers at risk from the sea should an extreme event occur. Barnham & Walberton and Angmering have high property numbers at risk from surface water flooding and from combined sources.

The area is generally low lying topography with poorly drained and often waterlogged soils. The River Arun flows south through the centre of the district, with the Aldingbourne Rife, Ferring Rife, and Elmer Rife, and the upper parts of the Pagham Rife further draining the district. Some streams are tide locked as they drain into the English Channel. The characteristics of the district mean that surface water ponding and water logging due to high groundwater or extreme rainfall events can cause flooding. Groundwater flooding can also occur along a spring line across the coastal plain. Tide locking, under capacity or blockages within the drainage network also contribute towards flooding. The key management of flooding in the district is the coastal protection works, the maintenance of embankments and walls on the River Arun, and the work that maintains sufficient flow in the rivers, watercourses, ditches and urban drainage network.

Page | 35

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Chichester District

Chichester District has twenty-four wet spots susceptible to flooding from surface water, groundwater, sea and river flooding. The most significant risk is in Chichester from surface water and combined sources. Many clusters of properties in coastal and surface water risk areas exist across the Manhood Peninsula, rural Chichester Harbour area and south of the Downs. The area is very popular with holidaymakers. Due to the significantly higher local population during the holiday season the numbers of people at risk becomes a greater task to manage.

In the north of the district the River Rother drains the Low Weald rural area from west to east through Midhurst. Midhurst is mainly at risk from surface water flooding. In the south of the district the groundwater fed River Lavant drains through Chichester. When groundwater levels are high, this wet spot can flood from a combination of the river, surface water and drainage network pinch points. The area can become seasonally water logged causing surface water ponding due to the low lying topography and high water table. Groundwater flooding occurs most regularly through the Lavant valley, notably at Charlton, East Dean and Singleton.

Channel maintenance is carried out by riparian owners, the Internal Drainage Board and the Environment Agency in the district. The main flood defence features are the diversion channel at Chichester, channel clearance and pumped drainage from the peninsula, and the drainage through the coastal defences into the sea.

Crawley Borough

Crawley has one wet spot made up of the urban area susceptible to surface water flood risk. This wet spot includes approximately 10,000 residential and business properties at flood risk from mainly surface water risk. Flood risk is also posed from the River Mole, from culverted watercourses, and from sewer flooding. The risk of flooding comes after a heavy rainfall event when constrictions within this drainage system cause water to back up, overtop a channel or pond in an area.

Crawley is situated in the upper part of the Mole Catchment that drains north into the Thames. Historically the River Mole and its tributary the Gatwick Stream have come out of bank and flooded, and there are a number of recorded incidents that have damaged property. Two other tributaries exist, the Ifield Brook and Crawters Brook. The Borough contains two water reservoirs the Tilgate and Titmus Lakes. Most of the flood defences in Crawley are earth embankments, and there is a diversion channel on the Gatwick Stream. While Crawley is a new town, the drainage network can experience problems with its culverted watercourses that can block or reach capacity.

Page | 36

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Horsham District

The Horsham District contains six wet spots that are susceptible to surface water and river flooding; Horsham, Pulborough, Storrington, Southwater, Bramber & Upper Beeding and Billingshurst. Surface water flood risk poses the most likely flood risk in each of these areas. Horsham represents the largest cluster of properties in areas susceptible to flooding from a rare rainfall event. Storrington and Southwater are susceptible to surface water flooding, and to a lesser extent Billingshurst and Pulborough. River flooding contributes to the surface water flood risk in Beeding and Bramber.

These wet spot areas are set within the Weald of Sussex underlain by sandstone and mudstone geology, and are drained by the urban sewer network and the River Arun and Rother. Serious flooding would only be expected during large-scale infrequent rainfall events, when overland flow would occur from rapid runoff and with a short response time. Flooding would occur from excess surface water run-off that cannot drain, and to a lesser degree from inundation directly from the local watercourses. The main rivers through urban areas are mainly undefended but some walls and channel straightening has occurred. The urban drainage network is maintained routinely and also on a reactive basis to ensure surface water can drain.

Mid Sussex District

Mid Sussex contains six significant clusters of properties that are at risk of flooding. These are Burgess Hill, Copthorne, Hassocks, Haywards Heath & Lindfield, East Grinstead, and Sayers Common. The most significant clusters of properties are located in the urban centres, particularly Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill. Purely surface water flooding is known to exist in East Grinstead and on a smaller scale in Sayers Common. Properties are largely at risk from surface water flooding Hassocks.

In the centre of the District the River Ouse drains east into neighbouring Lewes District, and in the south, the Adur drains west into Horsham District. Brighton and Hove borders Mid Sussex to the South. The villages and isolated properties in the rural landscape of Mid Sussex are generally at low flood risk. It is the urban areas that are more susceptible to flooding where surface water flooding, urban drainage problems and ordinary watercourses flooding pose a risk to property. Heavy rainfall events can cause flooding in these areas. The defences in the District consist of a mixture of maintained and culverted channels. These defences are maintained and clearance are carried out by the Environment Agency, Landowners and the District Council.

Page | 37

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Worthing Borough

Worthing District contains the Worthing wet spot covering the low lying coastal urban area. The flood risk in Worthing is posed by surface water and the sea. If an extreme rainfall event was to occur thousands of properties would be in risk areas in the town. Only in a very rare tidal and storm event would Worthing be expected to flood from the sea.

Worthing District is largely urban and is bordered by the Ferring Rife to the west and Teville Stream to the east. There are a number of ordinary watercourses that drain the two catchments. The risk of flooding is posed from a combination of groundwater, sewer, surface water run-off and coastal wave overtopping. Drainage is comprised of rainfall run-off from the South Downs and rainfall that falls on the urban area. When either or both of these inputs are high then flooding to property can occur. The low lying coastal fringe of Worthing is at risk of flooding from the sea. When groundwater is high Goring and Durrington can be susceptible to flooding. Surface water contributes significantly to the flood risk in Worthing due the urban nature of the area, and due to the drainage being compromised high tides, groundwater or blockages.

Page | 38

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Chapter 2- Roles and Responsibilities

Background and National Context

In England, 5.2 million properties are at risk of flooding. Of these, 1.4 million are at risk from rivers or the sea alone, 2.8 million are at risk from surface water alone and 1 million are at risk from both sources. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires upper and unitary councils to be Lead Local Flood Authorities and manage surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. The Flood and Water Management Act is an important part of how the Government reacted to the 2007 floods and subsequent Pitt Report (2008). Pitt’s recommendations called for urgent and fundamental changes to the way the country was adapting to increased flooding.

Figure 7: Properties at risk nationally by flooding source (source: Environment Agency)

Combined risk

Surface Water Sea & River

Flood Risk Flood Risk

Lead Local Flood Authorities, IDBs and District and Borough Councils effectively join the Environment Agency in a partnership to manage flood risk across all sources. Any combination of sources of flooding could exist in an area so partnership working and joint projects are expected.

The national and local strategies are at the forefront of this change, putting new ways of working into practice. The local strategies across England set out how people, communities,

Page | 39

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

business and the public sector should work together. They are enabling Lead Local Flood Authorities and other risk management authorities to plan for the future.

Flood and coastal erosion management requires difficult decisions to be taken on where risk management activities are carried out both at national and local levels. This prioritisation process and the decisions taken are to be guided by six principles published in the National Strategy for England.

• Community focus and partnership working 1

The flood risk management authorities (West Sussex County Council, the seven District and Borough Councils, the Environment Agency, the four Internal Drainage Boards, the Highways Agency and Thames and Southern Water) will work in partnership with communities to understand the community perspective of flooding, help communities understand and actively prepare for the risks and encourage them to have direct involvement in decision making and risk management actions. Partnership working is also required to ensure that risk is managed in a coordinated way beyond authority boundaries, for example across catchments, with adjacent lead local flood authorities working together.

• A catchment and coastal cell approach 2

In understanding and managing flood and coastal risks locally, it is essential to consider the impacts on other areas that are affected or connected to what happens in that area. This whole connected area is known as a catchment. Similarly the UK coastline is divided into a series of coastal areas known as ‘cells’ to ensure a coordinated management approach. Authorities must seek to avoid passing risk on to others within the catchment or adjacent coastal cells without prior agreement. These agreements could potentially include the provision of funding by upstream communities for actions and measures carried out by others to manage the downstream risks. This principle asks all risk management authorities to consider the catchment or coastal cell as a whole to ensure the best outcome for the related parts.

• Sustainability 3

Flood risk management authorities should support communities by managing risks in ways that take account of all impacts and the whole-life costs of investment in risk management.

Page | 40

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The risk management solutions should be forward-looking, and utilise the latest thinking regarding Water Sensitive Urban Design and Green Infrastructure. Solutions should take account of potential risks that may arise in the future and be adaptable to climate change. They should also work with natural processes where possible and enhance the environment.

• Proportionate, risk-based approaches 4

It is not technically, economically or environmentally feasible to prevent flooding altogether. A risk-based management approach targets resources to those areas where they have greatest effect. Risk management measures consider both the probability over time of a flood happening and the consequences that might arise if it did, for example by assessing the damages that arise from floods. Solutions should be appropriate in complexity and cost to the level of flood risk.

• Multiple benefits 5

As well as reducing the risks to people and property, which is the primary concern, flood risk management can bring significant economic, environmental and social benefits. It can enhance and protect the built, cultural heritage, biodiversity, rural and natural environments by preventing loss and damage to habitats and heritage assets and reducing pollution, for example, through the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design and Green Infrastructure. It can contribute to regeneration and income generation, protect infrastructure and transport links and contribute to economic growth.

• Beneficiaries should be encouraged to invest in risk

6 management

The benefits achieved when flood risks are managed are in many cases localised and lead to personal or private gain through the protection of specific individuals, communities and businesses. They can also be public, through the reduction of future costs to society arising from incident recovery. The Government is keen to ensure that wherever possible alternative sources of funding can be secured in each area to reflect the local benefits that would be delivered. Any funding found locally can supplement the amounts available nationally and mean as many communities as possible can be protected.

Page | 41

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Local Context

Environment Agency Lead Local Flood Authorities Sea Groundwater

Main River Surface water Reservoir Ordinary Coastal Erosion watercourses

Figure 8: Who oversees which types of flooding?

Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 West Sussex County Council has the responsibility for developing, maintaining and applying a local flood risk management strategy within the county. It is intended that local authorities should reflect the content, guiding principles, aims and objectives of the national strategy in the development of their local flood risk management strategies.

West Sussex County Council will not be working in isolation. A range of partner authorities known as risk management authorities also have flood and coastal erosion management duties, powers and responsibility. The development of this strategy required input from designated ‘flood management authorities’. In West Sussex the other flood risk management authorities are the Environment Agency, the five Internal Drainage Boards (Upper Medway, Ouse, Arun, Adur and South West Sussex), the Highways Agency, Southern Water Services Ltd, Thames Water Utilities Ltd and the seven District and Borough Councils.

In West Sussex, Southern Water Services Ltd and Thames Water Utilities Ltd are responsible for managing public sewers, and for resolving flooding issues where there is no significant interaction with other types of flooding. The seven District and Borough Councils in the county are an important part of flood risk management are risk management

Page | 42

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

authorities in their own right, and, all take an active role in assisting the Lead Local Flood Authority in performing some Flood and Water Management Act duties.

Environment Lead Local Flood

Agency Authority (West Sussex

County Council) Sea Main River Groundwater Highways Private Reservoir Surface water land Agency Erosion Ordinary watercourses Highway owners Trunk road Internal Watercourses Highway Drainage Southern District &

Boards /Thames Authority Boroughs IDD Ordinary Water Ordinary Road watercourses watercourses Drainage Public sewers Erosion Roles and Responsibilities

Figure 9: Who manages what within West Sussex?

The Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) carry out maintenance works within their Internal Drainage District (IDD). Four of the five IDBs are operated by the Environment Agency (the Ouse, Arun, Adur and South West Sussex). The fifth IDB (Upper Medway) covers a small area within the county near East Grinstead and is independently managed. At the time of writing in 2013 an Environment Agency review into the management of Internal Drainage Districts was underway which may change the current set up.

Flood risk management responsibilities

This strategy clarifies the roles and responsibilities for local flood risk, and the duties and permissive powers that flood risk management authorities have. It also builds on the existing partnerships developed in West Sussex. The strategy also provides a framework for local communities to develop local partnerships and solutions.

Under the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act the following duties are common to all risk management authorities:

- Duty to cooperate with other risk management authorities

Page | 43

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

- Duty to act consistently with the national and local strategies

- Powers to take on flood risk functions from another risk management authority

- Duty to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development

- Duty to be subject to scrutiny from the Lead Local Flood Authority’s democratic process.

West Sussex County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority)

The responsibilities of the county council as Lead Local Flood Authority and as a risk management authority are to:

- Provide leadership of local flood risk management authorities;

- Develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk;

- Permissive power to do works to manage flood risk from surface water runoff or groundwater;

- Permissive power to request information from any person in connection with the authorities flood risk management functions;

- Permissive power to exercise the Land Drainage Act 1991;

- Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incident under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, including dealing with recovery and resulting homelessness;

- A duty to investigate and publish reports on flood incidents in West Sussex (where appropriate and necessary) to identify which authorities have relevant flood risk management functions, and what they have done or intend to do;

- A duty to maintain a register of structures or features that have a significant effect on flood risk;

- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;

- Responsibility (once enacted) for the sustainable drainage systems approving body with responsibility for approval, adoption, inspection and maintenance of new sustainable drainage systems;

- Decision making and enforcement responsibility for whether third party works on ordinary watercourses by third parties, that may affect water flow, can take place;

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

Page | 44

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

West Sussex Highways Authority (part of West Sussex County Council)

The responsibility of the West Sussex Highways Authority is to:

- Undertake routine and reactive maintenance on all roads (except the A27 and M23/A23 that are the responsibility of the Highways Agency), including associated drainage provided by gullies, drains and culverts.

- Provide advice on road and road drainage issues associated with proposed development, ensuring any impact on the road network is taken into account;

- Decide whether improvements to the transport network are needed, based on access to local facilities, and the possible effects of a development on road safety and congestion.

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency has the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:

- A strategic overview of all types of flooding;

- Responsible for flood risk management on main rivers and the coast;

- A coastline erosion risk management authority, under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010;

- Responsible for Environment Agency reservoirs, and, to regulate and enforce the Reservoirs Act 1975 on other reservoirs with capacity over 10000m³;

- Duty to be subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authorities;

- Carrying out flood risk management functions in a consistent manor with the national and local strategies, reporting to ministers on flood risk management and implementation of strategies;

- Permissive power to request information for any person in relation to flood risk management concerning Environment Agency functions;

- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;

- To be a statutory consultee to the Sustainable Drainage Systems Approving Body;

Page | 45

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

- To be a statutory consultee to local planning authorities on flood risk matters;

- Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incident under the Civil Contingencies Act;

- Consent and enforce applications for works on main river;

- A duty to contribute to sustainable development through flood risk management functions.

Internal Drainage Boards

Internal Drainage Boards have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:

- Carry out maintenance work to maintain drainage;

- Use statutory powers to ensure those responsible maintain the flow of water in a watercourse and to modify or remove inappropriate structures within channels. Take the appropriate action against those who inappropriately modify the watercourse;

- Responsible for reservoirs over 10000m³ capacity;

- Permissive power to exercise the Land Drainage Act 1991;

- A duty to contribute towards sustainable development;

- Permissive power to undertake flood risk management works;

- Undertake consenting on ordinary watercourse within their boundary;

- Be a statutory consultee on the Sustainable Drainage Systems Approving Body;

- Work alongside and together with neighbouring Internal Drainage Districts;

- Duty to be scrutinised from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic processes;

- Duty to act consistently with the Local and National Strategy;

- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance.

Southern Water and Thames Water

Southern Water and Thames Water have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:

Page | 46

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

- Duty to adopt new build sewers;

- Manage public sewer flooding;

- Duty to subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic process;

- Duty to have regard for the National and Local Strategies;

- Perform as a Category 2 responder to flood incidents under the Civil Contingencies Act.

The District and Borough Councils (Second Tier Authorities)

The Districts and Boroughs have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:

- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;

- Duty to act consistently with the Local and National Strategy;

- A coastline erosion risk management authority, under the Coastal Protection Act 1949;

- Duty to be subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic process;

- Permissive power to exercise parts of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (except in an Internal Drainage District) area;

- Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incidents under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, including dealing with recovery and resulting homelessness;

- Perform as the local planning authority and a duty to encourage the appropriate development and promote sustainable development;

- Under delegated powers, use statutory powers to ensure those responsible maintain the flow of water in a watercourse and to modify or remove inappropriate structures within channels. Take the appropriate action against those who inappropriately modify the watercourse.

Highways Agency

The Highways Agency has the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:

- Duty to have regard for the National and Local Strategies;

Page | 47

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

- Responsibility to maintain the highway trunk road network under the Highways Act (in West Sussex the A23, M23 and A27) and for these roads;

- Duty to regularly inspect and maintain highways structures;

- Permissive powers to deliver works to protect the highway from flooding (for example, draining roads into private watercourses);

- Carry out maintenance and improvement works to maintain existing standards of protection for highways;

- A duty to contribute towards sustainable development.

Other Stakeholders

While not designated flood risk authorities, stakeholders such as infrastructure providers, riparian owners, parishes and residents have a key part to play in flood risk management.

Utility and infrastructure providers

While not risk management authorities, utility companies play an important role in flood risk management. Many assets of utility companies are in areas prone to flooding. Ensuring that the service the company provides is resilient to flooding can save the company money in the long term, so flooding is an important factor in investment and planning. Companies can achieve savings if they contribute to partnership schemes. This approach provides mutual benefit for those involved and ensures services for the public and businesses are more resilient.

Riparian Owners

Home or business owners that live close to a river or ditch are likely to be riparian owners with maintenance rights and responsibilities. If the watercourse borders the property it is normal for the boundary of responsibility to extend to half way across the channel. Maintenance responsibilities include keeping the channel clear of obstructions, and maintaining a free flow of water in the watercourse.

The key message to riparian owners is, you must let water flow through your land without any obstruction that may affect the rights of others. Importantly, you should keep the banks and bed of the ditch clear of anything that could cause an obstruction and increase flood risk. More details can be found on the West Sussex County Council or Environment Agency

Page | 48

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

websites by searching for ‘riparian ownership’. The Environment Agency’s ‘Living on the Edge’ document provides a full guide and is available online.

Risk management authorities take every opportunity to communicate publically about riparian responsibilities. The Parish and Town Councils can play a key role in supporting local knowledge and communicating the rights and responsibilities to communities. If you have a watercourse within your property boundary, such as river, brook, beck, ditch, mill stream or culvert, and are unsure on its maintenance please seek advice via the Living on the Edge document. Full contact details are available should you wish to speak to an advisor.

Any works to construct in or over a watercourse or alter the channel may require Ordinary Watercourse Consent. Please contact your local District or Borough Council for more information, or visit the West Sussex County Council website.

Parish and Town Councils

Town and Parish Councils can make a significant contribution before and during a flood event. Coordinated assistance can be critical in supporting local residents and in providing the shelter for neighbours who have experienced flooding. Parish and Town Council members can also play a crucial role in the dissemination of flood alerts and flood warnings, as they have the local knowledge of the community. This local knowledge can also be used to inform the District or Borough Council or County Council about sources of flooding.

An affective Parish or Town Council will have an emergency plan, and an agreed process in place to react to a natural disaster. For more information please contact your District or Borough Emergency Planning Officer who will be able to provide guidance. For other advice please contact the West Sussex County Council Community and Economic Development Team (please see page 60 for areas covered) who will direct your query to the appropriate lead officer.

Property owners and residents

It is home owners and business owner’s responsibility to protect their property from risks, including flood water protection. It’s impossible to completely flood-proof a property but there are lots of things you can do to reduce flood damage. More details can be found on the Environment Agency website by searching for ‘prepare your property for flooding’.

Page | 49

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

LLFA Responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010

Strategic leadership

West Sussex County Council chair the strategic leadership group that was formed in response to the new flood responsibilities commenced by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The group is comprised of the risk management authorities within West Sussex County, and meets quarterly with elected members to ensure that a joint management approach is taken.

To provide a framework for the strategic leadership role West Sussex County Council are required to produce a strategy to direct flood risk management and ways of working in accordance with legislation. The work programme identified by this strategy schedules future projects that investigate flooding solutions or reduce the risk of flooding to residents in West Sussex. The work programme will be monitored to enable forward planning, and ensure future projects are ready in time for the following years programme.

Permissive Powers to reduce surface and groundwater flooding

West Sussex County Council, similarly to the Environment Agency and the District and Borough Councils, have permissive powers to construct works to protect people and property where these are economically justified. These West Sussex County Council powers are not a legal obligation, but indicate the authority to manage flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses if desired. In a similar way the Environment Agency has powers but not a legal obligation to manage main rivers and the coast. There is no right to flood or erosion protection, except in very limited circumstances.

The term ‘permissive powers’ relates to certain legal powers. A risk management authority may choose to intervene in the public interest, where they believe works would be beneficial and / or economically viable, but has legal duty to do so. This recognises that risk management authorities have finite resources and so must prioritise how to use them.

Requesting information

This partnership of risk management authorities ensures that data and information is shared across organisations. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 gives West Sussex County Council powers to request information related to its flooding responsibilities. It is expected that the risk management authorities within West Sussex County Council boundary share data on request.

Page | 50

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Duty to investigate flooding

From April 2011 onwards West Sussex County Council has had a duty to undertake flood investigations after an incident occurs, where it deems necessary. The investigation must set out which risk management authority should lead the review, establish the reasons for the flood, and whether the response was appropriate. If flooding has occurred to more than ten properties in one incident, then a full investigation will be triggered. Depending on the circumstances of smaller flooding events, an initial investigation may still be required for flooding of less than ten properties.

West Sussex County Council has already commenced an investigation into the flooding that occurred in June 2012. The Council formed a multi agency group comprising the Environment Agency, Southern Water, Arun District Council, Chichester District Council, and Worthing Borough Council to investigate the flooding. It was identified that in the vast majority of cases flooding occurred simply due to the exceptionally high volume of rainfall. The process also highlighted some limitations in the management of drainage and the drainage infrastructure itself. Some of this work has been completed already, some is in the process of being resolved, and in some areas further detailed work is required. This investigation report has been published on the West Sussex County Council website.

West Sussex flood asset register

The duty to produce and maintain a flood asset register commenced in April 2011. Assets are defined as structures that in the opinion of the Lead Local Flood Authority are likely to have a significant effect on flood risk. West Sussex County Council have used Defra guidance and local expertise in District and Borough Councils to collate this data.

The information will be added to the Environment Agency’s online Asset Information Management System (AIMS) program from 2016 to which West Sussex County Council will have access. AIMS will map these drainage assets (over and underground), and include a record of their ownership and condition.

Power to designate structures

West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority, the districts and boroughs, and the Environment Agency now have powers to designate third party and privately owned artificial or natural features that are important for flood or erosion risk management. Designation means that a feature may not be altered, replaced or removed without consent. Designated features will be added to the asset register that is maintained by West Sussex County Council.

Page | 51

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Sustainable drainage systems approving body (SAB)

Increasing urbanisation and development has caused problems with increased run-off after sudden or prolonged rain. As areas of vegetation are replaced by impermeable concrete, tarmac or roofed areas the ground loses its ability to absorb rainwater. This rain is instead directed into existing surface water and highway drainage systems, often overloading them and causing floods. The idea behind sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) is to try to replicate natural systems. The designs use cost effective solutions with low environmental impact to drain away surface water run-off naturally using different techniques. The water is released slowly back into the environment, such as into watercourses or by infiltration into the ground.

Approval of SuDS is presently undertaken by District and Borough Councils through the planning process. At the time of writing (2013) the commencement date for a seperate approving body (within LLFAs) to oversee installation of SuDS has not yet been confirmed by Defra. The intention is to oversee the design and installation of SuDS into all housing developments so that surface water flooding is managed by design. The introduction of this body will help move the industry closer toward the goal of water-sensitive urban design (WSUD). WSUD is a land planning and engineering design approach which integrates the urban water cycle, including stormwater, groundwater and wastewater management and water supply, into urban design to minimise environmental degradation and improve aesthetic and recreational appeal.

West Sussex County Council as part of the South East Seven Group is developing the new role, including a master plan as to how the SuDS Approving Bodies may operate. In summary:

- The SuDS aproval process will need to work together with planning;

- Water Sensitive Urban Design and Green Infrastructure should inform all projects and infrastructure design;

- A developer will require SuDS consent before building to ensure the correct SuDS technique is employed for the local ground conditions;

- The approval, adoption and future maintenance of the SuDS will be undertaken by West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (as of 2013 the process for this is still under development);

- The District and Boroughs will continue to perform as the local planning authorities;

Ordinary watercourse consenting

Consenting of works by third parties on ordinary watercourses under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 were transferred from the Environment Agency to the Lead Local Flood Authorities. The consenting role for West Sussex County Council commenced in April 2012.

Page | 52

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Consent is refused if the works (a dam, weir, culvert, mill or other obstruction) would result in an increase in flood risk or adversely affect nature conservation. An application can be made using a form that is available on the West Sussex County Council website.

The consenting role is being undertaken by the seven District and Borough Councils in West Sussex, following delegation from West Sussex County Council. The District and Boroughs or West Sussex County Council can undertake works on ordinary watercourses, except in an Internal Drainage District, where the Internal Drainage Board manage the consenting process.

Enforcement

The planning process is supported by enforcement that ensures development is built in accordance with approved plans. The County Council and District and Boroughs are each responsible for the enforcement of their responsibilities. At county level this includes ordinary watercourse enforcement, and at the District and Borough Councils this includes planning enforcement. The new sustainable drainage approval will also require enforcement in cases where there is a failure to build a developments drainage design in accordance with approved plans. In these cases officers will need to agree a solution or take enforcement action to put right any unauthorised works.

Sustainable development

Defra guidance on sustainable development in relation to flood and coastal erosion risk management functions defines some of the ways in which West Sussex County Council will contribute. The key topics supported in this strategy are:

- Tackling climate change and to use techniques that enhance the natural environment

- Promote fairness in improving the wellbeing of communities

- Use green economic and operations decisions

- Use sound science to develop solutions

- To be transparent and be accountable to the public

- Using techniques and solutions which don’t prevent future generations from meeting their own needs and effectively managing their own flood risk

Page | 53

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Responsibilities outside of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010

Actions as a result of the June 2012 flooding in West Sussex

The local flood risk management strategy supports all findings and recommendations from the West Sussex County Council Flood Report. The flood report recommends actions for each risk management authority and further investigations where more information is needed. Actions from the flood report form part of the works programme of this strategy. The work programme will be considered by the risk management authorities on a priority basis.

Requirements under the EU Flood Directive: Flood Risk Regulations 2009

The Flood and Water Management Act must be considered alongside the EU Flood Directive that was transposed into UK law as the Flood Risk Regulations on the 10th of December 2009. The Flood Risk Regulations require three types of assessment to be carried out in England; the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, and, Flood Risk Management Plans.

Planning

The District and Borough Councils are the responsible authorities for managing planning control and making decisions on what will or will not be granted planning permission. West Sussex County Council is responsible for planning control of libraries, waste sites, mineral sites and schools. Current planning policy directs development away from flood risk areas, however there remains an emphasis on development and the economy. Permitting safe housing is a constant challenge for developers and planners.

With regard to development in flood risk areas, site allocations and planning applications are informed and assessed by the planning process in a number of ways. The planning process, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), applies a principle called the Sequential Test that seeks to direct development towards areas with the lowest risk of flooding.

Where the Sequential Test is not possible, the Exception Test is undertaken whereby it must be demonstrated that any development in an area at risk of flooding will provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, and that such development will be safe for its lifetime. Flood risk should not be increased elsewhere as a result of development. Flooding from new development cannot be allowed to impact on third parties.

Page | 54

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The NPPF classifies flood risk into four different zones of probability (flood zone 1 (low probability), flood zone 2 (medium probability), flood zone 3a (high probability) and flood zone 3b (functional floodplain)). These zones are set out in Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which are used to inform local plans and decisions regarding development and flood risk.

Response, rescue and recovery

The West Sussex Multi-Agency Flood Plan contains the Sussex Resilience Forum procedures for response, rescue and recovery. The plan sets out when a response is triggered and when adverse weather arrangements begin. This plan was activated and used during the June 2012 flooding. These plans are in place across the country to ensure good management and coordination in an emergency situation. All emergency response organisations including the police, fire and rescue, ambulance services, West Sussex County Council, the Districts and Borough Councils and the Environment Agency are signed up to the plan. Parishes and Town Councils also have an important role to play before, during and after an event.

The plan is in two sections, a generic overview and a more detailed plan for each urban centre within the county. The plan considers all types of flooding; coastal, river, surface, ground, sewer flooding. The triggers for multi-agency response are Environment Agency Flood Alerts and Warnings, Met Office Weather Warnings, and reports of flooding. Considerations involve pre agreed communication between risk management authorities to identify the level of risk and decide on the action. Depending on the size of the event this could be to do nothing, activate Part 1 of the Multi-Agency Flood Plan, or activate both parts.

If a response is activated, adverse weather arrangements are supported by the Sussex Emergency Response and Recovery Document and Multi-Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group Guidance. The multi-agency response will either be an Adverse Weather Teleconference (chaired by the Environment Agency), a Adverse Weather Office (chaired by the Police), or, to set up Strategic Co-coordinating Group (chaired by the Police).

With regard to rescue procedures the detailed plans for each urban centre contain the processes involved to evacuate, and also include shelter arrangements. Procedures and the response to flooding can vary depending on the type of flood event, the area and the time of year. Membership of the recovery group will vary depending on the event, but will usually include all risk management authorities. A Recovery Co-ordinating Group led by West Sussex County Council will manage the recovery process.

Page | 55

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive seeks to improve the management, protection and enhancement of the water environment. In 2009 the Environment Agency produced eleven River Basin Management Plans for the basin districts across England and Wales. These plans are available on online at the Environment Agency website. The work programme in this strategy is eligible to receive contributions from Water Framework Directive funding to implement improvement projects.

The West Sussex local flood risk management strategy supports the actions identified in the South East River Basin Management Plan. All projects on the work programme are required to have regard to the ecological and chemical status of water bodies. The projects will help deliver the objectives of these plans where possible. West Sussex County Council will conduct ordinary watercourse consenting and future sustainable drainage management so that the functions contribute to the Water Framework Directive objectives.

There are 148 water bodies within West Sussex boundary. These water bodies consist of 121 river catchments, 14 groundwater bodies, 8 lake water bodies, and 5 coastal water bodies. Investigations into the quality of these water bodies have identified work that needs to be done to improve their status and the water environment as a whole. This process of investigation and identification is supported by West Sussex by the inclusion of WFD projects on the work programme.

The watercourses within the county are extensively used for water abstraction, agriculture, navigation and flood protection. To accommodate these uses our watercourses have been over widened, deepened and impounded with a variety of structures such as locks, weirs, dams and mills. These changes have interfered with the rivers natural flow, negatively impacting the wildlife and health of our watercourses. To start to remedy these issues the strategy is integrating the delivery of flood risk and WFD objectives to provide sustainable cost effective options of managing flood risk for the catchment. West Sussex County Council will support future works to deliver improvements, such as the removal of redundant structures, reconnection to floodplain where feasible and soft engineering options. Cost may restrict what work can be undertaken but options will be considered and assessed.

Pollution from agricultural land, treated waste water discharges and urban drainage are the major pressures to chemical and ecological status of water quality in West Sussex. To manage these pressures the strategy:

. supports catchment sensitive farming initiatives that seek to change agricultural practices;

. encourage planned waste water projects so that water companies can contribute to reducing the concentration of pollutants;

. Adopt water sensitive urban drainage through the planning process and prioritise on key areas.

Page | 56

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

A collaboration of interested parties including, Sussex Wildlife Trust, Arun and Rother Rivers Trust, Adur and Ouse Rivers Trust, Natural England, Environment Agency, Water Companies and many others, have founded two catchment groups, the Adur and Ouse Partnership and the Arun and Western Streams steering group, which cover West Sussex County. These groups are sharing the collective knowledge of the area and integrating their activities on the ground to deliver more for the environment. West Sussex County Council will continue to engage with the Adur and Ouse Partnership and the Arun and Western Streams steering group to further our understanding of the local water environment and help prioritise and implement work.

Partnership working

Partnership working between authorities is essential to the effective delivery of flood risk management actions. Partnerships need to link authorities at Council, Cabinet, Director and Officer level so each organisation and flood risk management has the best chance of working effectively. While the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has better clarified flood risk responsibilities, they are still distributed across different organisations.

The Environment Agency’s National Strategy focuses on community partnership working. On the ground, West Sussex County Council, the District and Borough Councils, together with the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Southern Water and National Flood Forum complete this link to the public. Town and Parish Councils and the National Flood Forum play a very important role involving the public as they create community representation. This work is supported by the Defra pathfinder project which is encouraging community involvement and resilience. The project is also trialling property level protection in certain areas of the county.

Operation Watershed is a limited period fund which promotes drainage projects lead by community groups. The West Sussex County Council webpages extend an offer to community groups to get involved and lead a local project to carry out drainage work in their area. Operation Watershed is also committing investment to highway drainage and environmental improvements in the areas worst affected by the June 2012 floods.

In terms of democratic representation, elected members will sign off the flood risk management work programme and this Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. Elected County Council members are also able to influence flood risk funding via the ‘Local Levy’ funding through RFCC (explained in Chapter 3) and the WSCC Members fund.

The national Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) funding for flood risk management schemes has a limited amount of money and many schemes will require Partnership Funding contributions in order to go ahead. Partnership working is therefore extremely important to flood risk management. If people are pro-active and are regularly communicating then delivery and progress is more likely to be effective. By working together we can avoid duplication, maximise available resources and funding opportunities, and share best practice, skills and expertise.

Page | 57

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The Resilience and Emergency Teams work with the town and parish councils on emergency planning for flooding. If you are interested in getting involved please make contact with your town or parish council.

 Local Authority, Government and other Organisations A number of partnerships at a local, national and regional level provide a forum for discussion on key issues and the delivery of projects. The key partnerships in West Sussex are listed below. The governance relationship between these groups is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 : Partnership groups and governance within West Sussex.

• South East Seven

A partnership of seven upper tier authorities (East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent, Medway, Hampshire, Brighton and Hove, and Surrey) created with the purpose of identifying savings through working together, using shared services, increasing efficiencies and generally working better.

• West Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Management Board The board is a director level partnership of the flood risk management authorities in West Sussex which provides strategic overview and decision making around flood risk management work within the county.

• West Sussex Flood Risk Management Operations Group The working group are an officer level working team that meet quarterly to solve county wide issues, progress actions and discuss future work and contributions. The aim of this group is to provide a joint resource to develop solutions at the most appropriate level. This group

Page | 58

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

provides inputs to current and future projects and will develop the outline flood risk management work programme going forward.

• West Sussex Planning Policy Officers Group A joint group which discuss planning issues across the county. A representative sits on the Operations Group above.

• Coastal Groups Coastal Groups comprise all the key partners in coastal management - principally the coastal managers from maritime Local Authorities, Ports Authorities and the Environment Agency. Other interested organisations, such as Natural England and English Heritage, will also be members. West Sussex will work with both the southern and south eastern coastal groups, and will have representatives on the Operations Group.

• South Downs National Park Authority

Fifty per cent of West Sussex falls within the South Downs National Park, an area of national importance in terms of its landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage. In the implementation of this strategy, West Sussex County Council and its partners will work with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) to safeguard and where possible enhance the beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the county. The SDNPA also acts as the planning authority with the park boundary. A representative of the SDNP sits on the Operations Group.

• Water Framework Directive groups These groups are a partnership of land owners and authorities that will lead on a programme of work to achieve ecological and chemical improvements to rivers and watercourses, including removing unneeded manmade structures and improving fish passage. The two groups in West Sussex are: the Adur and Ouse Partnership and the Arun and Western Streams Partnership.

The community and public involvement Flood Action Groups

If they live within a flood risk area the best way for a member of the public to be involved is through a Flood Action Group. Flood Action Groups are a representative voice for their community and their aim is to work in partnership with the agencies and authorities whose work involves flood risk. Through the groups, members of the public can work on behalf of the wider community in finding ways to reduce flood risk.

The National Flood Forum supports communities in the formation of Flood Action Groups, gives tools to ensure their success and sustainability and initiates the first meeting with all the right professionals needed. Many groups have been formed since the June 2012 flooding. You can find out whether a group already exists in your area by contacting the National Flood Forum via their website.

Page | 59

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Parish and Town Councils

If you are interested in finding out more or would like to offer your time for local matters the Parish and Town Council in your area is good organisation to contact. They will already be operating and governing a range of tasks and may require assistance. You can find the contact details for your local Parish or Town Council via the West Sussex County Council website.

West Sussex Community and Economic Development Teams

West Sussex County Council has three Community and Economic Development Team’s responsible for community projects. The three teams cover the Gatwick Diamond area, the coastal area and the rural inland area. The teams are able to advise on local contribution work that members of the public can get involved with.

Gatwick Diamond Team (Email: [email protected]) This team covers the parishes of: Albourne, Ansty and Staplefield, Ardingly, Ashurst Wood, Balcombe, Bewbush, Billingshurst, Bolney, Broadbridge Heath, Broadfield, Burgess Hill, Colgate, Crawley, Cuckfield, East Grinstead, Furnace Green, Fulking, Gatwick, Gossops Green, Hassocks, Haywards Heath, Horsham, Horsted Keynes, Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common, Ifield, Industrial, Itchingfield, Langley Green, Lindfield, Lower Beeding, Maidenbower, Newtimber, Northgate, Nuthurst, Pound Hill, Poynings, Pyecombe, Rudgwick, Rusper, Shipley, Slaugham, Slinfold, Southgate, Southwater, Three Bridges, Turners Hill, Twineham, Warnham, West Green, West Hoathly and Worth.

Coastal Team (Email: [email protected]) This team covers the parishes of: Aldingbourne, Aldwick, Angmering, Arundel, Barnham, Bersted, Bognor Regis, Burpham, Clapham, Clymping, Coombes, East Preston, Eastergate, Felpham, Ferring, Findon, Ford, Houghton, Kingston, Lancing, Littlehampton, Lyminster and Crossbush, Madehurst, Middleton-on-Sea, Pagham, Patching, Poling, Rustington, Slindon, Sompting, South Stoke, Walberton, Warningcamp, Worthing and Yapton.

Rural Team (Email: [email protected] This team covers the parishes of: Amberley, Appledrum, Ashington, Ashurst, Barlavington, Bepton, Bignor, Birdham, Bosham, Boxgrove, Bramber, Bury, Chichester CP, Chidham and Hambrook, Cocking, Coldwaltham, Compton, Cowfold, Donnington, Duncton, Earnley, Eartham, Easebourne, East Dean, East Lavington, East Wittering, Ebernoe, Elstead and Treyford, Fernhurst, Fishbourne, Fittleworth, Funtington, Graffham, Harting, Henfield, Heyshott, Hunston, Kirdford, Lavant, Linch, Linchmere, Lodsworth, Loxwood, Lurgashall, Marden, Midhurst, Milland, North Mundham, Northchapel, Oving, Parham, Petworth, Plaistow, Pulborough, Rogate, Selsey, Shermanbury, Sidlesham, Singleton, Southbourne, Stedham with Iping, Steyning, Stopham, Storrington and Sullington, Stoughton, Sutton, Tangmere, Thakeham, Tillington, Trotton with Chithurst, Upper Beeding, Upwaltham, Washington, West Chiltington, West Dean, West Grinstead, West Itchenor, West Lavington, West Thorney, West Wittering, Westbourne, Westhampnett, Wisborough Green, Wiston, Woolbeding and Woodmancote.

Page | 60

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Chapter 3 - Work Programme and Action Plan

West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

“I have seen what can be achieved when communities and local partners work together to solve the problems they face. I have seen apparently insurmountable problems overcome by partners working together with a common purpose, pooling their energy and resources... as a society we can rise to the challenge of our changing climate and tackle the risks we face.”

Richard Benyon, Former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

Objectives

To reflect the Governments strategic objectives in the local context, West Sussex County Council have agreed, in partnership with the Districts and Boroughs, the following objectives to guide local focus and progress. These are to:

• Understand the areas that flood 1

• Manage the flood risk in West Sussex 2

• Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together 3 more effectively

• Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents

All work undertaken by all flood risk management authorities in West Sussex will need to make progress under one or more of these objectives. The action plan (Appendix F) sets out the actions which will be taken to achieve these objectives. Each of the items in the work programme (Appendix D) are referenced against these four objectives.

Page | 61

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

• Understand the areas that flood 1

The first step in finding solutions to flooding problems is an accurate understanding of where, when and how flooding occurs. There are some areas across the county where there is a lack of evidence and data to support decisions about the best way to reduce flood risk. The County Council will continue collect and analyse information to support this Strategy and its new role.

• Manage the flood risk in West Sussex 2

The next step, following improved information on flood risk, is what can be done to reduce the risks. There is limited funding to deliver works, so money for physical schemes must be prioritised, other funding sources utilised, and other ways to reduce local flood risk considered. Reducing local flood risk includes avoiding inappropriate development and reducing coastal erosion, and considering local resilience measures such as flood warnings and property level protection as well ensuring maintenance of drainage assets.

• Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together 3 more effectively

West Sussex County Council will work with the flood action groups and other community groups to understand the local risks. We will ensure that information in the public domain is kept up to date and is clear and descriptive as possible. We will work with partners to ensure, that as far as possible, people making enquiries about flooding aren’t passed between the relevant authorities. Between public bodies, we will seek the best ways of enabling partnership funding for schemes. We will continue to work closely with our partners, and share information.

• Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents

West Sussex County Council with the Sussex Resilience Forum category 1 and 2 responders will continue to improve emergency plans. We will continue to develop these plans and other flood event responses to take into account the recommendations of the investigations into the June 2012 event and other relevant historic investigations. West Sussex County Council’s Resilience and Emergencies team will work with local communities

Page | 62

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

and parish, town, district and borough councils to improve community resilience to flooding and other extreme weather events.

The local programme and funding

West Sussex County Council along with all other county and unitary authorities are funded by a Formula Grant provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Together with locally collected council tax, the two resources fund the entire range of services administered by the council. Flood risk management is one of these services which must be considered alongside health and social care commissioning, communities commissioning, strategic development, public health, finance and assurance, service operations, adult services and child services. West Sussex County Council has to decide how much to allocate to each service, and consider flood risk management priorities against other investment needs.

This section describes how flood risk management investment in West Sussex is funded. Budgets are limited so it is important to identify exactly what can be done, what will require addition contributions, and what can be programmed to happen at a later date. There are various funding streams available to fund projects, some of which are new.

The Pitt Review 2007 recommended that a new funding scheme should be implemented to allow community and third party groups to invest in flood risk management. The new funding mechanism is now active and grants money based on what benefits will be delivered by the project (a payment based on outcomes). This payment is made from the main pot of annual funding which is called ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’. The key benefits considered in the payment are the reduced risk to; householder property, infrastructure, vulnerable communities, environmental benefits, and benefit to businesses and agriculture.

The funding process aims to encourage those that will benefit from the flood improvement works to contribute financially. This mechanism was put in place to draw in funds and bolster the Flood Defence Grant in Aid pot of money. Defra has set new principles for the new national funding systems. These include:

- Increase the total amount of available resources for flood risk management;

- Enable more cost effective options to be chosen;

- Enable more projects to be funded;

- Funds will be prioritised and available to those most at risk and who need it most;

- All risk management authorities will have equal access to bid for money for projects;

- The general tax payer should not pay towards protecting new developments, now or in the future;

- Greater local decision making should not compromise the future programme of projects waiting for funding;

Page | 63

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

- Catchment Flood Management Plan policies and findings should be adhered to when bidding for projects and investing in flood risk management;

- Maintain the widespread take up of flood risk insurance by maintaining flood risk effectively.

Using this funding process some projects will be fully funded while some will achieve only partial funding. The balance is decided on the amount of benefit that the project would deliver. If partial funding is achieved, the shortfall in the total project cost is expected to be met by a contribution or by revising the proposal.

Funding can be applied for by any risk management authority or can be made by other bodies via the Lead Local Flood Authority to the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.

Developer Flood Defence Local contributions Grant in Aid businesses

Local Highways authority funding funding Flood Risk Management Environment Local Agency Funds residents

Other risk Central RFCC local management government levy funding authorities initiatives

Figure 11: The funding avenues available for flood risk management works

Page | 64

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The Work Programme

The work programme (Appendix D) is compiled of actions from existing plans, strategies and from the current list of work (‘The Medium Term Plan’) that is scheduled for 2013/14. The programme is compiled of projects from these sources:

- Existing works schedules agreed from previous years (works already on the Medium term Plan) - Shoreline Management Plan - Catchment Flood Management Plan - Surface Water Management Plans - West Sussex County Council Report on June 2012 Flood Event - Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Scheme - Flood Risk Regulations 2009 work schedules - Flood and Water Management Act 2010 work schedules - The Water Framework Directive work schedules - The Highways Authority (West Sussex Country Council) - District and Borough led work

The work programme does not currently include: - Future Southern Water infrastructure work (due to commercial sensitivity issues) - Highways Agency work

The identified projects and studies help achieve the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy’s objectives. The work programme will be a ‘live’ document and will be updated by the relevant risk management authorities and owned by the West Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Management Board. Some of the projects will be carried out solely using local funding and some will require the relevant risk management authorities to bid for funding from national Flood Defence Grant in Aid through the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.

A number of fluvial and coastal schemes are currently being progressed across the county by the Environment Agency, District and Borough Councils. The schemes include strategy development, flood alleviation works, and ongoing management of key assets including beach management, outfall and tidal walls. They have all achieved funding through the partnership funding approach. Due to their priority some projects have secured 100% funding because of the significant level of protection they provide a community. In other cases a contribution has been required in order to unlock the funding.

What is being done in my area?

The best way to identify projects or investigations in your area is to view Appendix D and find the alphabetically listed wet spots. Each line on the programme is a project or investigation.

Page | 65

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Not all villages and towns constitute a wet spot, nor do all wet spots have projects or investigations. The work programme will be updated regularly as new information on areas at risk becomes available and projects are developed to try and find solutions.

A full list of the current flood and coastal risk management schemes approved by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee can be found on the Environment Agency website.

How will projects on the work programme get funded?

Each year the risk management authorities will agree which projects should be put forward for national funding and then these projects will be considered by the elected members who form the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to see if they are suitable for funding.

Defra has recently changed the way in which risk management authorities can access funding for flood risk management activities. Under the new scheme funding can be gained based on the benefits delivered (known as ‘payment for outcomes’). Benefits are calculated by assessing indicators’ such as the number of households protected, the damages being prevented, the impact on vulnerable communities, environmental benefits, and benefits to businesses and agriculture amongst others. The Government developed the methodology in line with the Pitt Review recommendations.

The funding scheme aims to encourage those that will benefit from the flood alleviation scheme, such as community businesses and developers, to contribute financially. It is anticipated that this process will enable Defra to spread its finite resources more widely to fund more projects. Defra has devised a set of principles to support the new national funding system:

. Encourage an increase in total investment in flood risk management by operating authorities, beyond levels provided by central Government alone; . Enable more local choice within the system and encourage innovative and cost- effective options to be promoted; . Rather than some projects being fully funded and others not at all, now some funding will be available to all potential projects; . Funds from central government should prioritise protecting those most at risk and least able to help themselves; . All flood and coastal erosion projects, regardless of which risk management authority is leading it, should be treated equally based on the benefits delivered and damages avoided. . The general taxpayer should not pay to protect new development in areas at risk of flooding, now or in the future;

Page | 66

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

. Greater local input and decision making should not come at the expense of creating a stable pipeline of projects; . All investment should be made within a nationally consistent framework to take account of policies and findings within Catchment Flood Management Plans; . Maintain the widespread take-up of flood insurance by helping to keep insurance affordable through risks being managed properly.

Under this system some schemes will continue to receive complete funding, if the benefits significantly outweigh the costs, and for others partial funding would be available, and partnership contributions would be sought. Figure 12 illustrates the old ‘all or nothing’ system, and, the new approach. Funding can be applied for, on an annual basis, via the Government’s Flood Defence Grant in Aid. Applications are assessed by the Environment Agency at a Project Appraisal Board and applicants receive an indicative allocation of funding pending approval by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees.

Figure 12: Old ‘all or nothing’ system versus new ‘payment for outcomes’

Applications are open to the Environment Agency, West Sussex County Council, District and Borough councils, and Internal Drainage Boards. Funding from the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee’s local levy is also available for flood alleviation schemes, to tackle tidal, costal, fluvial and surface water flood risk.

Environmental assessment of the work programme

A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been undertaken to ensure that significant environmental effects arising from this strategy are identified, assessed and mitigated.

Page | 67

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

The Strategic Environmental Assessment is a generic tool that was introduced by the European Union Directive 2001/42/EC. The objective of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive is to “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”(Article 1)”. This requires national, regional and local authorities in Member States to carry out a strategic environmental assessment on certain plans and strategies that they promote, such as this strategy.

Monitoring of the significant environmental effects of implementing the strategy will be undertaken to comply with Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive - Article 10.1, to ensure that any unforeseen adverse effects of the strategy are recognised and dealt with.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out alongside the development of the Strategy. The assessment represents Stage A of the process, the scoping report. The scoping report sets the context and objectives of the environmental report, and sets the baseline information from which future environmental performance can be monitored. Both the strategy and the SEA have been consulted on, and are available as separate documents.

The Action Plan

The Action Plan The projects listed in the work programme are only part of the actions being taken to achieve the strategy objectives. Under each of the objectives there are a number of wider actions which will be carried out to reduce flood risk in the county. The timelines and persons likely to carry out these actions are set out in Appendix F and the actions are detailed below;

Objective 1 – Understanding the areas that flood

1A Increase the amount of evidence about local flooding that is collected and use it more wisely.

There are some areas where there is a lack of evidence and data to support decisions due to under investment into research and investigation on local flooding in the past. The County Council will continue collect and analyse information to support this Strategy and its new role. With the regular reviewing, sharing and updating of flood risk information our understanding of local problems will improve. This will result in better use of information to carry out actions to address local flooding issues. This could be through improved mapping, changing drainage maintenance to target high risk areas, influencing planning decisions and of course through building and maintaining drainage solutions where it is appropriate to do so. Information gathering will be aided by the County Council’s new flood investigation role,

Page | 68

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

feedback from Town and Parish Councils and sharing of reports from District, Borough and water utility partners.

1B Improve Surface Water and Groundwater Flooding Maps

Although there is a lots of very accurate data around where flooding may occur from rivers and the sea, the information surround surface water and groundwater flooding is less comprehensive and the flood warning maps are at a lower level of detail. This is mainly because until the Flood and Water Management Act no public body was given the responsibility to investigate these types of flooding. We will seek to gather all the relevant data on these types of flooding and use it to improve the level of detail we hold and publish. This work will use the surface water management plans previously carried out and those proposed in certain areas. This will mean that we, our partners and the public will be able to make more informed decisions around the level of risk that is faced and what to do about it. New surface water mapping is was made available on the Environment Agency’s website In December 2013.

Objective 2 – Manage the Flood Risk in West Sussex

2A Create a prioritised programme of capital flood risk management works for the county

By developing the programme attached to the strategy, we will aim to create a prioritise working list of capital works and studies from all flood risk management partners in the county including County Council. Environment Agency and District and Borough schemes. Southern and Thames water schemes will be included where possible but the different funding regime may mean an alternative partnership approach for joint working needs to be found. The joint programme will prioritise schemes to a set of criteria (using many of the existing social, economic and environmental factors) agreed by the partners and will allow us to make decisions around where funding should come from, which schemes will be built and what happens in areas where schemes are unlikely to be built. Some priority schemes will be submitted for consideration for inclusion on the medium term plan approval by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee ; where they can attracted Flood Defence Grant in Aid or Local Levy funding.

2B Avoid increasing flood and coastal erosion risk by encouraging best practice for the maintenance of assets and preventing inappropriate development.

We will work together with our partners to decide what development is acceptable in areas of flood risk; recognising that land is limited and that although these areas would ideally be avoided there may be social or economic reasons for developing there. We will work to ensure that flood risk in planning is considered on a consistent level and with conditions attached for approvals to make sure the required actions are carried out. Significant flood defence assets will continue to be added to the Flood Asset Register to ensure they are managed appropriately and considered as part of future solutions. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities (including the South Downs National

Page | 69

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Park Authority) to consider all flood risk when drafting development plans and in making decisions on development proposals. The assessment of local flood risks (which will be regularly reviewed) will assist in refining the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which inform the Local Plan development strategies of the local planning authorities within West Sussex i.e. District and Borough Councils and the South Downs National Park Authority.

2C Continued working to improve surface water drainage across the county:

West Sussex County Council will continue to work on smaller scale schemes, improvements and maintenance on the highways of West Sussex and, as well as other partners (especially District and Borough Authorities) will seek to improve local drainage in other areas where it is in the public benefit to carry out works. Surface water management plans will be carried out in some locations to identify how flooding occurs and suggest future actions. A county wide awareness campaign will be held to increase knowledge of riparian responsibilities and the benefits for communities of working locally to increase resilience. Local authorities will continue working with landowners and developers to ensure that legal responsibilities are met with respect to ordinary watercourse drainage consenting and enforcement.

Once government commences Schedule 3 and related sections of the Flood and Water Management Act, the County Council will become a Sustainable Drainage Approving Body, or SAB. All development over certain thresholds will need to secure drainage approval before construction begins. This gives the County Council the opportunity to ensure that new developments do not contribute to flooding from the drainage network causing.

2.D Reducing flood risk through improved warnings, local scale works and local resilience

The prioritised approach set out under objective 2A focusses major works on identified wetspots around the county. However this does not mean we will ignore the risk faced by the county’s rural, isolated or lower risk communities. It will be necessary for these flood risk areas to be treated in the same proportionate approach. Risk reduction may be more likely to be through improved awareness and response to flooding to reduce the impacts when it does occur rather than reducing the chances of it occurring. This will be carried out in partnership through working with the Environment Agency to deliver flood warnings, improve awareness of the flooding risks, increased local resilience and direct people towards self- protection of their property. Where possible we will help facilitate local small scale works through our other functions and community working, and may carry out local schemes if they have a strong community, economic or environment benefit.

Page | 70

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Objective 3 - Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together more effectively

3A Improving communications between communities and public bodies

West Sussex County Council will work with the flood action groups, Town and Parish Councils and other community groups to understand the local risks and ensure decisions are made with the best level of local information. We will ensure that information in the public domain is kept up to date and is clear and descriptive as possible. Explanations about what works we are carrying out and why will be made available and the limitations due to resources, technical considerations and other priorities clearly explained. We will work with partners to ensure, that as far as possible, people making enquiries about flooding aren’t passed between the relevant authorities unless necessary.

3B Information sharing to improve awareness of flood risk

Raising community awareness is a key activity. Flood risk cannot be removed entirely but we can work to help prepare individuals and communities by providing the right information to those who need it. The County Council and its partners will undertake focussed awareness raising programmes highlighting which areas are at risk and the actions communities can take to minimise the impacts of flooding. Local resilience work will identify those at risk and help them prepare for flood risk and provide support and assistance, especially for vulnerable people.

3C Continued partnership working with other Risk Management Authorities

West Sussex County Council as LLFA will continue to chair both the strategic board and operations group. Where duties are best delivered at a local scale we will seek to work with our partners to agree who is best placed to carry out this work, recognising that local expertise and resources currently exist. When the SAB duty is implemented we will work with the local planning authorities and Environment Agency in to ensure that the planning and drainage approval processes work together effectively.

3.D Seek the best ways of enabling Partnership Funding for schemes

Collaborative working and joint funding across partner organisations will be key to maximising the return on investment in flood risk management .Any new capital schemes will likely require some form of partnership funding as well as central government funding in order to progress (as discussed later in the chapter), the local risk management authorities led by West Sussex County Council will develop an approach to agreeing partnership funding requirements to ensure the best use of local public funds. This will ensure that public money is used wisely, in a strategic way to protect the areas at greatest risk. Officers will also seek other sources of funding which could be used for this purpose and help communities and businesses make their own contributions which will likely increases their chances of receiving flood defence works in their area. In order to facilitate fundraising efforts a specific funding action plan will be developed for the highest priority schemes identified in the programme. This will entail research, analysis, review of contacts and

Page | 71

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

experience, and discussions with partners, funders and others to better understand what potential there is for funding any identified projects.

Objective 4 - Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents; both during flood events and to recover as quickly as possible after incidents

4A Continued flood event planning with other emergency responders

West Sussex, along with the other members of the Sussex Resilience Forum category 1 and 2 responders, will continue to develop, appraise and revise its emergency plans to take account of local factors and developing information on flood risk. We will continue to develop these plans and other flood event responses to take into account the recommendations of the investigations into the June 2012 event and other relevant historic investigations.

4B Improving community resilience

West Sussex County Council’s Resilience and Emergencies team will work with local communities and parish, town, district and borough councils to improve community resilience to flooding and other extreme weather events. Residents and communities need to harness local resources and expertise to help themselves in the event of an emergency, but in such a way that it compliments and enhances the emergency services capabilities. Local authorities across West Sussex will engage and develop community resilience and help people protect themselves and their property by making their homes and businesses more resilient to flooding.

LLFA Responsibilities under the Flood and Management Act 2010 Next Steps

This local flood risk management strategy for 2013 – 2018 represents the first step towards a co-ordinated county-wide approach to flood risk management. The strategy sets out the roles, responsibilities, objectives, and the priorities of the risk management authorities. The local authorities and Environmental Agency, in partnership with the other risk management authorities and key stakeholders, will use the investigations and projects on the work programme to manage local flooding issues across West Sussex over the next five years.

The key focus for the first five years is to carry out improvements to address known local flooding problems. The priority wet spots, identified by mapping and historic flood risk, are to be considered first, but any value for money project with positive benefits, irrespective of its location, will be considered. In times of austerity, funding capital works is going to be challenging, especially where projects are required to have some partnership contributions in order to proceed. It may be that in many areas the risk of flooding is managed through early

Page | 72

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

flood warnings and local resilience measures. Local authorities will also help communities take action to help themselves and carry out their own riparian responsibilities.

The work programme (Appendix D) will be reviewed by the West Sussex County Council Operations Group and Strategic Board. The work programme will be updated with progress, new information and new projects that emerge, and will be prioritised so that all projects, be they large or small, from all sources of flooding are considered on an equal basis.

As well as physical works, the risk management authorities in West Sussex will seek to reduce flood risk through their other actions (Appendix F) such as planning and development control, highways management, consenting of watercourses and drainage works. We will seek to retain and develop the expertise already present in the County Council as well as increasing capacity where required. Through collaborative working and addressing issues at the appropriate authority level, be that at town, parish, district, borough or county council we will make the best use of the resources and funding available. All the authorities involved are committed to delivering these objectives and to reduce flood risk to the communities of West Sussex. West Sussex County Council will continue to take responsibility and lead these meetings with the other stakeholders.

The strategy will be reviewed annually to check that objectives, actions and policies are appropriate and remain compatible and achievable. The work programme will be a continually evolving document and will be updated at least quarterly. A regular review of the action plan will be carried out at the same time and should highlight any issues which may affect the ability to deliver the objectives set out in the strategy. Minor changes to the strategy will be made as required and changes noted. If major changes are required due to new information or polices then a new public consultation will be held. For moderate changes a decision will be made by the West Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Management Board as to whether additional public consultation. The definitions of minor, moderate and major changes are set out below. The most up to date documents will always be found on the West Sussex County Council website

Types of change to strategy document:

Minor – text corrections that do not alter the context or outcomes of the strategy; mapping corrections; change where no further study or new information will be required.

Moderate – other changes to the Action Plan or Work Programme which may impact on the strategy delivery or textual corrections where context is altered; changes impacting a nationally designated sites, e.g. SSSI, NNR, AONB, Conservation Area.

Major – significant changes to the Action Plan or Work Programme affecting delivery of strategy objectives; mapping corrections that affect the numbers of properties affected by flooding or erosion leading to changes in the priority areas; changes of objectives; significant changes to Government policy including funding; changes impacting on internationally designated sites, e.g. SAC, SPA, RAMSAR and MCZ

Page | 73

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix A

The Project Team

Organisation

Adur District Council

Worthing Borough Council

Arun District Council

Crawley Borough Council

Horsham District Council

Mid Sussex District Council

Chichester District Council

West Sussex County Council

Southern Water Services

Environment Agency

Page | 74

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix B

The Wet Spot Maps

Please note this Appendix to this strategy is a separate document. The wet spot maps included in the full appendix are;

Aldingbourne, Westergate & Eastergate Littlehampton Aldwick Littlehampton West & Climping Angmering Loxwood Arundel Middleton-on-Sea & Elmer Barnham & Walberton Midhurst Billingshurst North Mundham & Runcton Birdham Oving Bognor Regis & Felpham Pagham & Nyetimber Bosham Pulborough Bramber & Upper Beeding Rustington Burgess Hill Sayers Common Charlton Selsey (West) Chichester Selsey East Chidham Shoreham & Lancing Copthorne Sidlesham Crawley Singleton Earnley & Bracklesham Sompting East Dean Southbourne, Hermitage & Nutbourne East Grinstead Southwater East Preston Storrington East Wittering Tangmere & Boxgrove Ferring Coast & Rife Thorney Fishbourne West Itchenor Hassocks West Wittering Haywards Heath & Lindfield Westbourne Horsham Worthing Hunston

Page | 75

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix C

Legislation relevant to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Flood Risk Regulations 2009 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 The Coastal Protection Act 1949 Catchment Flood Management Plans 2008 Shoreline Management Plans Strategic Flood Risk Assessments The Climate Change Act 2008 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SFRA) 2001 Land Drainage Act 1991 Making Space for Water The Natural Environment and Communities Act 2006 The Reservoirs Act 1975 The Water Industry Act 1991 The Water Resources Act 1991 The Building Act 1984 The Health Act 2009 The Highways Act 1980 The Environment Act 1995 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (with respect to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Page | 76

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix D

The West Sussex Work Programme

Please note the full Appendix to this strategy is available as a separate document.

The work programme is listed alphabetically by wet spot. Some significant completed projects are included on the list. Dark blue lines show projects that have secured funding, and light blue lines show future projects.

The strategy objectives 1-4 are referenced against each project.

This work programme will be monitored and updated by the West Sussex Flood Risk Management Group as appropriate over the lifetime of the strategy. This update work will be informed by our partners.

Page | 77

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix E

Funding

Central Government has committed funds to Lead Local Flood Authorities through the revenue support grant so that Flood and Water management related responsibilities can be implemented. At the time of writing Defra is providing £36 million a year to Lead Local Flood Authorities to deliver their flood risk management functions. The amount of money provided to each unitary or county council depends on the level of risk in the area. West Sussex County Council were allocated £177k for 2011/12, £414k for 2012/13, and £414k for 2013/14. The District and Borough Councils have delegated responsibilities for managing some of the flood risk responsibilities that have been outlined and receive some of the allocated amount via West Sussex County Council.

From 2013, of the £36 million Defra money, £15 million will continue to be distributed by Defra, and the remaining £21 million will transfer into the general funding of the county council or unitary authority. The grant and revenue sources describe can be boosted by small incomes generated from Ordinary Watercourse Consenting and in the future, applications for Sustainable Drainage.

Within the West Sussex County Council total budget there are other funding streams that can be spent on flood risk. Kickstart was a £15 million allocation for community projects flood risk projects. Operation Watershed is the money allocated by West Sussex County Council to carry out some of the recommendations in the West Sussex Flood Report on the June 2012 flooding. This is an £8.25 million pot to fund improvement works in key areas that flooded. Another Defra initiative is the £5 million Pathfinder Project. West Sussex County have successfully bid for £298,000 of the Pathfinder funding for a flooding awareness and property level protection scheme.

West Sussex also contributes via the Local Levy to the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committees fund for flood alleviation schemes.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The community infrastructure levy came into force in April 2010 and allows Lead Local Flood Authorities to raise funds for flood risk management from new development. The Planning Act 2008 covers the Infrastructure Levy that states the levy can contribute toward a variety of infrastructure including transport, schools, hospitals, parks and schools and flood defences.

Section 106 funding – developer contributions Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 facilitates the provision of funds to support services or infrastructure. The agreement is made at the planning application stage between the developer or land owner, and the local authority. The funds can be used for

Page | 78

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

flood risk management should a proposal increase flood risk. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced in April 2010 as a mechanism for the developer contributions.

Town and Parish Councils The Localism Act enables Town and Parish Councils to spend money on flood risk management. This means that local members could contribute to a local scheme to unlock ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’ funding if partial funding has been achieved.

Internal Drainage Boards An Internal Drainage Board (IDB) is a local public authority that manages water levels. They are an integral part of managing flood risk and land drainage within areas of special drainage need in England and Wales. Internal Drainage Boards obtain income from rural land owners who pay agricultural drainage rates, and from District and Boroughs who are required to pay local levies. The Internal Drainage Boards spend their income on maintaining the watercourses, capital asset renewal and refurbishment, pumping station running costs and precepts payable to the Environment Agency. At the time of writing an IDB review was assessing the Environment Agency operation of IDB’s with a view to restructuring how these authorities conduct their work. The review is likely to affect the responsibility as it stands.

The three IDBs completely within West Sussex (Arun, Adur and South West Sussex) raise a total of approximately £300k per year.

Southern Water Southern Water’s income and expenditure on flood risk is regulated by Ofwat the Water Services Regulation Authority. Funding is not allocated by county but an amount is allocated to tackle sewer flooding and infrastructure improvements per 5 year period. From 2010 – 2015 £2 billion was allocated for improving assets, improving services and environmental improvements. Southern Water will be able to contribute to combined sewer flood risk projects and unlock ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’ funding.

Environment Agency The key streams of funding for flood risk management are managed in West Sussex by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. These streams are the ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’ (from central Government), local levies (raises by the LLFA), precepts (collected from Internal Drainage Boards and landowner general drainage charges). Investment from this funding represents the backing for flood alleviation schemes for river, sea and local flooding.

Page | 79

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Appendix F

The Strategy Action Plan

The following table sets out the actions that will be progressed over the coming year by the Risk Management Authorities in West Sussex and other key partners. These actions will help work towards achieving the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy’s objectives. The managing and supporting partners who will deliver each action are detailed as well as the timescales over which the actions will be achieved.

The plan also includes any other strategic non – capital works which may help deliver the strategy objectives.

The Strategy Action Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis or more frequently if required.

KEY: WSCC - West Sussex County Council EA – The Environment Agency D+B – District and Borough Councils SDNPA – South Downs National Park Authority SW/TW – Southern Water/Thames Water HA – Highways Agency SRF – Sussex Resilience Forum and other emergency responders TC/PC – Town Councils/Parish Councils NFF – National Flood Forum

Page | 80

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Objective 1 – Understanding the areas that flood

Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale

1A Increase the amount of evidence about local flooding that is WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW Ongoing collected and use it more wisely TC/PC

1B Improve Surface Water and Groundwater Flooding Maps WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW Ongoing

Other Actions:

Review the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW June 2017 SDNPA

Completion of Worthing Surface Water Management plan Worthing BC WSCC, EA 2013

Elmer Sands Surface Water Management Plan Arun DC WSCC, EA, SW 2014

Lidsey Catchment Surface Water Management Plan Arun DC WSCC, EA, SW 2014

Continuing capture of flood incident data WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW Ongoing: SDNPA, TC/PC, HA Quarterly updates from D+B

Objective 2 – Manage the Flood Risk in West Sussex

Page | 81

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale

2A Create a prioritised programme of capital flood risk management WSCC, EA D+B, SW April 2014 works for the county

2B Avoid increasing flood and coastal erosion risk by encouraging D+B, EA, SDNPA, PC/TC, SW/TW Ongoing best practice for the maintenance of assets and preventing WSCC inappropriate development.

2C Continued working to improve surface water drainage across the WSCC D+B, EA, SW/TW, Ongoing county TC/PC,SDNPA

2.D Reducing flood risk smaller areas at risk through improved SRF EA, WSCC, D+B, Ongoing warnings, local scale works and local resilience SW/TW, NFF

Other Actions;

Operation Watershed WSCC PC/TC 2013-15

Defra Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder WSCC, NFF D+B, EA 2013-15

Ongoing maintenance works EA, WSCC, SW/TW , Private asset owners Ongoing D+Bs

Page | 82

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Objective 3 - Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together more effectively

Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale

3A Improving communications between communities and public bodies WSCC, D+B, EA, NFF, TW/SW, Ongoing SDNPA, TC/PC

WSCC, D+B, EA, 3B Information sharing to improve awareness of flood risk SDNPA, TW/SW, Ongoing TC/PC

3C Continued partnership working with other Risk Management D+B, EA, SDNPA, WSCC Ongoing Authorities TW/SW, TC/PC

3.D Seek the best ways of enabling Partnership Funding for schemes WSCC, D+B, EA, SW/TW, TC/PC 2013-14

Other Actions:

Sharing information across all public bodies websites WSCC, D+B EA, Ongoing

Regional liaison on flood risk matters with southern Lead Local Flood WSCC Ongoing Authorities through the South East Seven Quarterly

Regional Liaison through the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal WSCC, EA D+B, SW Ongoing Committee Quarterly

Page | 83

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Objective 4 - Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents; both during flood events and to recover as quickly as possible after incidents

Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale

4A Continued flood event planning with other emergency responders WSCC, SRF TC/PC Ongoing

4B Improving community resilience WSCC, D+B, EA, TC/PC, SRF Ongoing SRF

Other Actions:

Defra Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Project WSCC, NFF D+B, EA 2013-14

Page | 84

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

NOTES (Blank Page)

Page | 85

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

NOTES (Blank Page)

Page | 86

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

NOTES (Blank Page)

Page | 87

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 2

Page | 88

Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

WEST SUSSEX WORK PROGRAMME WEST SUSSEX OBJECTIVES 1 •Understand the areas that flood This work programme is up to date as of 28th November 2013 •Manage the flood risk in West Sussex Updated by : J Carter 2 •Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together more 3 effectively The light blue lines indicate projects that have not yet secured funding •Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents The dark blue lines indicate projects that have already been scheduled 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents

PROPERTY SOURCE OF Y T BENEFITING WORK - I TIME- Joint WSCC WET SPOT R DISTRICT ACTION OBJECTIVE FROM LEAD WHICH PLAN COST In progress? O SCALE OBJECTIVE I REDUCTION IN IDENTIFIED funded? R P FLOOD RISK IT?

ALDINGBOURNE, Remove obsolete structure, Structures or other WESTERGATE & mechanisms in place and managed to enable fish to To improve regulated flows, Appropriate 1 Understand CHICHESTER / ENVIRONMENT 5-10 EASTERGATE, access waters upstream and downstream, operational management of impoundment, Modify 0 WFD £100k No the areas ARUN AGENCY YRS ⌧ BARNHAM & and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach structures that flood WALBERTON control etc

ALDINGBOURNE, WESTERGATE & EASTERGATE, 2 Provision of new ditch on private lane from BARNHAM & CHICHESTER A29/90 Shripney Road 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £110K No Manage Sack Lane southward. ⌧ WALBERTON, flood risk TANGMERE & BOXGROVE

2 ENVIRONMENT ANGMERING ARUN Fluvial and surface water flood alleviation scheme Address flood risk in Angmering 317 2-5 YRS MTP £750k Yes Manage AGENCY ⌧  flood risk

2 Address flood risk in Arundel (note: ENVIRONMENT 5-10 £9.2 ARUNDEL ARUN Arundel town defence improvements 129 MTP Yes Manage significant contributions still required) AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk

1 Understand ARUNDEL, Recommend options for flood risk ENVIRONMENT ARUN Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy 0 0-2 YRS MTP £718K No the areas LITTLEHAMPTON management at the River Arun AGENCY ⌧  that flood

BARNHAM & WALBERTON, Recommend options for flood risk 1 Understand ENVIRONMENT ALDINGBOURNE, ARUN Aldingbourne and Barnham Rifes Fluvial Strategy management on the Barnham and 0 0-2 YRS MTP £435K No the areas AGENCY ⌧ WESTERGATE &  Aldingbourne Rifes that flood EASTERGATE

2 BILLINGSHURST HORSHAM C12 Marringdean Road Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £75K No Manage ⌧ flood risk

WSCC 3 BOGNOR REGIS & RIPARIAN ARUN Land owner works to be undertaken Identify options for future improvement work 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £1k No Work FELPHAM OWNERS ⌧  REPORT together

Understand the need for improved flood WSCC BOGNOR REGIS & Work with the local community to identify the need for SWS, EA, WSCC, 4 ARUN warning and cordination, and increased local 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £1k Yes FELPHAM ‘Local Community Flood Wardens’ ADC Resilience ⌧  participation REPORT Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

Investigate the current state of the water WSCC 1 Understand BOGNOR REGIS & Investigate the current state of the watercourses that body and recommend the best option for SWS, EA, WSCC, ARUN 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £5k Yes the areas In progress FELPHAM discharge into the Aldingbourne Rife. future management (linked with the outcome ADC  REPORT that flood of the IDB Project)

1 Understand BOGNOR REGIS & Produce a Surface Water Management plan for Investigate drainage and recommend ARUN 0 WSCC 0-2 YRS CFMP £100k No the areas FELPHAM Bognor improvement works ⌧  that flood

2 Improve the sea walls to protect to a 5% BOSHAM CHICHESTER Bosham Sea Wall Repairs 24 WSCC 0-2 YRS MTP £177k Yes Manage annual probability ⌧ flood risk

Improve flood resilience by the production of Produce an Emergency Response Plan for Burgess 4 BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX a response plan for Category 1 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £2k No Hill Resilience ⌧ organisations

1 Understand ENVIRONMENT BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX Install Water Level Gauges Improve flood forecasting 0 2-5 YRS CFMP £1k No the areas AGENCY ⌧ that flood

2 Take forward actions in Wivelsfield Land Drainage Implement flood risk management BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £50k No Manage Scheme improvements to reduce risk in Wivelsfield ⌧ flood risk

3 Promote the use of sustainable drainage techniques in Reduce surface water flooding by promoting BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £1k No Work new development sustainable drainage ⌧ together

1 Understand Produce a Surface Water Management Plan for Investigate drainage and recommend 5-10 BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No the areas Burgess Hill improvement works YRS ⌧ that flood

Provide plan and implement a consistant CHICHESTER 1 Understand Development and implementation of the Selsey, CHICHESTER CHICHESTER approach to managing the beach frontage 595 DISTRICT 0-2 YRS MTP £950K Yes the areas Bracklesham and East Wittering Beach Management ⌧ and the beach profiles. COUNCIL that flood

2 CHICHESTER CHICHESTER A286 New Park Road/Spitalfield Lane Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £30K No Manage ⌧ flood risk

2 CHICHESTER CHICHESTER A285 Portfield Way Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £50K No Manage ⌧ flood risk

1 Understand Investigate drainage and recommend CHICHESTER CHICHESTER Manhood Peninsula Surface Water Management Plan 0 WSCC 0-2 YRS None £120k No the areas improvement works ⌧ that flood

Provision of new drainage channel adjacent 2 EARNLEY AND Earnley Improvement Works - Bookers Lane Flood ENVIRONMENT CHICHESTER to Bookers Lane houses to provide flood 29 0-2 YRS None £322k Yes Manage BRACKLESHAM Alleviation Channel AGENCY In progress  alleviation during major storm events. flood risk WSCC 2 Carry out highways drainage repairs that have been Improvements to existing highway drainage EAST PRESTON ARUN 12 WSCC 2-5 YRS FLOOD £8k No Manage previously identified in the area In progress REPORT flood risk

Consider the installation of suitable sized pipe within WSCC 2 Improvements to existing highway drainage EAST PRESTON ARUN the existing ditch lne adjacent to Tamarisk Way, thus 12 WSCC 2-5 YRS FLOOD £30k No Manage in the area In progress reducing the future need for management REPORT flood risk

WSCC 1 Understand Commission investigation of the buried outfall at East Understand the asset, its function and EAST PRESTON ARUN 12 WSCC 2-5 YRS FLOOD £10k No the areas Preston. Agree future maintenance arrangements determine whether further work is required In progress REPORT that flood Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

2 Address pinch points for fluvial and surafce ENVIRONMENT EAST WITTERING CHICHESTER Investigation and potential improvements work 135 2-5 YRS MTP £1 million Yes Manage water flood risk AGENCY ⌧  flood risk

Clear silt and possible obstructions from the existing WSCC 2 FISHBOURNE CHICHESTER culverts under the A27 and A259, Fishbourne Road Improve conveyance and prevent blockage 50 Highways Agency 2-5 YRS FLOOD £5k No Manage In progress West REPORT flood risk

Commission work to study the catchment area around WSCC 2 Investigate existing catchment and consider FISHBOURNE CHICHESTER Fishbourne Road East to see what long term 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS FLOOD £10k No Manage upstream attenuation In progress improvements could be made in this area REPORT flood risk

Continue work with Fishbourne Road East to see what WSCC 2 improvements, if any, can be made to the existing Understand the drainage in the area and FISHBOURNE CHICHESTER 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS FLOOD £5k No Manage In progress drainage in the area of Blackboy Lane and Old Park identify future recommendations REPORT flood risk Lane.

1 Understand HAYWARDS HEATH & Produce a Surface Water Management plan for Investigate drainage and recommend MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £100k No the areas LINDFIELD Haywards Heath improvement works ⌧ that flood

Assess whether structures can be modified : Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV 1 Understand HAYWARDS HEATH & Investigate the alteration of channel bed ENVIRONMENT 5-10 MID SUSSEX survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, 0 WFD £10k No the areas LINDFIELD (within culvert) AGENCY YRS ⌧ identifying those which can be removed or that flood improvements made

Assess whether structures can be modified : Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV 1 Understand HAYWARDS HEATH & ENVIRONMENT 5-10 MID SUSSEX survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, Investigate re-opening existing culverts 0 WFD £10k No the areas LINDFIELD AGENCY YRS ⌧ identifying those which can be removed or that flood improvements made

1 Understand Produce a Surface Water Management plan for Investigate drainage and recommend HORSHAM HORSHAM 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £100k No the areas Horsham improvement works ⌧ that flood

Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV 1 Understand survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, To improve modified habitat by modifying ENVIRONMENT 5-10 HORSHAM HORSHAM 0 WFD £10k No the areas identifying those which can be removed or structures AGENCY YRS ⌧ that flood improvements made (eg: alternation of channel bed).

2 Make the structure compliant with the ENVIRONMENT HORSHAM HORSHAM Warnham Mill Reservoir 80 0-2 YRS MTP £1 million Yes Manage Resertvoirs Act AGENCY ⌧ flood risk

2 HORSHAM HORSHAM A281 Brighton Road Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £25K No Manage ⌧ flood risk 2 HORSHAM HORSHAM A281 Guildford Road/Furnace House Farm Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £20K No Manage ⌧ flood risk

Works to take place during current Horsham 2 Drainage improvement works in West Street, HORSHAM HORSHAM District Council road / pavement N/A WSCC 0-2 YRS KICKSTART N/A Yes Manage Horsham. ⌧ improvement works. flood risk

Review and determine work required at Foreshore and Sea Road Waste Water Pumping stations to ensure Understand the flood risk at Foreshore and WSCC 1 Understand SOUTHERN LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN robustness of operation at these locations. This will Sea Road and make recommendations for 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £10k No the areas WATER In progress  include the consideration of new pumps for the improvements REPORT that flood Foreshore WWPS

Complete drainage model for Littlehampton catchment Understand the flood risk in Littlehampton WSCC 1 Understand SOUTHERN LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN to understand and determine future investment needs and make recommendations for 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £10k No the areas WATER In progress  due to growth and possible future flooding improvements REPORT that flood Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

WSCC 1 Understand Investigate the possibility of diverting excess surface Investigate options to improve existing LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS FLOOD £5k No the areas water from South Terrace into the Oyster Pond highways drainage system ⌧  REPORT that flood

2 Improve the standard of protection to 0.3% ENVIRONMENT £10.5 LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN Littlehampton Arun Tidal Defences East Bank 748 0-2 YRS MTP Yes Manage annual probability AGENCY million ⌧  flood risk 2 ENVIRONMENT LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN River Arun West Bank Reduce tidal flood risk to Littlehampton 139 2-5 YRS MTP £8 million Yes Manage AGENCY ⌧  flood risk

Identify the future management requirements at Identify the owners of structures to assess ENVIRONMENT 1 Understand LOXWOOD CHICHESTER Loxwood by completing the The Arun Rother whether they can be removed to improve 0 AGENCY / 0-2 YRS WFD £1k No the areas ⌧ Adaptation Project. fish passage and meet WFD targets WSCC that flood

SOUTHERN 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Separation of roof and paved areas connecting to foul Reduce inflow to foul sewer system and 5-10 ARUN 427 WATER SWMP £50k Yes Manage & ELMER sewer separation of flows. Reduce foul flooding. YRS ⌧  WSCC flood risk

2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Interception of roof run-off contribution to soak aways, Delay rainfall reaching drainage assets and 5-10 ARUN 427 WSCC SWMP £75k Yes Manage & ELMER install water butts (Elmer only) ground YRS ⌧  flood risk

Improve private foul drainage resilience to surface Reduce inflow into foul sewer system and 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA ARUN water inflow, appraisal based on integrated models improve separation of flows. Reduce foul 50 WSCC 2-5 YRS SWMP £50k Yes Manage & ELMER ⌧  flood mapping (prioritise the highest risk 50 properties) flooding flood risk

Investigation into the 127 remaining properties : Reduce inflow into foul sewer system and SOUTHERN 1 Understand MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Improve private foul drainage resilience to surface ARUN improve separation of flows. Reduce foul 127 WATER 2-5 YRS SWMP £10k Yes the areas & ELMER water inflow, appraisal based on integrated models ⌧  flooding WSCC that flood flood mapping

SOUTHERN 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA ARUN Install tide flex flap on two current flap valves Reduce risk of failure 50 WATER 2-5 YRS SWMP £100k Yes Manage & ELMER ⌧  WSCC flood risk

2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Install a headwall on the French drain, including for a ARUN Reduce flood risk from the Elmer Rife Ditch 50 WSCC 2-5 YRS SWMP £1k Yes Manage & ELMER tide flex valve to enable drainage (Ancton Lane) ⌧  flood risk

Reinstate / improve surface water drainage connection Reduce inflow into foul sewer system and 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA ARUN to land drainage system north of Ancton Way. improve separation of flows. Remove 50 WSCC 2-5 YRS SWMP £20k Yes Manage & ELMER ⌧  Remove flooding in Ancton Way and Elm Drive flooding in Ancton Way / Elm Drive flood risk

Reduce surface water inundation of foul Utilise Sustainable Drainage Systems where possible, 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA sewers and private connections. Reduce ARUN in the estate. Attenuate surface water locally inside 427 WSCC 2-5 YRS SWMP £100k Yes Manage & ELMER magnitude of catchment flooding ie. ⌧  catchment flood risk Controlled attenuation

Install a new surface water sewer system, inclusive of 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 5-10 ARUN a dedicated surface water pumping station and rising Full catchment Solution 427 WSCC SWMP £600k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧  main discharging to sea serving the Hard flood risk

2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Install a new surface water sewer system in The Hard, Provide improved surface water drainage in 5-10 ARUN 50 WSCC SWMP £400k Yes Manage & ELMER gravitating to a new outfall the Hard YRS ⌧  flood risk Adoption of ‘Polder style’ drainage system. (inc re- Full solution. But, more applicable SOUTHERN 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 5-10 ARUN introduce old and new drainage ditches / Rife assuming higher sea levels ie climate 50 WATER SWMP £30k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧  Systems) change higher groundwater conditions WSCC flood risk Work with the residents of Elmer and Flood Action WSCC 3 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA SWS, EA, WSCC, ARUN Group to improve the standard of land drainage in the Improve existing local land drainage 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £1k Yes Work & ELMER ADC In progress  area REPORT together Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

SOUTHERN WSCC 1 Understand MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Progress the Lidsey Surface Water Management Plan Identify projects that can improve flood risk ARUN 0 WATER 0-2 YRS FLOOD £50k Yes the areas & ELMER after 2013 Winter data has been collected in the Lidsey Catchment In progress  WSCC REPORT that flood

Review the existing land drainage to understand to SOUTHERN WSCC 1 Understand MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Improve the effectiveness of the pumping ARUN understand and mitigate the impact on the waste 0 WATER 2-5 YRS FLOOD £30k Yes the areas & ELMER station near Sea Lane ⌧  water pumping station at Sea Lane WSCC REPORT that flood

WSCC MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Work with the local community to identify the need for SWS, EA, WSCC, 4 ARUN Improve local flood resilience 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £1k Yes & ELMER ‘local community flood wardens’ ADC Resilience ⌧  REPORT

Update and complete a detailed surface water WSCC 1 Understand MIDDLETON-ON-SEA SOUTHERN ARUN investigation into Hannah’s Groyne so as to Identify options for future improvement work 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £20k No the areas & ELMER WATER ⌧  understand capacity and any future works required REPORT that flood

2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA ENVIRONMENT 5-10 £1.2 ARUN Coastal defence works Reduce coastal flood risk to Elmer 124 MTP Yes Manage & ELMER AGENCY YRS million ⌧  flood risk

Assess whether structures can be modified : Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV 1 Understand PAGHAM & ENVIRONMENT 5-10 ARUN survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, Investigate re-opening existing culverts 0 WFD £10k No the areas NYETIMBER AGENCY YRS ⌧  identifying those which can be removed or that flood improvements made (eg: alternation of channel bed).

2 PAGHAM & Improve the standard of protection to 0.5% ENVIRONMENT £1.5 CHICHESTER Pagham Harbour Inland Defences 80 0-2 YRS MTP Yes Manage NYETIMBER annual probability AGENCY million ⌧  flood risk 2 PAGHAM & Reduce the erosion risk to the beach ARUN DISTRICT ARUN Pagham Beach Erosion Control Scheme 15 0-2 YRS MTP £650K Yes Manage NYETIMBER properties at Pagham Spit COUNCIL ⌧  flood risk

PAGHAM & NYETIMBER, BOGNOR Provide plan for a consistant approach to 1 Understand REGIS & FELPHAM, ARUN DISTRICT ARUN Arun to Pagham Beach Management Plan managing the beach frontage and the beach 0 0-2 YRS Local Levy £290K Yes the areas MIDDLETON-ON-SEA COUNCIL ⌧  profiles. that flood & ELMER, LITTLEHAMPTON

Consider the removal of hard engineering structures , PULBOROUGH, bank reprofiling, and other opportunities to 1 Understand ENVIRONMENT MIDHURST, ARUN restore/create/enhance aquatic and marginal habitats Improve the modified habitat 0 0-2 YRS WFD £100k No the areas AGENCY ⌧ BILLINGSHURST (as part of the Upper Arun and Rother Adaptation that flood Works)

2 Improve the standard of protection to 1% ENVIRONMENT £21 SELSEY WEST CHICHESTER Medmerry Managed Realignment 327 0-2 YRS MTP No Manage annual probability AGENCY million ⌧ flood risk

SELSEY WEST, Implementation of the Selsey, Bracklesham and East CHICHESTER 1 Understand Recharging beach levels, repairing failing SELSEY, EAST CHICHESTER Wittering Beach Management (5yrs 2016/17 to 675 DISTRICT 0-2 YRS None £900k Yes the areas structures ⌧ WITTERING 2020/21) COUNCIL that flood

Investigate drainage and recommend 1 Understand SHOREHAM & Produce a Surface Water Management Plan for 5-10 ADUR improvement works, plan would cover all the 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No the areas LANCING Shoreham YRS ⌧  catchment area East of the River Adur that flood

Improve flood resilience by the production of SHOREHAM & Produce a Multi Agency Flood Plan for Shoreham and 4 ADUR a response plan for Category 1 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £1k No LANCING Lancing Resilience ⌧  organisations Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

Improvement work in the Manor Way, A27 2 SHOREHAM & Ditch clearance and renovation in the A27 area of area, and Grinstead Lane, Monks Avenue, ADUR Unknown ADUR DISTRICT 2-5 YRS None £67k No Manage LANCING Lancing Mash Barn Lane, Brierley Gardens, Hadlow ⌧  flood risk Way and Barfield Park

2 SHOREHAM & Improve the standard of protection to 0.3% ENVIRONMENT £26 ADUR Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls Scheme 2,214 0-2 YRS MTP Yes Manage LANCING annual probability AGENCY million ⌧  flood risk Investigate drainage and recommend 1 Understand SHOREHAM & improvement works, covers the catchment ADUR Lancing Surface Water Management Plan 0 WSCC 0-2 YRS None £100k Yes the areas LANCING area to the Worthing administrative ⌧  that flood boundary West of the River Adur

1 Understand SHOREHAM, LACING Lower Tidal River Adur Flood Risk Management Recommend options for flood risk ENVIRONMENT ADUR 0 0-2 YRS MTP £285K No the areas & SOMPTING Strategy management at the River Adur AGENCY ⌧  that flood

2 ENVIRONMENT £1.75 SIDLESHAM CHICHESTER Sidlesham inland banks Rebuilding of banks already in place 146 2-5 YRS MTP Yes Manage AGENCY million ⌧ flood risk

2 STORRINGTON HORSHAM A283 Storrington Road Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £75K No Manage ⌧ flood risk

There are three culverts running underneath Desktop study, and CCTV survey if required, to the Emsworth Mill. The potential to open 1 Understand investigate where culverts are located within the 5-10 WESTBOURNE CHICHESTER these will be investigated. There may also 0 WSCC WFD £10k No the areas waterbody, and if there are opportunities to improve or YRS ⌧ be scope to improve the screening on the that flood remove them. culverts to better enable fish passage.

2 ENVIRONMENT WESTBOURNE CHICHESTER River Ems flood alleviation scheme Address flood risk on the River Ems 210 2-5 YRS MTP £2 million Yes Manage AGENCY ⌧ flood risk

Consider the installation of the new screens to more effectively remove solids and non-biodegradable WSCC 1 Understand SOUTHERN WORTHING WORTHING material at East Worthing waste water treatment Improve infrastructure resilience 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £2k No the areas WATER ⌧  works and help protect the downstream process REPORT that flood equipment

Complete 12 month improvement project programmed Improve resilience by upgrading screening, for this catchment. The scheme includes pumping and overall capacity. This will in WSCC 2 SOUTHERN WORTHING WORTHING refurbishment to the structure of the inlet works, turn lead to a reduction of reactive and 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £8 million No Manage WATER ⌧  installation of new screens, and new pumps to temporary work that cause disruption and REPORT flood risk upgrade the pumping capacity. odour to the local neighbourhood

Survey the larger diameter sewer that is located close WSCC 1 Understand SOUTHERN WORTHING WORTHING to the treatment works to ensure that it operates at full Determine whether further work is required 0 2-5 YRS FLOOD £2.5k No the areas WATER ⌧  capacity. REPORT that flood

2 Cleaning of existing infrastructure to SOUTHERN WORTHING WORTHING Cleaning of sewers in Worthing n/a 0-2 YRS n/a £3million No Manage improve conveyance WATER ⌧  flood risk

Improve flood resilience by the production of 4 WORTHING WORTHING Produce a Multi Agency Flood Plan for Worthing a response plan for Category 1 0 WSCC 2-5 YRS CFMP £1k No Resilience ⌧  organisations

WORTHING 2 Goring-by-sea - Development, delivery and Improve the standard of protection to 0.1% £2.75 WORTHING WORTHING 368 BOROUGH 0-2 YRS MTP No Manage construction of replacement groynes annual probability million ⌧  COUNCIL flood risk WORTHING 2 Worthing - Development, delivery and construction of Improve the standard of protection to 0.1% £2.073 WORTHING WORTHING 340 BOROUGH 0-2 YRS Local Levy No Manage replacement groynes annual probability million ⌧  COUNCIL flood risk Cabinet - 20th March 2014 Agenda Item 6(c) Appendix 3

Provide plan for a consistant approach to WORTHING 1 Understand WORTHING WORTHING Worthing Beach Management Plan managing the beach frontage and the beach 0 BOROUGH 0-2 YRS Local Levy £250K No the areas ⌧  profiles. COUNCIL that flood

Analysis of Brooklands Lake and its outfalls WORTHING 2 WORTHING WORTHING Brooklands Lake analysis into the sea is needed regarding its future 0 BOROUGH 2-5 YRS SWMP £15k No Manage ⌧  capacity and use as a balancing facility COUNCIL flood risk Investigation to identify whether public WORTHING 2 WORTHING WORTHING Worthing seafront area overtopping risk analysis spaces or highways could provide potential 0 BOROUGH 2-5 YRS SWMP £15k No Manage ⌧  for attenuation COUNCIL flood risk Investigate surface water relief measures at WORTHING 2 WORTHING WORTHING Investigation work on the Teville Stream Homefield Park as part of the current park 0 BOROUGH 2-5 YRS SWMP £15k No Manage ⌧  enhancement scheme. COUNCIL flood risk

2 A24/120 Horsham Road - North End House WORTHING WORTHING Drainage improvements 50 WSCC 0-2 YRS AMRM £60k No Manage (Northbound) ⌧  flood risk

1 Understand WORTHING, FERRING Create a hydraulic model of the Ferring Rife to inform ENVIRONMENT WORTHING Understand the drainage of the Ferring Rife 0 0-2 YRS MTP £50k No the areas COAST AND RIFE future recommendations AGENCY ⌧  that flood

31

32 Agenda Item 6(d) Report to Cabinet 20 March 2014 By the Director of Corporate Resources

DECISION REQUIRED Not exempt

BUSINESS RATES RETAIL RELIEF

Executive Summary

The Government announced in the Autumn Statement on 5th December, 2013 that it will provide a relief of up to £1,000 (£1,000 for a full year, pro rata for part years) to certain categories of occupied retail properties with a rateable value of £50,000 or less in each of the years 2014 -15 and 2015-16.

Local authorities are expected to use their discretionary relief powers in line with eligibility criteria. It is for each local authority to adopt a local scheme.

Local authorities will be fully reimbursed by Central Government for rate relief awarded under a local scheme.

Recommendations

The Cabinet is recommended: i) to agree that businesses broadly similar in nature to those shown on the eligibility list provided by Central Government will qualify for retail rate relief; ii) to agree that the implementation of the policy be delegated the Director of Corporate Resources

Background Papers None Consultation N/A Wards affected All Contact Tim Delany, Head of CenSus Revenues and Benefits Email: [email protected] Tel: 07889 721964

33 Agenda Item 6(d) Background Information

1 Introduction

The purpose of this report

1.1 This report sets out the proposals for a local policy in granting Retail Rate Relief in 2014/15 and 2015/16.

Background

1.2 The Government announced in the Autumn Statement on 5th December, 2013 that it will provide a relief of up to £1,000 to all occupied retail properties with a rateable value of £50,000 or less in each of the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

1.3 As this is a measure for 2014-15 and 2015-16 only, the Government is not changing the legislation around the reliefs available to properties. Instead the Government will, in line with the eligibility criteria set out in guidance, reimburse local authorities that use their discretionary relief powers, introduced by the Localism Act (under section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as amended) to grant relief. It will be for individual local billing authorities to adopt a local scheme and decide in each individual case when to grant relief under section 47. Central Government will fully reimburse local authorities for the local share of the discretionary relief (using a grant under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003). The Government expects local government to grant relief to qualifying ratepayers.

2 Statutory and Policy Background

Statutory background

2.1 Localism Act 2011

Relevant Government policy

2.2 Autumn Statement – 5th December 2013

3 Details

Eligibility Criteria

3.1 Properties that will benefit from the relief will be occupied hereditaments with a rateable value of £50,000 or less, that are wholly or mainly being used as shops, restaurants, cafes and drinking establishments. Central Government guidance states this description to mean:

i) Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public:

34 Agenda Item 6(d)  Shops (such as: a florist, bakers, butchers, grocers, greengrocers, jewellers, stationers, off licence, chemists, newsagents, hardware stores, supermarkets, etc.)  Charity shops  Opticians  Post Offices  Furnishing shops/display rooms (such as: carpet shops, double glazing, garage doors)  Car/caravan show rooms  Second hand car lots  Markets  Petrol stations  Garden centres  Art galleries (where art is for sale/hire)

ii) Hereditaments that are being used for the provision of the following services to visiting members of the public:  Hair and beauty services (such as: hair dressers, nail bars, beauty salons, tanning shops, etc.)  Shoe repairs/key cutting  Travel agents  Ticket offices e.g. for theatres  Dry cleaners  Launderettes  PC/TV/domestic appliance repairs  Funeral directors  Photo processing  DVD/video rentals  Tool hire  Car hire

iii) Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of food and/or drink to visiting members of the public:  Restaurants  Takeaways  Sandwich shops  Coffee shops  Pubs  Bars

3.2 To qualify for the relief the hereditament should be wholly or mainly being used as a shop, restaurant, café or drinking establishment. In a similar way to other reliefs (such as charity relief), this is a test on use rather than occupation. Therefore, hereditaments which are occupied but not wholly or mainly used for the qualifying purpose will not qualify for the relief.

3.3 The list below sets out the types of uses that government does not consider to be retail use for the purpose of this relief. We are to determine for ourselves whether particular properties are broadly similar in nature to those below and, if so, consider them not eligible for the relief under their local scheme.

35 Agenda Item 6(d) i) Hereditaments that are being used for the provision of the following services to visiting members of the public:  Financial services (e.g. banks, building societies, cash points, bureau de change, payday lenders, abetting shops, pawn brokers)#  Other services (e.g. estate agents, letting agents, employment agencies)  Medical services (e.g. vets, dentists, doctors, osteopaths, chiropractors)  Professional services (e.g. solicitors, accountants, insurance agents/financial advisers, tutors)  Post office sorting office

ii) Hereditaments that are not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public.

3.4 Within Horsham there are around 750 businesses with a rateable value of £50,000 or less who are likely to meet the qualifying criteria for this Retail Rate Relief. The authority will approach all businesses that fall into the qualifying criteria and award the relief rather than inviting applications.

State Aid

3.5 A number of businesses that may appear to qualify for retail relief will be excluded from doing so as a consequence of European Union regulation of state funded support for businesses. De Minimus Regulations allow an undertaking to receive up to 200,000 euros of De Minimus Aid in a 3 year period. Hereditaments likely to be affected by this are those that are part of a larger business.

Local Policy

3.6 As it is for individual local billing authorities to adopt a local scheme and decide in each individual case when to grant relief it is proposed that in setting the policy for Horsham that:

i) Retail rate relief is available to all qualifying businesses in Horsham, the relief not being restricted to businesses in specific locations: ii) Businesses broadly similar in nature to those shown on the eligibility list provided by Central Government will qualify. As a general rule, it is proposed to grant relief if a business is:

 wholly or mainly being used as a shop, restaurant, café and/or drinking establishment or is providing a service not of the type listed at 3.3i) and  is reasonably accessible to the general public.

Delegation

3.7 Given the nature of this scheme and the numbers of businesses likely to benefit, it is proposed that award of relief be delegated to the Director of Corporate Resources who will act in accordance with the Council’s policy.

36 Agenda Item 6(d) Appeals

3.8 It is possible that there will be businesses not awarded relief which feel that this is unjust. In these cases we need to have a mechanism by which this can be reviewed. It is therefore proposed that the Cabinet Member for Resources would hear an appeal. Subsequent appeal would be via the Complaints system and ultimately to the Ombudsman if necessary.

4 Financial Implications

4.1 The government has undertaken to fund the full cost of the Business Rate Retail Relief for 2014/15 and therefore there are no financial implications contained within this report.

7 Staffing Consequences

7.1 The additional work load will fall to the CenSus Revenues staff. It is not anticipated that the additional workload will create any financial pressure.

37 Agenda Item 6(d) Appendix 1

Consequences of the Proposed Action

What are the risks associated with the Additional work on CenSus Revs and Bens staff. proposal?

Risk Assessment attached Yes/No How will the proposal help to reduce Crime No impact and Disorder?

How will the proposal help to promote Human No Impact Rights?

What is the impact of the proposal on Equality No impact and Diversity?

Equalities Impact Assessment attached Yes/No/Not relevant How will the proposal help to promote No impact Sustainability?

38