Note to clarify statements made in the Minutes of the Environment and - - PDF document

Note to clarify statements made in the Minutes of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 23 July which were approved at the meeting held on 17 September 2013. The Environment Agency request that the Committee add this note to the Minutes of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 23 July 2013. The note clarifies some of the statements made in the Minutes.

• 1. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (d): The

EA prioritises its flood and coastal risk management work according to government policy and treasury guidance. Periodic reviews, (every 10 years) will be undertaken to consider factors that might influence or affect the EA work plan. EA clarification: The reference to periodic reviews relates to the reviews of the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy. These will consider if any factors that might affect the Strategy, such as changes to funding policy and revisions to climate change projections, have occurred. Major changes such as a decision to construct a Severn Barrage could prompt an earlier review.

• 2. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (f):

Funding is prioritised according to a benefit/cost ratio. Based on current legislation/guidance, the EA takes into consideration cost, economic benefit, environmental impact and potential risk before setting its spending priorities. There are no guarantees that prioritised work, however viable, will receive funding. EA clarification: The EA is required to spend taxpayers’ money where it delivers the greatest flood risk benefit and so focuses its work where it benefits most people and

• property. Investment is prioritised following government policy and treasury guidance.

When investing money the EA assesses the costs, economic benefits, environmental impact and flood risk to set its spending priorities. If the costs of carrying out work are higher than the economic benefits, then the work is not economically justified. Treasury rules are that public funding should not be spent on works that are not economic. If the benefits are greater than the costs then the work is viable but funding is still not guaranteed.

• 3. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (g): The

Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy covers the northern coastline from Lavernock Point, near Cardiff to Gloucester and along the southern coastline to Hinkley Point in Somerset (incorporating Gloucestershire, South West and Wales). The main aim of the strategy will be to assess, and subsequently manage tidal flood risk over the next 100 years. The strategy to be reviewed every 10 years to allow for changes in government legislation. EA clarification: The reviews will consider if any factors that might affect the Strategy, such as changes to funding policy and revisions to climate change projections, have

• ccurred.
• 4. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (k): In

estimating the remaining life of flood defences, the EA used the latest government

2

approved projections of climate change. The projections were then used to consider the impact of rising sea levels on the standard of protection offered. EA clarification: The EA has estimated the remaining life of the defences and has used latest government approved projections of climate change to model the impact of sea level rise on the standard of protection offered by the defences.

• 5. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (l): The
• riginal Strategy identified a number of concerns. These included; food security,

risks to livelihood, the falling value of land and properties, rising insurance premiums and what constituted adequate compensation. Another concern related to the EA’s proposals for the managed realignment of flood defences, and the creation of inter- tidal habitat. EA clarification: The EA produced public brochures on the long term Strategy for managing tidal flood risk in the Severn Estuary early in 2011. This followed high level policies set out in the Shoreline Management Plan produced by the Severn Estuary Coastal Group (which includes the EA and Gloucestershire County Council). A number

• f concerns were raised at that time. One of the greatest concerns was with proposals

for managed realignment of flood defences to allow for creation of compensatory inter- tidal habitat to meet the UK’s obligations under the Habitats Regulations (2010).

• 6. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (m): The

Government has a statutory obligation under the Habitats Regulations (2010) to compensate for inter-tidal habitat lost through coastal squeeze. Compensatory habitat creation is an essential element in the future of sustainable flood risk management, enabling the EA to legally maintain or improve flood defences along the Severn Estuary. As part of its work the EA estimated how much inter-tidal habitat will be lost in continuing to maintain and improve defences, and how to compensate for this to keep the strategy legal. To satisfy the government’s statutory obligations, realignment and habitat creation projects will only be taken forward with the agreement of land and property owners and following input from local communities. EA clarification: Continuing to maintain and/or improve tidal flood defences causes a loss of internationally important habitat. The Habitats Regulations (2010) requires compensatory habitat to be created to replace that which is lost. One method of compensating for the loss of habitat is the managed realignment of defences. These projects can provide protection for property and some land outside the new defences is used for habitat creation. Managed realignment is only taken forward with the agreement of land and property owners, and with input from the community.

• 7. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (n):

Conscious of the level of concern surrounding the original strategy, the EA has agreed to allow more time in helping local communities understand the management

• f flood risk, and welcomes local knowledge and input into shaping the revised

strategy. EA clarification: In response to concerns raised, the EA has been extensively engaging with communities and their representatives, explaining the Strategy, current and potential future flood risk and exploring flood risk management options with them based on this. The EA has welcomed their local knowledge and input into shaping the revised Strategy.

3

• 8. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (p): The

EA intends to maintain flood defences until 2030. This, however, will be dependent upon the amount of funding available. EA clarification: In all Gloucestershire areas, except Awre, there is an economic case to maintain the existing defences at least into the medium term (2030+) and many into the long term (2060 and beyond) depending on climate change. At Awre the EA is working with landowners to look at whether there is an economic case for a make-do

• ption to prolong the life of the existing defence as long as possible until such time that

investment is needed which will make this uneconomic. Areas that have significant numbers of properties at risk are likely to have an economic case to have their defences improved to keep pace with climate change into the long term (2060+) and beyond. The intention therefore is to continue to maintain, and in some places improve defences, where there is an economic case to do so. This is subject to the availability of funding.

• 9. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (q): The

EA believed there might have been confusion between the need to reduce funding in the short term, (due to the current economic climate) and references to funding in the proposed strategy. In clarifying the position, the EA said that the strategy would be looking at long-term proposals, where it was hoped flood defences could be maintained. EA clarification: The Strategy assesses tidal flood risk and considers how to manage this

• ver the next 100 years. It enables us all to plan for change and to identify future investment
• needs. The Strategy sets out the intention to continue to maintain and in some places

improve defences where there is an economic case to do so. This is subject to funding. Funding to maintain flood defences is allocated to the EA from Government. Currently we are going through a period where the need for flood risk maintenance work across the country outweighs the amount of public money available. There is currently not enough Flood Defence Grant in Aid revenue funding available to fully fund the maintenance of some existing flood defences along the Severn Estuary, due to other priorities nationally. This means stopping or reducing some activities. This is a separate/parallel issue to the Strategy.

• 10. Statement in Minutes - Key points highlighted during the presentation (s): The

EA intends to set up a sub-group of the Gloucestershire NFU Stakeholders Group (involving representatives from the Environment Agency (EA), National Union of Farmers (NFU), Country, Land and Business Association (CLA), Internal Drainage Board (IDB) and other community and landowner representations). The aim of the sub-group will be to explore what can be achieved by working with landowners and farmers in areas where there is no funding and in areas at greatest risk of reduced funding. EA clarification: The aim of the sub-group is to explore what could be achieved by working together with landowners, farmers and communities to enable effective maintenance of defences to continue along the Severn Estuary.

• 11. Statement in Minutes - Questions submitted before the meeting, Paragraph 2:

Responding to concerns about the management of flood risk in the Awre Peninsula, the EA confirmed that it had met with local landowners to consider whether there was an economic case to introduce a ‘make-do’ option from which to prolong the life of existing defences. It was suggested that, locations with a significant number of properties at risk were far more likely to have an economic case from which to

4

improve its defences, due to their attempts to keep pace with climate change. The EA said that the criteria for maintaining and improving flood defences depended upon whether there was an economic case to do so. EA Clarification: Areas that have significant numbers of properties at risk are more likely to have an economic case to have their defences improved to keep pace with climate change.

• 12. Statement in Minutes - Questions submitted before the meeting, Paragraph 4:

The EA said it was keen to improve its understanding of the fluvial and coastal processes affecting the upper estuary. Subject to government funding, the EA hoped this might include an extension of the regional coastal monitoring programme to take in the upper estuary. The EA is currently working with PHD students at Cardiff University to gather scientific evidence from which to support technical data. EA clarification: The EA is meeting with Cardiff University to look at how Cardiff University research may help improve geomorphological understanding of the estuary.

• 13. Statement in Minutes - Questions submitted before the meeting, Paragraph 5:

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor Tony Blackburn, (County Councillor for Hardwicke and Severn), the EA assured the committee that, in the event of extreme flooding, the EA would address the problem at the affected time. Whilst there was no indication of what this might involve in the future, this was not an immediate priority. EA clarification: The question related primarily to the cost of maintaining the integrity of the Gloucester and Sharpness canal at Frampton canal as a flood defence structure. The Gloucester and Sharpness canal is owned by the Canal and River Trust (CRT) and maintained by them as a water-carrying structure. A length of the canal provides a high level of protection against tidal flooding to the village of Frampton. The EA and the CRT intend to continue to regularly inspect the length of canal that acts as a formal tidal flood

• defence. If any issues are identified that may result in an increased flood risk to

Frampton, the EA and CRT will work closely together on this. At present, no such issues have been identified. If and when they are identified we can assess what putting them right would cost and how this could be funded.

• 14. Statement in Minutes - Questions submitted before the meeting, Paragraph 6:

Responding to Councillor Blackburn’s concerns about the Arlingham area of the Severn Estuary (including the lack of funding) the EA said it would continue to engage with local communities to address the concerns. The EA said that, in the vast majority of locations (with the exception of Awre) there had been indications to suggest an economic case for maintaining existing defences into at least the medium term (2030 and beyond) and for many others, into the long term and beyond (2060). Furthermore an additional £5 million contribution had been made in response to the government’s acknowledgement of the need to maintain flood defences. EA clarification: The Government will be investing an additional £5 million in 2015/16 in the Environment Agency’s vital work to maintain defences and watercourses nationally.

• 15. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (a): the EA will

continue to work with Network Rail in maintaining flood defences that incorporate rail tracks along the Severn Estuary. Network Rail will endeavour to protect flood defences along the River Severn and to keep rail lines open in the event of extreme flooding.

5

EA clarification: The intention set out in the strategy to continue to maintain defences also provides a level of protection to infrastructure behind the defences. Some major infrastructure is located in areas where there are no formal flood defences. This includes lengths of the railway along the Forest of Dean coastline. Here the infrastructure is on top of an embankment which is high enough to give a good standard of protection against flooding into the longer term. The infrastructure operator is responsible for ensuring the infrastructure itself can continue to operate.

• 16. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (c): The EA intends

to maintain existing defences along Elmore Back in the medium to long term (40 to 50 years). This will however depend on actual sea level rises and the amount of damage to defences during this time. If funding is not available, the EA will look at

• ther options, including collaboration with local landowners.

EA clarification: The Strategy sets out the intention to maintain the defences at Elmore into the medium to long term, estimated to be 40-50 years depending on sea level rise and damage due to overtopping. This is because there is a positive economic case for public money to be used to do this. However there is currently not enough Flood Defence Grant in Aid revenue funding available to fully fund the maintenance of some existing flood defences along the Severn Estuary, due to other priorities nationally. This means stopping or reducing some activities. We will explore with landowners, farmers and communities what could be achieved by working together to enable effective maintenance of defences to continue.

• 17. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (d): Whilst the EA

would like to fund all projects, this is not financially viable. Funding will be subject to satisfying the benefit/cost ratio. For those projects that do not meet the test, it will be necessary to seek alternative funding. EA clarification: Following a new partnership funding approach introduced by Defra in 2011, capital projects (for example raising or refurbishing defences) which seek Flood Defence Grant in Aid public funding will be either fully-funded or part-funded based on the economic benefits a scheme provides. Under the new approach every worthwhile project has the potential to be supported by national funding over time. For schemes not fully funded by Government to proceed either the costs would need to be reduced or the remainder of the funding provided through local contributions.

• 18. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (g): The EA to

continue to talk with Defra, National Farmers Union (NFU) and other agencies to seek financial assistance and to consider alternative ways of maintaining flood defences at a national level. EA clarification: Discussions are ongoing between a number of organisations at a national level regarding the current situation where the need for flood risk maintenance work across the country outweighs the amount of public money available. The EA are making it easier for others to find out what maintenance is planned, for others to do maintenance work themselves by reducing red tape and providing support and guidance to farmers and landowners, and for others to do work on our behalf, for example IDBs.

• 19. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (h): Rising sea

levels, online assessments and the use of postcodes will be used as an alternative to referring to maps when assessing the level of flood risk and (i) References to old

• rdinance survey maps and charts will only take place when considering changes to

6

mudflats, sand-flats and river channels. It is not the EA’s intention to refer to maps during the consultation process. EA clarification: In the public brochures published in 2011, we displayed maps showing the extreme flood extent in 2110, based on modelling using projections of climate change recommended at that time. Concerns were raised during the first consultation about basing these maps on climate change projections and how this might blight properties. Following feedback from communities, we have not presented flood risk maps in the revised Strategy consultation documentation. On the EA website we give an assessment of the likelihood of flooding from the rivers and the sea at any location, and this is based on the presence and effect of flood defences, predicted flood levels and ground levels. This information on the EA website is currently accessed by entering the post code of the location of interest.

• 20. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (m): Concerns

were raised about the impact of not maintaining flood defences on home-owners ability to obtain mortgages and household insurance; to which the EA responded, when experiencing problems in this area the individual should contact the agency direct with documented evidence of the circumstances. The EA to then prepare a personal letter to support the individual’s case. EA clarification: We have let communities know that we can provide letters to residents, if requested, that can be passed on to insurers, mortgage providers etc in which we can give information on current flood risk and the up to date position regarding the Strategy.

• 21. Statement in Minutes - Questions considered at the meeting (n): Concerns were

raised about the impact on Gloucester and other locations along the higher estuary, when not maintaining flood defences at Awre and Minsterworth. EA clarification: This refers to the current situation where there is not enough Flood Defence Grant in Aid revenue funding available to fully fund the maintenance of some existing flood defences along the Severn Estuary, due to other priorities nationally. This has meant reducing some activities at Awre and Minsterworth Ham.

Jo Martin Flood Risk Management Team Leader 8 November 2013

Riversmeet House, Newtown Industrial Estate, Northway Lane, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, GL20 8JG Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk