APPENDIX B Information report Changing the management of two internal drainage districts near Gravesend April 2014 Contents Page Introduction 5 Purpose 5 Rationale 5 Timeline 6 National Background 7 Definitions: IDDs, IDBs and watercourses 7 History 8 Current governance 9 Local Background 11 Definitions: IDDs and IDBs west and east of Gravesend 11 History 11 Current governance 13 Roles, powers and responsibilities 14 Introduction 14 IDBs 14 Environment Agency 15 LLFAs 16 District Councils 16 Landowners 16 Strategic context 18 Introduction 18 North Kent Rivers Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 18 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100) 20 Habitat Creation Programme 21 South Thames Estuary and Marshes Water Level Management Plan (WLMP) 21 Nature Improvement Area 22 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies 22 Profile of the West of Gravesend IDD 24 Introduction 24 Watercourses within the IDD 25 Archaeology and historic monuments 25 Profile of the East of Gravesend IDD 26 Introduction 26 Watercourses within the IDD 27 Statutory designated sites 27 The future of the district 30 Archaeology and historic monuments 30 Financial information 31 Introduction 31 Income – grants and contributions 31 2 Income – drainage rates and special levy 32 Income – Higher Land Water Contributions (HLWC) 34 Additional funding 34 Expenditure – Environment Agency precept 36 Expenditure – maintenance 37 Annual report 37 Operation and maintenance 39 Assets 39 Asset inspections 39 Maintenance 40 Maintenance standards 40 IDB maintenance 41 Environment Agency maintenance 42 Incident / emergency response 43 Benefits assessment 45 Introduction 45 The Defra tool 45 Additional information 46 Enmainment and demainment of watercourses 46 Questions and answers 47 Glossary 51 Related documents Appendices Appendix A – Working with others to find new management arrangements Appendix B – Feedback report – revised Oct 2013 Appendix C – Precept report – East of Gravesend Appendix D – Precept report – West of Gravesend Appendix E – Accounts – East of Gravesend – 2008/2009 – 2012/2013 Appendix F – Accounts – West of Gravesend – 2008/2009 – 2012/2013 Appendix G – Large format maps Appendix H – West of Gravesend IDB Maintenance Programme Appendix I – East of Gravesend IDB Maintenance Programme Appendix J – West of Gravesend Environment Agency Maintenance Programme 3 Appendix K – East of Gravesend Environment Agency Maintenance Programme Appendix L – IDB set up flow diagram Appendix M – Assets register – West of Gravesend Appendix N – Assets register – East of Gravesend 4 Introduction Purpose 1. This report presents the evidence required to support local authorities’ and others’ deliberations on options for the future management of water levels in the West of Gravesend Internal Drainage District (IDD) and the East of Gravesend IDD. Much of the content is common to both IDDs. Where there is something specific to one, it appears like this: Implications for East of Gravesend Much of the content of the report is generic but where there is something specific to one IDD it appears like this. 2. It has been compiled by the Environment Agency using information from a number of sources: the Environment Agency locally, regionally and nationally; the local authorities whose boundaries fall within one or both IDDs; advice from Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) who have been involved in amalgamations and transfers of existing IDDs in the past; and guidance provided by Defra, the Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) and the Environment Agency in ‘Establishing New Internal Drainage Boards – Guidance’, available from: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/file/1997080 3. The compilation and use of this report is part of a process of engagement, shared decision making and action by local authorities, the Environment Agency and others that is ongoing. This is described in Appendix A. Rationale 4. For good reasons the Environment Agency does not normally administer IDDs. Where we inherited them from predecessor bodies we have over time transferred or dissolved their management according to local circumstances. The last few remaining ones, eight in total, are all located in the south east and include two in Kent: West of Gravesend IDD East of Gravesend IDD 5. We are aiming for a successful transition to more locally accountable arrangements in these locations. In doing so, they will be in tune with the guidance and requirements set by the government, ADA and the Environment Agency itself. 6. What must change is how these IDDs are managed. What need not change, unless those running them want it that way, is the quality of services provided 5 and the level of investment made in them. The Environment Agency will be there to help facilitate the transition of governance arrangements over the next year or so and to help inform and support whatever local priorities for water level management emerge as a result. 7. Local authorities pay towards these services and benefit from them. Most importantly they democratically represent others who do the same. As such, local authorities have the pivotal role to play in shaping a way forward that meets local needs. Timeline 8. Appendix A summarises the progress and plan for enabling local authorities to implement new governance arrangements for local water level management that meet local needs. It proposes a process of three steps: Step one: from April 2013 Awareness raised; relationships built; process in place for developing a shared way forward. Step two: from October 2013 Way forward led by local authorities, with Environment Agency support, who use information to make decisions about future water level management that meets local needs. Step three: from October 2014 Local solution secured, transitional ‘shadow’ arrangements developed for implementation April 2015. 6 National Background Definitions: IDDs, IDBs and watercourses 9. This Section describes what an IDD is, what an IDB is and what terms are used to classify watercourses in an IDD. IDDs 10. An IDD is an area of special drainage need. The area of an IDD is not determined by county or local authority boundaries. Instead, it reflects the definition of an IDD as set out under Section 1(a) of the Land Drainage Act 1991, as an area of land that “will derive benefit, or avoid danger as a result of drainage operations”. 11. The Medway Letter of 1933 was written as a statement, from the then Minister of State for Agriculture and Fisheries, in order to clarify the meaning of such areas as described in the Land Drainage Act 1930. The boundaries of some existing ones have been decided by the Medway Letter, and in some cases amended under mechanisms within the Land Drainage Act 1991. 12. The boundaries of an IDD take into account the topography of the area, and allow for the inclusion of low-lying areas at flood risk or which would derive benefit from water level management activities. Higher ground that would either be cut off by flood events or requires water levels to be managed carefully, for its own benefit or that of the wider catchment, may also be accommodated. 13. In some circumstances where there is significant justification and the benefits can be clearly demonstrated, exceptions may be made to the Medway Letter if agreed by the Minister. 14. The process for establishing a new IDB is discussed in the Additional Information section (195-8) and summarised as a flowchart in Appendix L. IDBs 15. An IDB is: “A public body that has been established under statute in areas of special drainage need in England and Wales, with permissive powers to undertake work to provide land drainage and water level management within their Internal Drainage District (IDD)” – ‘Establishing New Internal Drainage Boards – Guidance’, Environment Agency and ADA. Watercourses within IDDs 16. Within an IDD, watercourses can be classified under three headings: IDB Designated Watercourses Under Section 14 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, IDBs have a duty to exercise general supervision over all matters relating to drainage of the land within their districts. In addition they have permissive powers to carry out work 7 on all ordinary watercourses within their district except for those classified as Main Rivers. In practice however, most drainage boards choose to designate specific watercourses within their district upon which to carry out regular maintenance. Environment Agency Main River Main River is defined by Section 113 of the Water Resource Act 1991. It means all watercourses shown as such on the statutory Main River maps held by the Environment Agency and Defra, and can include any structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water into or out of the channel. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to carry out works of maintenance and improvement on these rivers. Other Ordinary Watercourses All other ordinary watercourses within the drainage district that do not fall into either of the above categories generally remain the primary responsibility of the riparian owners. History 17. This section summarises the origins and development of IDBs nationally, and the role the Environment Agency has had to play in the governance of a small fraction of them. 18. The forerunners of IDBs date back to the time of Henry III who established a Commission for the drainage of Romney Marsh in Kent in 1252. Many IDBs were established under the Land Drainage Act 1861, but some were established even earlier. Today, their work is controlled by the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by subsequent legislation. 19. Over the years IDBs developed piecemeal to meet local needs. In 2006 a review of the IDDs commissioned by Defra proposed fewer and bigger IDDs – a process of consolidation and modernisation to be carried out over subsequent years. 20. As IDDs have consolidated so have the IDBs that manage them. Since 2007 the numbers have dropped from 175 to 120 (and one in Wales) covering around 10 per cent of lowland England. ADA sees this trend as “almost solely the result of neighbouring boards amalgamating to create larger functioning units” and one set to continue with “the final number of IDBs in England..