Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

Transcription

1 Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Wednesday 11 January 2012, Guildbourne House, Worthing From 10.00am to 13:00pm Announcements 1. Welcome 2. Apologies for absence 3. Declarations of interest 4. Chairman s announcements 5. Environment Agency report Main Items 6. Southern RFCC programme (For approval) (a) Southern RFCC FDGiA allocation 2012/13 (b) Local Levy options 2012/13 7. National Audit Office Report (For discussion and advice) 8. LLFA Partnerships and Local FCRM Strategies (For discussion and advice) For Information (The following items are for information only. Anyone wishing to raise an information item for discussion should notify Committee Services prior to the meeting.) 9. Coastal Group Report 10. Programme Progress and Finance Report EA Long Term Investment Strategy 12. Recent FCRM Publications 13. EA Project awards Water Situation Report 15. Sustainable Engineering Procurement Strategy 16. National FCRM report for England General Business 17. Minutes of meeting of 12 October 2011 (For approval) 18. Minutes of Finance Sub-Committee and Local (For approval) Levy Sub-Group on 7 November Minutes of Finance Sub-Committee and Local Levy (For approval) Sub-Group on 20 December 2011 (to follow) 20. Matters arising from the Minutes Any Other Business Date of next meeting: Thursday 5 April 2012

2 Chair: Dr Mike Bateman Southern RFCC Chair Elected Members: Independent Members: In attendance: Invited Observers: Cllr Hugh Mason Cllr Janet Mockridge Cllr Mike Harrison Cllr Roger Thomas Cllr Colin Tandy Cllr Ray Bolton Cllr Andrew Bowles Cllr Richard King Cllr Alan Rice Cllr Sven Rufus Cllr Barry Abraham Cllr John O Brien Cllr Daniel Fitzhenry Cllr Craig Mackinlay Mr Stephen Gilbert Mr David Green Dr Ruth Kosmin Mr Barry Luck Cllr Roland O Brien Ivor Llewelyn Lady Suzanne Warner Mr Peter Quarmby Mr David Murphy Mr Mark Douch Mr Andrew Gilham Mr Peter Carver Prof. Andrew Bradbury Mr Bryan Curtis Cllr Roger Elkins Portsmouth City Council West Sussex County Council Kent County Council East Sussex County Council London Borough Hampshire County Council Kent County Council Kent County Council Hampshire County Council Brighton and Hove City Council Isle of Wight Council West Sussex County Council Southampton City Council Medway Council Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Environment Agency Board member SE Flood and Coastal Executive Manager SE Programme Manager Kent & South London Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager Solent & South Downs Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager Business Finance, Senior Business Partner Coastal Group Chair (Southern) Coastal Group Chair (South East) SCOPAC Chair (Central Southern) Secretariat: Ms Karen Jouny Flood and Coastal Committees Officer (South East)

3 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 6a Report no. S/RFCC/12/01 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: Simon Beavan, Asset Investment & Planning Team Leader SUBJECT: SOUTHERN RFCC FDGiA ALLOCATION 2012/13 Recommendation: RFCC members are asked to approve the regional allocations and programme for Grant in Aid funding 2012/ Introduction 1.1 At the 12 October Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee meeting, members were introduced to the national Grant in Aid (GiA) indicative allocation for 2012/13, as well as the Partnership Funding approach. 1.2 This paper covers the GiA allocated to the Southern RFCC through the national priority based allocation system by the EA on behalf of Defra. It includes GiA contributions to the EA Southern programme of capital and maintenance and to Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) capital schemes in Southern. Under the new partnership funding regime, capital works will either be partly or wholly funded by GiA. RFCCs are responsible for approving the regional programme. 2.0 Grant in Aid Capital Programme 2.1 The following table summarises the proposed GiA capital allocation split by EA delivered or Local Authority delivered: 2012/13 k 2013/14 k 2014/15 k 2015/16 k 2016/17 k Total 5 years Proposed Allocations (EA) 33,265 22,095 18,540 19,387 27, ,175 Proposed Allocations (LA) 6,726 5,497 5,659 13,014 10,913 41,809 Total 39,991 27,592 24,199 32,401 38, , Annex 1 details out the total list of schemes (including the national over-programme) with the latest GiA expenditure forecasts, and the proposed Local Levy partnership contributions. The proposed allocations in the table above represents an increase of 4.9m (2012/13) for Southern Committee as a result of being allocated a substantial proportion of the national over-programme totalling 30m, including capitalised salaries. 2.3 The proposed FDGiA allocation for 2012/13 includes 82 projects totalling 39.9m. Two projects, both Property Level Protection schemes, include a contribution from the Local Levy (Barcombe Mills and Monks Way). 2.4 For 2012/13 there is an 87k indicative allocation for Property Level Protection projects (4 projects). S/RFCC/12/01 Page 1 of 4

4 2.5 For Surface Water Management projects (5 projects requiring 1,196k) there is a zero allocation in 2012/13 as a result of these schemes not having business case approval. 3.0 Maintenance Programme 3.1 Overall, the Southern maintenance allocation for SR10 to 2014/15 reduces by 10%, with reductions phased over 3 years. This is not reflected in the table below because an element of over-programme has been included (see point 3.3 below). 3.2 For the first year the maintenance allocation has been based on System Asset Management Plans which targets funding according to the benefits and costs in each FRM System. The proposed maintenance allocation for is 9.1m, including a national 10% over-programme. The increase has been added to the Kent & South London area, as this is where the SAMPs data shows the benefit/cost ratios are greatest. The proposed Area distribution of maintenance allocation is set out in the table below: Maintenance Allocation Area 2011/12 ( k) 2012/13 ( k) Change Variance Kent and South London % Solent & South Downs % Southern RFCC Total % 3.3 The allocation does not reflect the general trend of reducing FDGiA as this is the first time that we have included over-programme in the maintenance allocation. The aim of including national over-programme is to ensure delivery of our programme, so that any inyear programme adjustments and delays are effectively managed. The trend for future years funding is downwards, and we will be implementing the forthcoming Maintenance Protocol to clearly define our maintenance liabilities and the responsibilities of others, and where possible, reduce the pressure on future years budgets. 4.0 Revenue Programmes 4.1 The following table summarises the indicative GiA revenue allocations: 2012/ / /15 Indicative Allocation k Indicative Allocation k Indicative Allocation k FCRM Area & Regional Teams 5,899 6,017 6,137 Non-FCRM Area & Regional Teams funded by FCRM 1,751 1,786 1,822 Maintenance 9,072 8,719 8,151 Revenue projects 1,757 2,383 2,150 TOTAL 18,699 18,846 17, The Revenue Indicative allocations for team costs take into account changes that will be introduced from the FCRM Review. 5.0 Other FCRM Programmes 5.1 Programmes of work to develop our mapping and modelling capability have been maintained at the same level of funding across the Spending Review period, enabling S/RFCC/12/01 Page 2 of 4

5 us to provide expert advice on flood risk management and reduction at a catchment scale. Within this, we will support Local Lead Flood Authority Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) with hazard and risk maps. 5.2 Flood warning and forecasting programmes have been constructed to extend our flood warning coverage to at least 66 per cent coverage in high risk areas, providing warnings to 1.1 million households nationally. This increase will involve extending training and guidance to volunteer wardens who will support our staff in providing warnings where appropriate. 6.0 Next Steps 6.1 The 2012/13 allocation timetable is in section 7. This identifies the key decision steps and meetings between now and the Environment Agency Board meeting in February. 6.2 The Southern RFCC is asked to agree detailed programmes based on the indicative allocations by the Board Flood Defence Finance Committee; set local income levels and agree local contributions to Partnership Funding schemes which will form the final allocation proposal to the Environment Agency Board in February. 7.0 Allocation Process Timeframe September th September 08 th September October th October Middle of month By end of month November 2011 By middle of month By end of month 22/23 November December December 06 December Middle of Month January 2012 By middle of month By middle of month February th February Middle of month Middle of month By end of month By end of month By end of month By end of month National Directors meet to review indicative allocations RFCC chairs meet to consider the indicative allocations. FDFC approve the indicative allocation & conduct mid-year review of 2011/12 Indicative allocation letters sent to RFCCs, LAs and IDBs RFCCs review allocations and consider local scheme priorities (all authorities) Regions review programmes following RFCC input and resubmit for national consolidation. Final allocation constructed National Directors meet to discuss the allocation proposal. RFCC Chairs meet to receive an update on the allocation proposal FDFC (EA Board sub Group) agree outline paper to Board. Final proposed allocation passed to Regions. RFCCs meet to consider local impacts and agree detailed programmes (from all funding sources) and set local income levels. Directors review and agree final allocation paper to Board Allocation approved by the EA Board. Allocation letters to RFCCs, LAs and IDBs. Detailed allocation information to Regions. LA and IDB Sanctioned lists completed, agreed, and published. 5 Year programmes published Consolidation of allocation to budgets. Meet with Local Authorities, Natural England and IDBs to discuss programmes for 2012/13 March 2012 Throughout March Regions make final preparations for 2012/13. Simon Beavan Regional Asset Investment & Planning simon.beavan@environment-agency.gov.uk December 2011 S/RFCC/12/01 Page 3 of 4

6 Page Intentionally Blank S/RFCC/12/01 Page 4 of 4

7 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 6b Report no. S/RFCC/12/02 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: Simon Beavan, Asset Investment and Planning Team Leader SUBJECT: LOCAL LEVY OPTIONS 2012/13 Recommendations: RFCC members are asked to consider: 1. The options recommended by the Southern Levy Sub-group for the use of Local Levy in 2012/13, and to use this information to set the 2012/13 Local Levy at the 11 January meeting. 2. The Levy Sub-Group invites the RFCC to consider a Levy of 1.177m which reflects the current economic pressures on Local Authority spending plans and accepts that there will be a reduction in the Committee s ability to manage flood risk now and in the future as the result of reduced leverage of national funding, and will reduce the Committee s ability to use new powers for surface water and groundwater flood risk in Southern. 3. The Southern RFCC is asked to agree the transfer of 500k of Levy projects to the Flood Defence Grant in Aid programme for 2011/ Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to give information to members about options for the use of Local Levy funding during the first year of the Government s new flood resilience partnership funding in 2012/13. The paper will detail out the proposed investment themes, list the projects they cover, and propose programmes for Local Levy incomes of 1,177k (no increase from ) and 1,354k (15% increase). 1.2 The majority of funding for flood risk management comes directly from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as Grant in Aid (GiA) and is allocated according to national priorities. Alongside GiA, Flood and Coastal Committees are able to raise a Local Levy to fund projects in full or provide a contribution in order to lever in national GiA funding for projects in the region. 1.3 This will be the first Local Levy set under the new funding regime, with investment programmes requiring RFCC approval. It is an important time for the Southern Local Levy, not only in the broadening of its scope to allow investment in projects dealing with surface water and groundwater flooding, but also in the capacity it creates for leveraging central funding for local schemes that would otherwise remain unfunded well into the future. The levy provides real opportunities to take action to implement flood risk reduction measures on the ground where they can be seen and felt by the communities that benefit. S/RFCC/12/02 Page 1 of 20

8 1.4 The Floods and Water Management Act 2010 introduces new powers and duties on Lead Local Flood Authorities, and Southern RFCC Local Authorities are receiving 90% (on average) increases in Area Support Grants from central government in recognition of the need to increase capacity to take forward these new responsibilities. In order that we can maintain adequate levels of investment across all the committee s responsibilities going forward our levy will need to increase to meet the anticipated growth in projects and measures for managing the wider sources of flooding. 1.5 The Southern Local Levy has up until now, been used very effectively to reduce flood risks from main rivers and tidal flooding, leading to increased protection for many thousands of properties. The RFCC now has the responsibility for considering flooding for all flood risks (apart from sewer flooding) including main rivers, tidal, surface water, groundwater, ordinary water courses and certain reservoirs. These additional responsibilities are going to generate a significantly increased demand for Levy in future years, and we are already seeing increased surface water needs within the levy options. 1.6 The Local Levy also allows us to target communities with higher flood risks, which up until now have not succeeded in securing funding on the basis of their current economic scores. By injecting contributions from local levy, the RFCC can engage communities and attract additional local external investment in a way that was not available before. This will enable the RFCC to lever in national GiA funding to the region and take forward flood and coastal risk management activities and community flood plans in many places across the Southern RFCC area. 1.7 Nationally the GiA funding for 2012/13 is largely committed on projects already underway. This means that GiA, Local Levy and other forms of funding are not as dovetailed together as we would expect in future years.. It is proposed that the 2012/13 Local Levy is used to fund free standing Levy projects which cover a range of different sources of flooding and will be delivered by both Local Authorities and the Environment Agency. In particular during 2012/13 it is proposed that the levy is used to fund projects through business case approval to ensure that more schemes are eligible for GiA. By doing this we will increase the chances of these schemes being funded by national GiA through construction. 1.8 Contributions other than levy have been used to top up some projects in the indicative allocation and in a number of other projects across the programme. Although this paper focuses on the use of levy, there has been clear guidance from the RFCC to endeavour to secure other external contributions. It is expected that these external contributions will make up a steadily increasing funding stream in the committee programme going forward. 2.0 Flood and coastal risk management needs 2.1 There are many sources of flood risk in Southern RFCC area, with some communities at risk from more than one source. The scale of flood risk varies greatly, from individual properties in remote locations, to whole communities, homes, businesses, infrastructure and services, across many wards. 2.2 For example, over 200 communities in over 40 local authorities have been identified as being at risk of fluvial (main river) flooding in Southern RFCC area. More communities are at risk from coastal flooding and other forms of flooding. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategies will summarise these risks and pull together an S/RFCC/12/02 Page 2 of 20

9 action plan for the risk management authorities to work together to manage and reduce these risks. 2.3 Within England, 5.2 million properties are at risk of flooding. Of these, 1.4 million are at risk from rivers or the sea, 2.8 million are at risk from surface water and a further 1 million are at risk from both. The total number of properties at flood risk in Southern RFCC boundary from rivers and the sea is approximately 220,000. Some of these properties could also be affected by surface water flooding (depending upon the rainfall intensity and duration). Based on the figures in the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments, the total number of properties in areas at risk of surface water flooding during an extreme rainfall event in Southern RFCC area, including the local authorities whose boundaries straddle the Southern RFCC boundary, is approximately 310,000 properties. 2.4 Within Southern Committee Area, there has already been government investment to begin managing surface water risks. In 2010/11, 97k was awarded from government for schemes in Tonbridge and Maidstone where there were known surface water flooding problems. A further 1,085k has been invested to develop Surface Water Management Plans, and 8 of these plans are now completed, or are in the final stages of completion. Each of these plans identifies a number of actions to manage surface water risks. These actions range from engineered solutions, to Sustainable Urban Drainage schemes, to improved community awareness. Over the coming years Lead Local Flood Authorities will be prioritising and further scoping these options with the aim of taking feasible solutions forward. 3.0 Local Levy funding 3.1 The Local Levy is raised through contributions from 15 County Councils, Unitary Authorities and London Boroughs. The Levy total is fixed by a majority vote of the elected members of the RFCC. It is apportioned on the basis of Band D Equivalents between all contributing bodies within the Committee area. Table 1 shows the Local Levy raised in recent years. Financial Year 2007/ / / / /12 Local Levy raised ( k) 1,109 1,131 1,154 1,177 1,177 Table 1 Local Levy raised in Southern RFCC 3.2 Each local authority receives Government support for the Local Levy through being able to claim back a percentage of the value contributed. For example, the Southern Local Levy raised 1,177k in 2011/12, meaning that for every 1 of council tax contributed to Local Levy, 1.57 was spent on flood management on the ground, the 0.57 being funded by central government. This reimbursement is part of the relative needs formula (RNF) in the overall calculation of the settlement for local services support grant (LSSG). Final settlement of LSSG is determined by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG). Any change in the percentage as a result of levy changes agreed at the RFCC, up or down, will always come through in the year following the levy payment. 3.3 In addition, Levy does not fund Environment Agency organisational overheads. It pays for materials, staff, consultants and contractors delivering projects with no overheads. This results in excellent value for money for council tax payers and visible local improvements delivered through local levy funding. 3.4 The Southern Local Levy raised 1,177k in the 2011/12 financial year. This works out at 0.64 per Council Tax base, within the national range of 0.64 to 3.14 (Table 2). S/RFCC/12/02 Page 3 of 20

10 Region FD Committee 11/12 Levy ( K) 11/12 Council Tax Base ( k) Levy per Council Tax Base South West Wessex 3, Anglian Northern 1, Anglian Eastern 2, North East Northumbria 1, Thames Thames 10, Anglian Central 1, North West North West 3, Midlands Severn Trent 3, North East Yorkshire 1, South West South West Southern Southern 1, Table 2 Local Levy raised nationally in 2011/ Over the last two years the Local Levy has been held at the same level to secure efficiency savings (Table 1). This has been a real terms cut of 8.6%. 3.6 The estimated Local Levy contributions made by each Local Authority based on the existing Levy and the proposed 15% increase in Levy is set out in Annex 2. For a 15% increase in the Levy, the average increase (net) in Local Authority contributions for Southern RFCC would be 7, Local Levy Investment Themes 4.1 The Local Levy programme for 2012/13 has been divided into 5 investment themes which are summarised in the Table 3. Table 3 Local Levy Investment Themes Levy funding Environment required in Agency 2012/13 proportion Local Levy Theme 1. Levy project continuation Local Authority proportion Notes 80k 100% Continuation of levy projects from 2011/12 - projects in construction and contractually committed in 2012/13 2. Surface water schemes 3. Property Level Protection 390k 100% Surface Water - Levy investment to Local Authority's for implementation of measures identified in surface water management plans 10k 100% Property Level Protection - Levy investment for property resilience and resistance measures in communities with low chance of receiving a flood scheme, e.g. flood boards, flood resistant air bricks. S/RFCC/12/02 Page 4 of 20

11 4. Project funded to Gateway 1 in order to secure GiA in subsequent Medium Term Plan (MTP) submissions 5. Classic levy projects with Raw Partnership Funding Score less than 100% TOTAL 1,580k 98% 2% Levy will be used to complete the PAR for the projects which will then bid for GiA funding in 2013/14. The completion and approval of a PAR was one of the prerequisites for obtaining GiA funding in the 2012/13 bidding round. 293k 57% 43% Levy only projects which have low likelihood of achieving an GiA allocation through Partnership Funding but have good local benefits. Projects are typically of 1 to 2 years duration with total expenditure less than 1m. 2,353k The investment themes are described in more detail below: Theme 1 Levy project continuation Levy projects that are either already under construction or will have contractual commitments by April The next financial year is the start of the transition to a fully integrated programme, combining all sources of flooding and funding. A principle of the transition is that all GiA projects underway would continue to be funded to completion. We are proposing that this principle also applies to our Levy funded projects. We require 80k in 2012/13 to continue the Levy projects that are currently underway. This theme is 100% levy funded and all EA projects. Theme 2 - Surface water schemes Levy funding of Local Authority's for implementation of measures identified in surface water management plans. This theme is 100% levy funded in 12/13 and applies only to Local Authority projects. For 12/13 the levy required is 390k with the expectation that a number of these schemes would be eligible for GiA funding or GiA with a levy top up the following year. Theme 3 - Property Level Protection Levy investment for property resilience and resistance measures in communities, e.g. flood boards, flood resistant air bricks either as a stand alone scheme or as part of a wider package of measures to reduce flood risk. Currently this is 100% levy funded and applies to Local Authority schemes. For 12/13 the levy required is 10k across two schemes. Theme 4 - Project funded to Gateway 1 in order to secure GiA in subsequent Medium Term Plan (MTP) submissions Many projects that did not get an indicative allocation because they had not achieved business case approval (Gateway 1) but are likely to attract GiA in 13/14 once through the gateway. These are projects that will be funded by 100% levy for 12/13 to get through Gateway 1. For 12/13 the levy required is 1,580k with a commitment for 12/13 only. S/RFCC/12/02 Page 5 of 20

12 Theme 5 - Classic levy projects Levy only projects with low partnership funding scores but have good local benefits. These projects would need a large proportion of levy top up to achieve a GiA allocation in the future. It is important to note that small projects can still have a high partnership funding score so would not necessarily fall into the classic levy investment theme. Projects are typically of 1 to 3 years duration with total expenditure less than 1m. We suggest this theme is 100% levy funded and will be a combination of EA and LA schemes For 12/13 the total levy requirement would be 293k. 5.0 Options for Local Levy setting 2012/ At the 12 October 2011 RFCC meeting there was support for using levy top up to leverage in GiA by putting forward projects for the National over-programme. There was also broad support for funding projects through Gateway 1 to enable projects to become eligible for GiA in future allocations as members agreed that both of these options gave a good return on levy invested. Members also welcomed the support for Local Authority schemes to be funded by the levy in the short term as very few of these schemes were successful in getting a GiA allocation. 5.2 At the 7 November 2011 meeting of the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Finance Sub-committee it was agreed to put forward 834k of Levy top-up to achieve 5.2m of national GiA over-programme. The result of this is that Southern RFCC have been allocated 4.9m of national over-programme including the Littlehampton Arun Tidal Defences East Bank. The GiA allocation for Littlehampton of 3.7m is based on an agreement for an external contribution from Arun District Council of up to 1m, to include scheme enhancements. 5.3 In discussions with the RFCC Chair it was agreed that developing 2 Levy programme options based on levy incomes of 1,177k (2011/12 settlement) and 1,354k (2011/12 settlement + 15%), plus balances draw down of 50% would be helpful. 5.4 The latest Levy expenditure forecast for 2011/12 indicates that Levy spend will be 1,414k, resulting in year-end Levy balances of 911k. 5.5 To support the RFCC aim of delivering its new responsibilities and optimising opportunities for future GiA allocation, it is proposed to draw down Levy balances in 2012/13 by 50%, from the current forecast of 911k, to 456k. 5.6 In response to national GiA underspends elsewhere in the country, regions have been requested to identify opportunities for switching projects from the Levy programme to the GiA programme. In Southern RFCC we have identified 2 projects (identified below) totalling 500k, which if transferred, will increase our Levy balances at the end of 2011/12 by 500k to 1,412k. The RFCC is asked to agree to the transfer of these projects. Forest Row Flood Alleviation Scheme 250k Hollowshaw Outfall Improvements 250k 5.7 In discussion with the national allocation team it has been agreed that we can utilise the 500k increase in Levy balances from the transfer of schemes to FDGiA this year to bring forward to 2012/13 the Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls West Bank scheme, which was put back to 2014/15 in the national FDGiA indicative allocation. The funding required for Shoreham next year is 475k, with future years funding of c. 13m to complete the scheme anticipated from the FDGiA programme. S/RFCC/12/02 Page 6 of 20

13 5.8 The proposed Levy funding profile for Options 1 and 2 are summarised in Table 4: Table 4 Local levy Funding Profile Levy Income Option 1 Levy Income Option Balances Brought Forward Interest Levy Income Total Usable Levy Funds Levy Forecast Year-end Levy Transfers to FDGiA Draw down of balances Balances Carried Forward The Levy programme options and investment themes are set out in Table 5 below. The options and the impacts on projects by a reducing levy are described below. The full list of project descriptions is in Annex 1, and the draft Levy programme options are included in Annex 5. Local Levy Allocation Options 2012/ Local Levy k Option m Option m Options Legend 1 Levy project continuation 2 Surface water schemes 3 Property Level Protection 4 Project funded to GW1 in order to secure FDGiA in subsequent MTP submissions 5 Classic levy projects with Raw PF Score < 100% Table 5 Local Levy 2012/13 Programme Options by Investment Theme S/RFCC/12/02 Page 7 of 20

14 Option 1: 2,353k This option includes all 31 Local Levy projects in all investment themes with 16 Environment Agency delivered projects, and 15 Local Authority delivered projects. Option 2: 2,177k As option 1 but with the removal of 7 Classic Levy projects spending 212k in 2012/13, as follows: Warden Bay Outfalls Keyhaven to Lymington Seawall Repair St Mildred s Bay Keyhaven Seawall Refurbishment Crowhurst Surface Water Flood Relief Scheme East of Epple to Westgate bay Seawall re-facing works Westgate St Mildred s Bay Coping/Berm Slab Replacement Total reduction from Option 1 = 176k (356 households protected) 6.0 Levy programme prioritisation 6.1 The proposed Levy Options 1 and 2 for 2012/13 are represented on maps under Annex 3 and 4, which show the geographic distribution of the projects by investment theme. 6.2 There are 5 projects that did not receive an indicative GiA allocation because they had not achieved business case approval (Gateway 1), and have been put back in the programme by one year. We propose to use Local Levy funding to develop some of these projects as part of the Levy over-programme to increase our chances of attracting GiA in 13/14 under Investment Theme Finally, it has been requested by the RFCC that there should be consistent governance of all projects that have Local Levy contributions, and the introduction of safeguards to ensure the Levy is not overcommitted into future years. To achieve this we will use existing Environment Agency programme governance procedures and approve each project gateway that has a future financial commitment in line with the EA Financial Scheme of Delegation. 7.0 Recommendations 7.1 Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee members are asked to consider the options recommended by the Southern Levy Sub-group for the use of Local Levy in 2012/13, and to use this information to set the 2012/13 Local Levy at the 11 January meeting. 7.2 The Levy Sub-Group invites the RFCC to consider a Levy of 1.177m which reflects the current economic pressures on Local Authority spending plans and accepts that there will be a reduction in the Committee s ability to manage flood risk now and in the future as the result of reduced leverage of national funding, and will reduce the Committee s ability to use new powers for surface water and groundwater flood risk in Southern. 7.3 The Southern RFCC is asked to agree the transfer of 500k of Levy projects to the Flood Defence Grant in Aid programme for 2011/12. S/RFCC/12/02 Page 8 of 20

15 Annex /13 LOCAL LEVY SCHEME DESCRIPTIONS EARNLEY IMPROVEMENTS WORKS, (WEST WITTERING), WEST SUSSEX By extending a proposed diversion channel, this project aims to reduce flood risk to properties in Earnley (part of the Medmerry managed realignment scheme) by diverting flow away from an under capacity culvert that causes localised flooding. Scheme Cost: 138k Houses protected: 16 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DEAL AND WALMER, KENT Properties in Deal Town face constant flood risk, from numerous contributing factors. This study will outline a surface water management plan to deal with the contributing factors and identify key areas for improvement development works. Scheme cost: 120k MEECHING VALLEY, NEWHAVEN, EAST SUSSEX SURFACE WATER This Surface Water Alleviation Scheme will reduce water flows, improve system capacity and prevent houses from being flooded. Scheme cost: 35k UCKFIELD TOWN CENTRE, SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT, EAST SUSSEX In response to significant flooding in Uckfield a Surface Water flooding assessment is needed to understand the mechanism of flooding and ensure any potential solutions address all sources of flooding. Scheme cost: 50k S/RFCC/12/02 Page 9 of 20

16 NEVILLE ESTATE, LEWES, EAST SUSSEX This scheme aims to prevent surface water flooding. Scheme cost: 75k WIVELSFIELD SURFACE WATER SCHEME, HAYWARDS HEATH, EAST SUSSEX Overland flooding in Wivelsfield is caused by poor drainage and lack of maintenance. Scheme cost: 320k BROYLESIDE, RINGMER FAS (NEAR LEWES), EAST SUSSEX In this area, heavy rains and slow overland flows flood low lying properties. This property Protection and Flood Alleviation Scheme aims to prevent this flooding. Scheme cost: 105k BARCOMBE MILLS PROPERTY PROTECTION, (NEAR PEVENSEY), EAST SUSSEX Fluvial flooding affecting houses up to heights of 0.6m. Property Protection Scheme costs: 61k Houses protected: 38 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 10 of 20

17 GREATSTONE DUNES MANAGEMENT ( ), KENT The dunes protect 155 houses on the lower lying land behind the dunes system. The Folkestone to Cliff End Flood and Erosion Management Strategy (FCEFEMS) 2008, report identified that the dunes have a 0.1% chance (1 in 100) of failure in any one year. The Strategy proposal is to Hold the Line by managing the dune system with fencing to prevent erosion. Scheme cost: 75k Houses protected: 40 WANNOCK, POLEGATE SURFACE WATER ATTENUATION SCHEME, EASTBOURNE, EAST SUSSEX There is flooding along the length of the Wannock Mill Stream and its tributaries. A proposed solution of upstream storage to ordinary watercourse is the preferred option. Scheme cost: 380k TIDAL FLOOD DEFENCE IMPROVEMENT WALLINGTON SHORE ROAD, FAREHAM, HAMPSHIRE Wallington Village Community Association clearly identified the lower part of the their village to be at risk from tidal flooding, with a history of surge tides over flowing on to Wallington Shore Rd and adjacent properties. The proposed programme to prevent this flooding consist of an embankment and walls combined with flap valves on surface water drainage outlets. Currently flood defence relies heavily on an inadequate existing garden/boundary wall, not designed as a flood defence. Scheme cost: 250k Houses protected: 60 FITZALAN ROAD WALL REPAIR ARUNDEL, WEST SUSSEX This project will repair or replace 400m of structurally unsound flood wall. Scheme cost: 600k Houses protected: 294 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 11 of 20

18 ROARING GUTTER ISLAND BANK STABILISATION, WORTH, DOVER, KENT33 Repairs to the eroding bank. Bank failure would cause flooding in Sandwich. Scheme cost : 300k Houses protected: 633 JURY S GAP REFURBISHMENT, CAMBER, (NEAR RYE), EAST SUSSEX Works to improve channel bank stability. Creation of a new concrete tidal basin within an older clay bunded structure. Scheme cost: 1,368k Properties protected: 406 MONKSWAY PROPERTY PROTECTION, LEWES, EAST SUSSEX The purpose of this scheme is to protect 24 houses from local fluvial flooding. Scheme cost: 137k Houses protected: 24 RUDMORE ROUNDABOUT SURFACE WATER SEPARATION, PORTSMOUTH, HAMPSHIRE Construction of localised surface water separation scheme, providing relief to Western Interceptor in storm events. Western Interceptor is presently operating near capacity. Scheme cost: 650k S/RFCC/12/02 Page 12 of 20

19 CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT SEA GROYNES, WORTHING, WEST SUSSEX Scheme cost: 7,100k Properties protected: 444 M27 TIDAL FLOOD GATE, FARLINGTON, PORTSMOUTH, HAMPSHIRE Installation of tidal gates and flaps to prevent flooding under M27 Scheme cost: 206k Properties protected: 250 BRIDGE ROAD, EMSWORTH, FLOOD ALLEVIATION WORKS, HAMPSHIRE 21 properties flooded internally in November There are 4-5 options being considered at the site to improve the level of protection. Scheme cost: 290k Properties protected: 21 FAVERSHAM FAS, NORTH DOWNS, KENT Scheme to construct floodwall to prevent tidal inundation of the properties (public house and some terraced housing) along the water front at Faversham. Scheme cost: 230k Properties protected: 22 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 13 of 20

20 ALMODINGTON IMPROVEMENTS, CHICHESTER, WEST SUSSEX Culvert clearance and repairs to improve local drainage. Scheme cost: 31k Properties protected: 16 GORREL STREAM FAS, WHITSTABLE, KENT The intention of this flood risk mapping project is to develop options to address flooding in the Gorrell Stream catchment. Scheme cost: 1,775k Properties protected: 184 WARDEN BAY OUTFALLS, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT Two outfalls (Warden Bay East and West) will be renewed to provide improved drainage to low lying land, between the villages of Warden and Leysdown on Sea. Scheme budget 220k Properties protected: 30 KEYHAVEN SEAWALL (SALT GRASS REFURBISHMENT), NEW FOREST, HAMPSHIRE Reconstruction of embankments, soak ditch and outfalls to protect the properties in the tidal flood plain to the original design standard of 1%. Scheme cost: 425k Properties protected: 90 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 14 of 20

21 KEYHAVEN TO LYMINGTON SEAWALL REPAIR, NEW FOREST, HAMPSHIRE The 7km Keyhaven to Lymington seawall is in poor condition and requires repairs. The seawall protects houses and a RAMSAR site. Scheme cost: 425k Houses protected: 236 CROWHURST SURFACE WATER SCHEME, TUNBRIDGE WELLS, EAST SUSSEX Enlarge culvert and raise flood bunds. Scheme cost: 50k FLUVIAL ARUN AND ROTHER CFMP IMPLEMENTATION WORKS, EAST AND WEST SUSSEX The overall aim of this project is to investigate opportunities to implement a more sustainable and affordable management regime for the future. This may involve reducing future EA liability/operational costs, by making redundant or decommissioning uneconomic FRM assets. Scheme cost: 368k Properties protected: 444 ST MILDREDS BAY WEST BROOK, POINTING AND EXPANSION JOINT REPAIRS, MARGATE, KENT A coast protection scheme was undertaken here in 1995/96. Maintenance work is required in the near future to maintain the integrity of expansion joints and re-point failing joints between the wave return copings. Scheme cost: 525,000 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 15 of 20

22 SHOREHAM ADUR TIDAL WALLS WEST BANK, WEST SUSSEX Phased improvement of tidal walls to west bank of River Adur at Shoreham Scheme cost: 15,981k Properties protected: 2,214 CANTEBURY WEEDSCREEN, Replacement of a weedscreen on the causeway to prevent debris building up in a critical culvert. Scheme cost: 75k Properties protected: 174 EAST OF EPPLE TO WESTGATE BAY SEA WALL REFACING WORKS, MARGATE, KENT Upper parts of pre-cast sea wall and 'wave return' copings are becoming loose due to constant wave battering, leading to cliff erosion. Scheme cost: 330k S/RFCC/12/02 Page 16 of 20

23 Annex 2 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ESTIMATES 2012/13 FLOOD DEFENCE LEVY PER BAND D PROPERTY SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE Local Authority Southern RFDC 2011/ /13 FD levy per band D Council Tax base Levy FD levy per band D property Council Tax base Levy Council Tax base Levy property No No 15% increase over Net Increase over % Share Local Levy Isle of Wight Council 55,443 35, % 3.0% 55,443 40, ,292 3, % Dorset County Council % 0.0% % Hampshire County Council 332, , % 18.0% 332, , ,733 21, % Portsmouth Council 59,915 38, % 3.2% 59,915 43, ,719 3, % Southampton Council 66,644 42, % 3.6% 66,644 48, ,361 4, % West Sussex County Council 281, , % 15.2% 281, , ,835 17, % Wiltshire County Council 4,740 3, % 0.3% 4,740 3, % East Sussex County Council 206, , % 11.2% 206, , ,712 13, % Brighton & Hove City Council 94,898 60, % 5.1% 94,898 69, ,058 6, % Surrey County Council 19,759 12, % 1.1% 19,759 14, ,886 1, % Kent County Council 547, , % 29.6% 547, , ,261 34, % Medway Towns Council 88,034 56, % 4.8% 88,034 64, ,403 5, % Bexley - London Borough Council 52,093 33, % 2.8% 52,093 38, ,972 3, % Bromley - London Borough Council 33,464 21, % 1.8% 33,464 24, ,194 2, % Greenwich - London Borough Council 6,225 3, % 0.3% 6,225 4, % 1,849,544 1,176,906 1,849,544 1,353, , , /12 1,176, /13 increase (15%) 176,536 1,353,442 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 17 of 20

24 Annex 3 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 18 of 20

25 Annex 4 S/RFCC/12/02 Page 19 of 20

26 Page Intentionally Blank S/RFCC/12/02 Page 20 of 20

27 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 7 Report no. S/RFCC/12/03 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: HEAD OF INVESTMENT AND FUNDING SUBJECT: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE REVIEW OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT Recommendations RFCC members are asked to note: 1. Note the findings and recommendations of the National Audit Office (NAO) report on Flood Risk Management in England; 2. Provide feedback on the support they receive from the Environment Agency and identify any ways that this support can be improved; 3. Consider the next steps in response to the NAO s recommendations. 1.0 Introduction and Background 1.1 As part of an ongoing programme of value for money studies, the National Audit Office (NAO) undertook a six-month evaluation of flood risk management in England. The study involved a rigorous and independent evaluation of the way in which public money has been, and is going to be, spent in achieving flood risk management outcomes. As well as reaching an overall conclusion on value for money, the NAO has made recommendations on how to achieve better value for money in future. 1.2 The review focused on evaluating progress since the NAO 2007 review, Building and Maintaining River and Coastal Flood Defences in England, and the potential impacts on value for money from changes to flood risk management delivery and funding. The NAO also commissioned an independent academic review of UK flood risk management, which has focused on research and development, as well as mapping, modelling and data use within flood risk management. 1.3 The NAO evaluated nearly 600 Environment Agency documents and interviewed over 120 Environment Agency staff, as well as representatives from other organisation including local authorities and internal drainage boards. The NAO also visited all the English regions, three RFCC meetings and also visited Cockermouth, Cumbria as part of the review. 1.4 The NAO published their report on 28 October 11. The report itself forms the basis of the hearings of the Committee of Public Accounts which was held on the 23 November 11. This paper seeks views to help us develop an appropriate response to the NAO report and recommendations. S/RFCC/12/03 Page 1 of 4

28 2.0 National Audit Office recommendations and overall conclusion 2.1 The NAO report concluded that: The Environment Agency has improved its own efficiency since the NAO last reported in 2007, has a better understanding of the condition of existing sea and river defences, and has targeted investment more effectively, providing better flood protection for 182,000 households against a target of 145,000 between April 2008 and March Giving greater responsibility and discretion to local authorities to identify risks, and raise and target funding, brings some significant challenges, especially during a time of local authority budget cuts and newly devolved responsibilities. The NAO considers that if these challenges are not overcome, the reforms will have failed to fulfil their potential to increase levels of investment in flood management and value for money to the taxpayer. 2.2 The NAO has made seven recommendations. These are detailed in Appendix 1. Action plans in response to these recommendations are now being developed. A full copy of their report can be found on their website Environment Agency support for Regional Flood and Coastal Committees 3.1 Within the report, the NAO has recommended that the Environment Agency should review the quality of the management information it provides to RFCCs so decisions taken are robust. Whereas we are aware of the strong relationship between RFCCs and the Environment Agency regions, and that the support each RFCC gets is tailored to their specific needs, we are keen to understand what represents best practice, and how that best practice can be shared between RFCCs. 4.0 Conclusions 4.1 The Environment Agency is pleased that the NAO recognises the critical importance of the role we play in flood and coastal risk management, and the progress we have made since its last report in As a result of this progress the country is better prepared and ready to respond to the next major flood. 4.2 We will continue to make improvements to enhance the effectiveness and value for money of our services to the public at risk of flooding. We will now look carefully at the recommendations in the report and will seek to further improve the way we manage the risks of flooding across the country. 5.0 Recommendations 5.1 The RFCC members are asked to: 1. Note the findings and recommendations of the National Audit Office report on Flood Risk Management in England; 2. Consider the next steps in response to the National Audit Office recommendations; 3. Provide feedback on the support they receive from the Environment Agency, and identify any ways that best practice can be shared. Aidan Kerr Head of Investment and Funding Aiden.kerr@environment-agency.gov.uk 14 November 2011 S/RFCC/12/03 Page 2 of 4

29 APPENDIX 1: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS a) While the Department has made good progress in implementing the programme of reform, there is still some local uncertainty over how some key measures will be realised. The Department needs to clarify and more effectively communicate the steps needed to address these outstanding areas. b) The new delivery arrangements will create tensions between increased local decision-making and the national accountability and performance framework. The Agency should assure itself that local flood risk management arrangements are not undermining strategic approaches to manage risk at the catchment and national scale. In consultation with Ofwat, the Department should assess the effectiveness of the water and sewerage companies response to their new duties. c) The new approach to investing in schemes will lead to a greater number of projects with more than a single funding partner. While the new system introduces incentives on funding partners to keep development costs to a minimum, the Agency should, by April 2012, develop protocols to govern more joint-funded work. These protocols should identify actions needed to sustain the reduction in development costs the Agency has achieved. d) The Agency s support to the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees currently varies across the country. Learning from the best performing regions, the Agency should review the quality of the management information it provides to all Committees so decisions taken are robust. e) The Agency needs to improve further the verification process of its National Flood Risk Assessment to provide greater confidence in its results. The Agency should introduce procedures by 2015 to systematically test the separate components of its national risk model and define clear performance targets against which their effectiveness can be assessed. f) The Agency needs to communicate, to the public and organisations that rely on flood risk information, that there is uncertainty in its longer-term modelling and mapping data so people can make more informed decisions. The Agency should work to develop an approach to communicating this uncertainty to those who use this information. g) The Agency needs to develop a plan to improve its understanding of how the different sources of flood risk interact. The Agency plans to develop a tool that will combine information on flood risk from different sources by It needs to plan how it will use this tool, and other sources of data, to improve its own understanding of the interaction between different sources and support local authorities. S/RFCC/12/03 Page 3 of 4

30 Page Intentionally Blank S/RFCC/12/03 Page 4 of 4

31 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 8 Report no. S/RFCC/12/04 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: David Murphy, Coastal & Inland Overview Manager SUBJECT: LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY PARTNERSHIPS AND LOCAL FLOOD & COASTAL RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Recommendations: RFCC members are asked to note: 1. Note the good progress being made by Lead Local Flood Authorities in undertaking their new duties under the Floods and Water Management Act, and the early work to advance Local Flood Risk Management Strategies; 2. Support the development of Local Flood Risk Strategies as outlined in this paper, to ensure they meet the requirements of the FWMA, provide a useful focus for the LLFA Strategic Flood Partnerships and set out the potential investment need in the LLFA area; and 3. Discuss the contents of this paper and consider how best to individually and collectively become engaged in Local Flood Risk Management Strategies. 1.0 Background 1.1 The Environment Agency is continuing to support Strategic Flood Risk Management Partnerships led by Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). These partnerships provide a strong mechanism through which LLFA can deliver the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations and the Floods and Water Management Act. 1.2 Lead Local Flood Authorities are beginning work on their Local Flood Risk Management Strategies. Local Strategies are a requirement of the Floods and Water Management Act and will result in action plans to manage flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. 2.0 General progress 2.1 Lead Local Flood Authorities within the Southern Committee area are making good progress with new work areas defined by the Floods and Water Management Act. These include Co-ordinating Strategic Flood Risk Management Partnerships Establishing an Asset register Developing Investigations protocol Beginning work on their Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Developing projects to reduce flood risk (and bids for FDGiA funding for their projects). S/RFCC/12/04 Page 1 of 4

32 2.2 The Environment Agency are continuing to support these activities in both our Risk Management Role and our Strategic Overview role. 2.3 The following information outlines the current status of partnerships at December For all of the partnerships, there is Environment Agency attendance and support which in most cases is led by the relevant Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager The South East London Boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexley and Bromley have held two partnership meetings which were attended by both Cllr Tandy and Cllr Sidhu (Thames RFCC representative). To date each borough has been progressing independently but is now exploring options for how they can work together and support each other more The Hampshire Strategic Flood Risk Management Group is now well established and includes strong representation from Hampshire County Council, City of Southampton, City of Portsmouth, Isle of Wight County Council, Southern Water and the Environment Agency. This group meets quarterly and is actively discussing and progressing work on several parts of the Act including, investigations protocol, asset registers, SuDS approval bodies. To support this the Group has commissioned a number of sub-groups to apply technical expertise from across its member organisations to some of the challenges arising from the FWMA This includes groups for Record, Register and Designation and Sustainable Drainage Systems Approval Body who both held their first meetings in September West Sussex forms the Strategic Flood Risk Management Group. The group are making good progress on implementation of the Act and are actively considering protocol for investigations and their SuDS approval body. Again technical working groups have been developed to support these aspects. A draft brief has been produced for their local strategy. Work is in progress on the West Sussex asset register, consenting arrangements and investigations East Sussex have a dedicated Flood Manager in post and are progressing their work on the asset register, SuDS, consenting, investigations. Work is being progressed under the banner of East Sussex Flood Partnership that consists of the county and district members, Southern Water and Brighton and Hove City Council. The local strategy is at initial scoping phase. East Sussex are very engaged with their new responsibilities and are a pilot location for Defra s investment needs study Kent have an established strategic partnership that includes both Kent County Council and Medway Council. Kent and Medway have dedicated staff in place to implement and manage the new responsibilities for local flood risk. Kent have a full time Flood Manager and are employing an assistant, the Medway are using Scott Wilson to deliver their priorities. Both are sharing work with each other for mutual benefit. The priorities are to set-up a process for investigations, agree software for the asset register, and begin the local strategy. The Medway are looking to deliver their Flood Risk Regulations requirements through their strategy. 3.0 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies 3.1 Over the last few years we have seen documents such as Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) and Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) begin to identify the areas at risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourse flooding. We now need to move forward with Local Flood Risk Management Strategies. It is important to be clear on how the RFCC members and the strategic flood partnerships will use the Local FRM Strategy. S/RFCC/12/04 Page 2 of 4

33 3.2 The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Strategy describes the importance of LLFAs working closely with RFCCs. RFCCs do not have a specific role in relation to local strategies under the Act, but will have a major role overall in co-ordinating FCRM across catchments and the coast. Catchment Flood Management Plan and Shoreline Management Plans will therefore continue to be the main strategic plans for flood and coastal risk management. 3.3 There is no deadline by which a Lead Local Flood Authority needs to complete their Local Flood Risk Management Strategy but given the link between actions identified to manage risks and bids for funding to deliver these, we believe that the sooner a strategy is in place, the sooner a robust prioritised programme of investment can be developed. 3.4 The Local Strategy needs to comply with the specific requirements set out in the Floods and Water Management Act. However, in meeting the requirements of the FWMA, the Local Strategies should clearly explain which communities are at risk from flooding (all sources) in the LLFA s area, and pull together into one place the actions for all risk management authorities from the various flood and coastal risk management plans and risk assessments. This will enable the LLFA, RFCC members and EA to have a good overview of the problem and investment needed over the next few years to manage the risks. 3.5 The Local Strategy should therefore include (or be accompanied by) an action plan. The action plan will provide a focus and agenda for the LLFA strategic flood partnerships setting out which communities need further activity and/or investment to reduce flood risk and what actions each of the risk management authorities can contribute (subject to availability of funding), under the direction and leadership of the LLFA. It should also set out what investment and funding will be needed to deliver those actions over the next 5-6 years, and potential opportunities to align with other community projects and sources of funding. 3.6 As LLFAs move forward developing Local Flood Risk Management Strategies and action plans, links with their representative RFCC member will become important. Future investment programmes for each community at risk will need to include schemes to manage all forms of flooding, whether from surface water, groundwater, ordinary watercourses as well as main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. Early RFCC engagement in developing these schemes will be important in ensuring robust bids are supported by their RFCC member, and hence secure a position in the RFCC programme at the right time to coincide with other funding streams. 3.7 The committee members are asked to consider in more detail how best to individually and collectively become engaged in Local Flood Risk Management Strategies, and consider what they will need from the Local Strategy to actively fulfil their role on the Committee. 3.8 Annual progress will be monitored through national Section 18 reporting. A new reporting format is being developed nationally, which is expected to replace the current Stewardship Statement. A paper is being developed for the Committee for the next meeting. However, committee members may wish to request a more regular update on progress by each LLFA on a more regular basis. 3.9 Under the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, Flood Risk Management plans will need to be published by The Environment Agency is looking to rationalise the number of plans that risk management authorities need to produce. Catchment Flood Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans will meet the requirements of the Regulations, although the CFMPs will need updating to include the recently collected information on surface water flooding, ordinary watercourses and reservoir flooding. S/RFCC/12/04 Page 3 of 4

34 4.0 Conclusions and recommendations 4.1 RFCC members are requested to: (a) Note the good progress being made by Lead Local Flood Authorities in undertaking their new duties under the Floods and Water Management Act, and the early work to advance Local Flood Risk Management Strategies; (b) Support the development of Local Flood Risk Strategies as outlined in this paper, to ensure they meet the requirements of the FWMA, provide a useful focus for the LLFA Strategic Flood Partnerships and set out the potential investment need in the LLFA area; and (c) Discuss the contents of this paper and consider how best to individually and collectively become engaged in Local Flood Risk Management Strategies. David Murphy Coastal and Inland Overview Manager David.murphy@environment-agency.gov.uk 21 December 2011 S/RFCC/12/04 Page 4 of 4

35 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 9 Report no. S/RFCC/12/05 SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: Bryan Curtis, Chairman South East Coastal Group, Andrew Bradbury, Chairman Southern Coastal Group and Roger Elkins, Chairman Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline SUBJECT: COASTAL GROUP REPORT Summary RFCC members are asked to note: 1. This report provides an update on key work areas and developments affecting the coast and the Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC), the South East Coastal Group (SECG) and Southern Coastal Group (SCG). 2. The report is for information only. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The aim of this report is to provide a summary of the salient outcomes, issues and progress on the main items discussed at the last meetings of the Coastal Groups for its members, Councillors and the Regional Flood Defence Committee. Where possible it will update items to present day. Please note though that it is not a substitute for the minutes of each meeting. 2.0 Summary of the Coastal Group Activities/Attendance 2.1 Since the last RFCC, as a snapshot of our activities, the representatives of the Coastal Groups have attended or been involved with the following: Coastal Forum, Defra/EA Stakeholders Forum (London) Coastal Group Chairmen s meeting (London) UKCMF Stakeholders Group (London) National Coastal Erosion Risk Mapping (NCERM) Project Board and Pilot Roll out Liaison and Validation meetings, (London and various locations) Coastal Communities 2150 Project Board (Newhaven) Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Conference Steering group, Content Group and Conferences in York, Nottingham and Gatwick. Coastal Group meetings (2 No) (Havant and Littlehampton) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Action Plan Sub Groups (NOC and Canterbury) S/RFCC/12/05 Page 1 of 4

36 Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) Coastal Management Conference and Beach Management Workshop (Belfast) ICE Maritime Panel (London) Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) Rivers and Coastal Group (Havant) Local Government Association Special Interest Group LGA SIG and Senior Officer Group (SIG) (London) CIWEM and CMS Conference Coastal Flooding and Erosion Risk Management Understanding change: Risk Organisations Responses (3 No Speakers) (London) Technical Advisors (TAG) Coastal and Fluvial Committee (London) EA/Defra R and D Advisory Group (London) South East Beach Management Plan (SE BMP) Steering Group (Worthing) South East Strategic Coastal Regional Monitoring Programme Annual Meeting (Worthing) LGA Inland Flood Risk Management (FRM) Group (London) LGA National Partners Group Annual Meeting (London) EA National Procurement Framework (Birmingham) Coastal Programme Initiative Project Board (London) ICE Learned Society Forum (London) Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Water Advisory Panel (London) SCOPAC (Portsmouth) SCG/SCOPAC ACCESS Launch (Southampton) 18 th November 2011 Toe Structure Workshop (Southampton)14 th December Shoreline Management Plans (SMP) 3.1 Sub-Groups to coordinate the review, monitoring and progress of the SMP Action Plans have been arranged with a view to more actively monitoring the outputs of each plan. Particular emphasis of this work will be ensuring that appropriate authorities are linked to the Medium Term Plan and hence future delivery. 4.0 National Erosion Risk Mapping (NCERM) Project 4.1 Further to last meeting approval to publish 20, 50 and 100 year erosion data, if local authorities, agree has been obtained from Ministers. This is a positive step forward following months of discussion and pressure by both EA and Coastal Group Officers to provide our best understanding of risk for both the short, medium and long term. 4.2 Although the news above is welcomed it was not possible to include the 50 and 100 year erosion data in the two pilot areas which, following agreement of all partners went live and on target in October. The aim of the pilots is to gauge public response and learn lessons before the remainder of the countries erosion risk maps are published in March One of the Pilot areas is here in this region and covers the sediment sub cell and SMP coastline between Beachy Head to Selsey Bill. A link to the data is should you wish to see the format of the website: =map&scale=4&lang=_e&layergroups=default&textonly=off 4.3 At this time we are pleased to report that there has been very little interest in the new format data and the website. S/RFCC/12/05 Page 2 of 4

37 5.0 National and Regional Coastal Monitoring Programmes 5.1 We are pleased to report yet another successful South East Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Annual Review meeting was held on the 18 th October 2011 and was attended by at least one of the RFCC members. This was the 9 th such review meeting and was attended by an audience of over 75 from a wide range of partners from the South East and from further a field. It was particularly gratifying to see colleagues from East Anglia and the North East attending again. 5.2 The Local Authority In-house teams continue to deliver the completion of the Phase 2 whilst preparing for the roll out of Phase 3 next April. 6.0 Framework Arrangements 6.1 Whilst both Groups have new contracting and consultant framework arrangements in place the Chairman of the SECG as Chairman of the Coastal Group Chairmen is working with the Agency and its National Capital Project Management Service to enable future extension of the Agency s Framework arrangements which Local Authorities are not currently able to use. So far only one workshop has been held to kick start the process but future meeting are planned from January Consultations 7.1 A response to the CLG consultation on the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework was linked with other partner groups and dispatched by the end of the consultation period of 17 th October Dredging applications 8.1 None but Area 435/396 Monitoring Report 2011 received. 9.0 Partnership Working 9.1 Active discussion with the Lead Local Flood Authorities regarding the links with the Coastal Groups remains underway. The Chairman of the SECG met with the EA s Joint Management Team and Regional Operations Managers to discuss ways to better work together. A verbal report on this will be made at the meeting Training/Seminars and Workshops 10.1 Past South East Strategic Coastal Regional Monitoring Programme Annual Review (Worthing) 18 th October 2011, SCOPAC ACCESS Launch (NOC) 18 th November 2011 and Toe Structure Workshop (NOC) 16 th December Planned Shingle Recycling Workshop (TBC) 3 rd February 2012, SECG Member s Forum 12 th April 2012, SCOPAC Summer visit (TBC) and in the longer term and yet confirmed Sediment Budget, Joint Probability Assessment and Wave Run-up improvement workshops. S/RFCC/12/05 Page 3 of 4

38 11.0 Meetings 11.1 Dates of past meetings SCG 24 th November 2011 and SECG 15 th December Dates of future meetings and items of interest in the next quarter: Coastal Futures: Review and Future Trends Conference (London) 18 and 19 th January 2012 Southern Coastal Group (Havant): 24 th November 2011 South East Coastal Group (TBC ): 8 th March 2012 (To be rearranged) SCOPAC (TBC ) Bryan Curtis, Chairman South East Coastal Group Andrew Bradbury, Chairman Southern Coastal Group Roger Elkins, Chairman Standing Conference of Problems Associated with the Coastline December 2011 S/RFCC/12/05 Page 4 of 4

39 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 10 Report no. S/RFCC/12/06 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 AUTHOR: Peter Carver, Regional Finance Manager David Murphy, Regional Programme Manager SUBJECT: PROGRAMME PROGRESS AND FINANCE REPORT Recommendation: RFCC members are asked to note the progress made in delivering the RFCC programme across the Committee s area in 2011/ Introduction 1.1 This report and the accompanying Appendix 1 present the income and expenditure for the current financial year up to the end of November FCRM GiA Income 2.1 The total Southern RFCC funding for flood risk activities is 42.5m. Within this, we have budgeted to receive IDB income of 1.4m and other income of 0.6m. The plan is to spend 19.5m on revenue activities and 23.0m on capital schemes. 2.2 Since the last update, an additional 1.7m of FDGiA revenue funding has been provided to the EA South East Region to be spent on additional revenue activities. 3.0 GiA Revenue Expenditure 3.1 The revenue budget for 2011/12 is 19.5m, which includes 8.1m for frequent and intermittent maintenance and 3.6m for revenue projects. 3.2 After eight months we have spent 11.0m on revenue activities, which is behind profile by 2.0m. This is largely related to Operations Delivery activity where there is a continuing level of staff vacancies and the slow start to project work has not yet been caught up. 3.3 Since the last update, the performance against profile has remained steady at 2.0m. The Regional Programme Board have agreed to additional revenue items being brought onto the programme to utilise the additional allocation of funding from national GiA and to ensure delivery.. The forecast for the full year is showing a marginal overspend of 0.1m, with a forecast of 19.6m. S/RFCC/12/06 Page 1 of 4

40 4.0 FCRM FDGiA Capital Programme Expenditure In April 2011 the Southern RFCC FDGiA capital budget for 2011/12 was agreed at 24.5m, which included 1.5m (5%) of the 30m National over-programme. 4.2 At of the end of November, the Most Likely forecast was 22.4m, which was 2.1m below the budget. The significant variances on current budget have been on: Project Name Pevensey Outfalls Reconstruction Sandwich Town Tidal Defences Littlehampton Arun Tidal Defences East Bank Medmerry Managed Realignment Current Allocation m Most Likely Forecast m Variance m Reason for Variance During the target setting process, the construction elements of the project came in less than estimated in the PAR, resulting in a 0.5m saving. However additional culvert clearance work have reduced the overall size of the saving Due to delays in the obtaining Approval for the project, it will not be possible to complete the land purchase and associated works this financial year and now forecasts to be spent in Due to delays in obtaining approval for the project, commencement of the detailed design has been delayed The majority of the reduction is due to 0.3m of risk being released. However, the project recently went to site and there is the possibility that the programme can be advanced or some risks are realised. Total In July, there was agreement with the National team to allow the Pevensey Outfall Replacement project to proceed in because of uncertainty in delivery of the National programme. The project is forecast to be substantially complete this financial year and will account for 2.4m of expenditure and reduce risk to 1643 households in early As a result of the forecast underspend and to achieve the target of 23.0m, the Regional Programme Board have agreed to 2.9m worth of acceleration projects in order to mitigate the underspend. Increases in expenditure have not yet made it into the forecasts, but this will be updated for December. The acceleration projects include additional work at the Leigh Barrier to install new Telemetry equipment, carrying out additional LIDAR work, and bringing forward additional expenditure from into the current year. 4.5 The National FDGiA Allocation Team has approached the South East region with an offer to put forward Local Levy funded projects which could be transferred to FDGIA funding later this financial year. This opportunity arises as a result of efficiency savings in other EA projects and where contingency funds within projects have not been required to complete the scheme. It has been proposed in the RFCC Levy paper under Item 6(c) of the agenda that the following projects be transferred to FDGiA. Forest Row 0.250m (excluding 115k of National Property Resilience fund) Hollowshaw Outfalls 0.250m S/RFCC/12/06 Page 2 of 4

41 4.6 The transfer of projects from levy to GIA will increase the Southern RFCC Levy balances and enable the funds to be re-invested in local priorities. In particular, the RFCC may wish to bring forward to 2012/13 the Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls West Bank scheme, which was put back to 2013/14 in the national FDGiA indicative allocation. The funding required for Shoreham next year is 475k, with future years funding of c. 13m to complete the scheme anticipated from the FDGiA programme. 5.0 Local Authority & IDB Capital Programmes of Work 5.1 In April 2011 the Southern RFCC Local Authority and IDB Capital Grant budget for 2011/12 was agreed at 6.8m. 5.2 At of the end of November 2011, the Most Likely forecast was 6.0m, which is 0.8m below the budget. The significant variances on current budget have been on: Project Name Margate Flood and Coast Protection Scheme Eastbourne Beach management 5 yr Plan (2011/ /15) Coastal Defence Capital Maintenance Works MU13B Peacehaven East Sussex Current Allocation m Most Likely Forecast m Variance m Total Reason for Variance Expenditure has been delayed due to delays in obtaining LA planning permission and external environmental approvals Additional material was moved for the same cost last year and has resulted in over filled bays but within accepted tolerances. This means less material needs to be moved in Currently forecasting an underspend but this is anticipated to increase back to the current allocation due to a compensation event. 5.3 Nationally, additional funding was made available for Property Level Protection works, with 2 out of 4 successful bids from Southern RFCC protecting 18 properties. Both projects are anticipated to complete in Chiltern Court, Portsmouth 21.2k 5 properties Florence Road, Portsmouth 53.2k 13 properties 6.0 Outcome Measures - FDGiA and Local Authority 6.1 The table below summaries the forecast outcome measure performance and shows that OM2 delivery will be 742 fewer households against the target of OM2b is a subset of OM2 and as a results there will be 310 fewer households delivered against the target of S/RFCC/12/06 Page 3 of 4

42 Authority Target NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED OM2 OM2b OM2c OM3 OM3b OM4b Forecast Target Forecast Area Kent & South EA London LA Solent & EA South Downs LA EA Total LA The reductions in OM delivery are detailed in the table below. There is a low likelihood of being able to recover the lost OMs due to a lack of suitable projects that can be brought into delivery in However, OM2 delivery across South East is in excess of the National target by 166 households because of additional households being claimed at the Thames Barrier and associated works. Target Forecast Target Forecast Target Forecast Target Forecast Project Name EA Area OM2 Targets OM2b Delivery OM2 OM2b OM2 Variance OM2b Reason for Non-delivery Barton's Point Beach Replenishment Leigh Barrier Enhanced Maintenance Tonbridge Town Lock floodwall Em's River Westbourne & Emsworth Improvements Hayling Island North Improvements Kent & South London Kent & South London Kent & South London Solent & South Downs Solent & South Downs Additional 37 OM2b for this project. Project not delivering OMs. OMs will be delivered through the subsequent project Leigh Barrier Mechanical improvements phase 2. Project now unlikely to claim OMs in 11-12, now forecast in Scheme unviable in its current form, therefore has stopped. Other options being assessed Delay in project delivery means OMs have been delayed to 12/ Local Levy Income 7.1 Precept income is recorded when invoiced at the start of financial year. However, the income is collected from local authorities on a quarterly basis. Levy income for 2011/12 is 1,177k. 8.0 Local Levy Expenditure 8.1 In April 2011 the Southern RFCC Levy capital budget for 2011/12 was agreed at 1,177k plus 150k of Levy over-programme to address potential underspend from delays in S/RFCC/12/06 Page 4 of 4

43 programme delivery. 8.2 At the end of November, the Most Likely forecast was 1,414k, with significant variances on the budget summarised in the table below. Project Name Hollowshaw Outfall Replacement Forest Row Flood Alleviation Scheme Current Allocation m Most Likely Forecast m Variance m Reason for Variance The works have now been investigated and the scope and cost of the works have increased in excess of what was envisaged The project has secured 115k of additional funding from the National Property Resilience fund but the money will only be available at the end of the financial year. As a result, the project is forecasting gross costs. Total Progress to date on delivering the programme has been slow with 0.429m (30% of the forecast) spent. Delivery of the programme is behind the planned profiled expenditure by 0.406m. Area and ncpms teams have been challenged on the deliverability of the forecast as a result of the delayed spend and have reported that they are confident in delivery of the current forecast by the end of the financial year. 9. Local Levy Balances 9.1 The programme for is in line with the income and as a result balances are likely to remain at similar levels to last year. The expected position is as follows; k Balance at 1 April ,139 Levy Income 1,186 Planned Expenditure 1,414 Expected balance to carry forward to 2012/ The balances position presented above does not take account the transfer of Levy projects to FDGiA funding. 10. Conclusions and Recommendations 10.1 The Committee is asked to note the progress made in delivering the RFCC programme across the Committee s area in 2011/12. Adam Thompson Asset Investment and Planning Technical Specialist adam.thompson@environment-agency.gov.uk 21 December 2011 Appendix 1: FCRM Financial report November 2011 S/RFCC/12/06 Page 5 of 4

44 NATIONAL PRIORITY GRANT AIDED Contributions to FDGIA Schemes IDB Other Capital Income Total National Priority Income EXPENDITURE Routine Revenue Expenditure FCRM AREA TEAMS OPS DELIVERY FCRM FDGIA FCRM REGIONAL TEAMS OTHER REG & AREA TEAMS (SL) REG TEAMS FCRM FUNDED (NON SL) FCRM DIRECTORATE NATIONAL OPERATIONS CIS CORPORATE COSTS Total Routine Revenue Expenditure YTD YTD YTD FY FY FY Actual Agreed Variance Forecast Agreed Variance Target Target k k k k k k ,398 1, ,398 1, ,590 1, ,904 1, ,013 2, ,135 3, ,741 5, ,910 8, ,961 2, ,035 3, ,739 10, ,616 15, Revenue Projects Total Revenue Expenditure 1,241 2,364 1,123 3,973 3,593 10,980 12,963 1,982 19,589 19, Capital Expenditure Unallocated Assets Biodiversity Flood Incident Management IEM Land & Water Modelling Mapping & Data Strategic Overview Total Capital Expenditure TOTAL EXPENDITURE ,149 5,629-6,521 20,211 20, ,498 7,421-6,077 22,447 23, ,478 20,383-4,095 42,037 42, NATIONAL PRIORITY GIA SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) -22,888-18,802-4,086-40,133-40, LOCAL LEVY FUNDED INCOME Local Levy Contributions to LL schemes Interest Received TOTAL LOCAL LEVY INCOME 1,181 1, ,186 1,186 0 EXPENDITURE Revenue Capital TOTAL LOCAL LEVY EXPENDITURE ,319 1, ,414 1, LOCAL LEVY SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) LOCAL LEVY BALANCES Balance b/fwd Surplus/Deficit for Year Balance c/fwd TOTAL FCRM Total FCRM Income Total FCRM Revenue Expenditure Total FCRM Capital Expenditure TOTAL FCRM SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ,139 1, ,139 1, ,891 1, , ,770 2, ,090 3, ,992 13,016 2,023 19,684 19, ,914-22,136 8,202-18,454-5,713-3,683 23,766-40,361 24,193-40, S/RFCC/12/06 Page 6 of 4

45 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 11 Report no. S/RFCC/12/07 Long-term investment strategies External briefing note December 2011 Our long-term investment strategies (LTIS) set out the future costs and benefits of managing flood and coastal risks in a range of different scenarios. Background In 2009 we published Investing for the future (for England) and in 2010 we published Future flooding in Wales: flood defences. These LTIS documents set out a long term view of flood and coastal risk and investments. They also contributed to submissions on flood and coastal risk management investment for the Spending Review 2010 (SR10). Since then there have been significant changes including a new government, new funding arrangements in England and new accountabilities through new legislation. We need to update the evidence supporting the LTIS in advance of the next Spending Review. This is to improve our understanding for long term investment needs and produce an analysis that could be used to support the new partnership funding policy in England. LTIS improvements project The objective of the project is to develop the evidence base that supports our understanding of future risk and investment need for flooding and coastal erosion in England and Wales over the next 25 years. There are no plans to externally publish a new set of LTIS reports to follow those published in 2009 and However we will consult, as appropriate, on the results as they develop through We will expand our approach beyond the original focus on river and coastal asset management to include issues such as surface water flooding and our flood warning services. We will improve our evidence base by updating the original river and coastal scenarios to include latest national risk results and understanding of climate change impacts. A range of national risk and investment scenarios will be tested at a more local scale against actual investment plans. We are also exploring options for developing a model that produces LTIS scenarios for local sources of flooding. Approach The project is managed through a Environment Agency project board and there is a senior stakeholder group consisting of Environment Agency Directors and officials from Defra, Welsh Government, HM Treasury, Infrastructure UK and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

46 Benefits The LTIS improvements project will provide an improved evidence base to support long term flood and coastal risk management investment decision making. It will benefit Defra and the Welsh Government by providing them with stronger evidence on which to plan public expenditure. Implications for Wales The reports issued in 2009 and 2010 used similar data and modelling tools for England and Wales but different investment scenarios. Wales continues to be fully involved in the current project. Following the announcement of the creation of a Single Environmental Body for Wales from 2013, we will continue to work with Wales to agree their involvement in any future work. Timings The current project is due to be completed by September 2012 with draft updates to our evidence base. Where further work is required and would further strengthen our confidence in the LTIS evidence, we will consult with stakeholders and consider options to run a second phase to the current project. This could start around October 2012 and would finish in advance of future Spending Reviews. Further information For more information please contact the South East regional champion, David Murphy, Coastal and Inland Overview Manager at david.murphy@environment-agency.gov.uk Version 1.0

47 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 12 Report no. S/RFCC/12/08 SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: SUBJECT: REGIONAL FLOOD EXECUTIVE MANAGER RECENT FCRM PUBLICATIONS Recommendation RFCC members are asked to note the recent publications of importance in Flood and Coastal Risk Management, as outlined within this paper 1.0 Introduction 1.1 There have been a number of FCERM related publications issued recently that the Committee should be aware of. These are Ministerial Statement on Flood Insurance Defra Consultation on Sustainable Urban Drainage Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments FCRM Asset Maintenance Protocol 2.0 Ministerial Statement on Flood Insurance 2.1 On 19 December 2011 Richard Benyon, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries issued a statement to Parliament on flood insurance. This was an interim report from the three working groups on flood insurance which were set up in The final report is due to be published in April The statement is attached for the Committee to read in full. 3.0 Defra consultation on Sustainable Urban Drainage 3.1 On 20 December 2011, Defra launched a consultation on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 3.2 The consultation describes how Government proposes to implement Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 for the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for future development in England. 3.3 The consultation includes draft: S/RFCC/12/08 Page 1 of 4

48 National Standards Statutory Instruments (regulations and orders) which provide much of the detail of how the SuDS process will work Impact Assessment 3.4 Lead Local Flood Authorities will take on a new role as the SuDS Approving Body (SAB) when the regulations come into force. This will not be before October Defra are seeking views on this and other aspects of implementation, including transitional arrangements. 3.5 The Environment Agency will have a new role of statutory consultee to the SuDS approving body under the new arrangements. 3.6 The consultation period is due to close on 13 March Copies of the consultation documents and further information is available on Defra s website Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments published 4.1 The Environment Agency has now published all Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) on our website: For the first time, an assessment of local flood risk has been produced by all 174 Lead Local Flood Authorities in England and Wales (LLFA's). The PFRAs fulfill statutory requirements under the EU Floods Directive which is implemented in England and Wales by the Flood Risk Regulations The information in PFRAs will be used by LLFAs in developing their local flood risk management strategies. 4.3 Attached is a joint briefing note prepared with the Local Government Association and Welsh Local Government Association. 5.0 FCRM Asset Maintenance Protocol 5.1 The Environment Agency Protocol for the Maintenance of Flood and Coastal Risk Management Assets has now been published and is available to download at The protocol aligns directly with the National FCERM Strategy and covers both fluvial and coastal situations. It describes how we decide and implement our maintenance practices, the role of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs), how we will work with landowners and tenants, and the options for landowners in situations where we need to stop our maintenance work. 5.3 It applies to England only at this stage but a similar approach covering EA Wales is under development. 5.4 We have developed the protocol and supporting information in consultation with the National Farmers Union (NFU), the Country and Business Landowners Association (CLA), Natural England and Defra. S/RFCC/12/08 Page 2 of 4

49 5.5 Stopping maintenance can attract criticism from those directly affected. The NFU considers our maintenance approach disadvantages the rural community and is concerned about the impacts on its members. While the NFU and CLA were keen to work with us to develop the protocol, we confirm that the protocol or announcements do not imply endorsement from the NFU or CLA. 5.6 The protocol is supported by a landowner information pack providing specific and detailed information giving support to landowners in making decisions about the future management of their land and FCRM assets. 5.7 Using the protocol we will begin to identify FCRM assets that are candidates for stopping maintenance. Our Area teams will engage with the landowners and communities affected, working with them to identify and use the best options for them. We will monitor and then review the effectiveness of the protocol in December 2012 and amend it if necessary. David Murphy Coastal and Inland Overview Manager David.murphy@environment-agency.gov.uk 21 December 2011 S/RFCC/12/08 Page 3 of 4

50 WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT WMS 122 DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Progress towards developing future flood risk management arrangements 19 December 2011 Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries (Richard Benyon) I am today publishing a report following the three flood insurance working groups established in The working groups were made up of representatives from Government, the insurance industry and community groups. Building on their conclusions, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I have agreed to sponsor further work to analyse the options for managing the future financial risks of flooding. Government and the insurance industry remain committed to making sure flood insurance remains widely available. Together we are working towards an announcement in the spring of a new shared understanding which sets out more clearly what customers can expect from their insurer, and from Government. The existing Statement of Principles currently enables insurers to price according to risk. Risk based pricing has not been commonly applied in the past because of a range of factors including commercial decisions by individual insurers and historic limitations in the availability of flood risk information. However, the market is evolving with the development of more sophisticated tools for assessing a customer s flood risk with the reality being a continuing trend towards more risk based pricing. Taking steps to reduce flood risk, whether by Government, local communities or individuals, minimises damage occurring in the first place and thereby plays a vital role in bearing down on insurance costs. In accordance with this Government s determination to deliver solutions which offer taxpayers greatest value for money and which will endure over the long-term, the priority will continue to be to invest in reducing the risk of people and properties being flooded in the first place, rather than re-directing funds into subsidising insurance premiums, which would do nothing to protect against the wider, non-monetary, health and wellbeing impacts of flooding. Hence we propose to: Continue to target Government funding towards those most at risk and living in the most deprived areas through Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding launched in May of this year. There is already progress: 36 per cent of households protected by new flood alleviation schemes proposed for 2012/13 are at significant risk and in the most deprived communities, compared with 6 per cent during the previous

51 spending period. Overall, the Government plans to invest 2.17 billion on flood and coastal erosion risk management in England over the current spending review period. Continue to improve the quality and availability of flood risk maps published by the Environment Agency including surface water flooding maps, so that individuals and communities can be more aware of levels of local flood risk and better informed about what action could be taken at an appropriate level to provide better protection. Continue to extend the flood warnings service so that by 2015 at least two thirds of households and businesses in the highest risk areas are signed up to receive the Floodline Warnings Direct service. Explore with the insurance industry how to create an environment where those at risk are incentivised and supported to proactively reduce flood risk with the consequent effect being seen in their longterm insurance costs. Over the next few months we will continue to work with insurance companies to consider what additional measures might help safeguard the affordability of flood insurance for households. As part of this ongoing work we will be considering the feasibility, value for money and deliverability of targeting funds to help those most in need, building on the analysis undertaken by the working groups established after last year s flood summit. This may include models where communities might work together to secure affordable insurance. These options will be considered over the winter months in order to make further announcements in the spring. However, in the interests of keeping the Members and their constituents abreast of these ongoing discussions I wanted to give this interim update. Copies of the report of the flood insurance working groups are available from the Defra website.

52 Publication of Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 20 December 2011 On 22 December 2011, Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) will be made available to the public. For the first time, an assessment of local flood risk has been produced by all 174 Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) in England and Wales. They fulfil statutory requirements under the EU Floods Directive, which is implemented in England and Wales by the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (the Regulations). They will be used to inform decision-making and enable targeted action by local authorities. What is a PFRA? A PFRA is a high-level assessment of local flood risk, involving the collection and reporting of information on past (historic) and future (potential) floods to identify where the risk of flooding may be an issue within a LLFA area. In addition, information in the PFRA is used to confirm Flood Risk Areas - areas where flood risk is a significant issue and the next stages of the EU Floods Directive apply. PFRAs only cover local sources of flood risk i.e. flooding from ordinary watercourses (small rivers, streams and ditches), surface runoff and ground water. They do not include flood risk from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs, as these sources of flooding are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. However they do consider interactions with all potential sources of flooding where appropriate. The Environment Agency has not produced a PFRA due to an exemption under the Regulations as they already map and plan for flooding from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. Why are PFRAs important? PFRAs provide a comprehensive assessment of flood risk from local sources across all of England and Wales for the first time. They will be used to provide the evidence base for LLFAs to develop their local flood risk management strategies which are required under the Flood and Water Management Act. Who has been involved in producing PFRAs? LLFAs were responsible for developing PFRAs. Responsibilities under the Regulations are consistent with the Flood and Water Management Act, which gives upper-tier local authorities a role to coordinate the management of local sources of flood risk. The Environment Agency has had a number of roles in producing PFRAs including: the production of guidance and supporting tools; supporting and working with LLFAs at the local level; reviewing and making sure all PFRAs are published. How were Flood Risk Areas identified? Defra and Welsh Government issued guidance on a method for selecting and reviewing Flood Risk Areas which included setting criteria and thresholds. The thresholds were determined by Ministers

53 following feedback from workshops held with LLFAs in September 2010 and reflect a desire to take a proportionate approach and concentrate on a few areas of highest risk. A threshold of 30,000 people was identified for England and 5,000 in Wales. The difference in thresholds reflect the difference in the nature of the risks and the size of settlements in Wales. The Environment Agency applied the method and criteria to determine 'indicative Flood Risk Areas' based on their national surface water mapping products which were provided to LLFAs in December 2010 as a starting point. There are ten Flood Risk Areas in England covering approximately a third of properties at risk of surface water flooding in England. Eight have been identified in Wales covering approximately 40 per cent of properties at risk of surface water flooding in Wales. Where can I and others find out more? The Environment Agency has a duty under the Regulations to publish PFRAs. With the support of the Local Government Association(LGA), Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), Defra and Welsh Government, the Environment Agency has been encouraging LLFAs to demonstrate ownership and publish their own PFRAs. The Environment Agency's website will provide an online hub for all PFRAs. LLFAs are responsible for the content of their PFRA and although the Environment Agency can answer generic questions on PFRAs, any specific query will be directed to the relevant LLFA. We would still like to encourage LLFAs to publish their own PFRAs and engage with their communities. The Environment Agency is planning to update its website in early 2012, this will include updating links. What happens next? For LLFAs in Flood Risk Areas, hazard and risk maps need to be submitted to the Environment Agency by June 2013 and flood risk management plans by June The Environment Agency is working with others to establish the approach to completing these stages, which includes piloting potential improvements to its national surface water mapping. Working with the Welsh Government, the Environment Agency has agreed to produce surface water hazard and risk maps meeting the requirements of the Regulations for all of Wales. It is anticipated that a similar approach will also be taken in England; a decision on this will be made in spring 2012 following the current pilot testing. The Environment Agency will also provide guidance in spring 2012 for LLFAs in England who wish to use or develop their own hazard and risk mapping. For LLFAs not in Flood Risk Area there are no further statutory outputs required under the Regulations until the next cycle begins in LLFAs will however be expected to set out in their local flood risk management strategies required under the Flood and Water Management Act, how they intend to manage the flood risks identified in their PFRAs. The Environment Agency may also, for example as part of their surface water mapping, ask LLFAs to work with them on the outputs to tie in with the timetable of the Regulations and to help planning for the next cycle. As indicated above, the Environment Agency is likely to provide all LLFAs in England and Wales with surface water hazard mapping to meet the requirements of the Regulations. For further information, please contact your local Environment Agency contact.

54 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK S/RFCC/12/08 Page 4 of 4

55 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 13 Report no. S/RFCC/12/09 SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: REGIONAL FLOOD EXECUTIVE MANAGER SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PROJECT AWARDS 2011 Recommendation RFCC members are asked to note: The recent awards won by the Environment Agency in the South East. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Environment Agency recently won three awards: (a) the Client of the Year award at the National SECBE (South East Centre for the Built Environment) Constructing Excellence Awards; (b) the Civil Engineering Project Award (for projects from 3m to 50m) at the British Construction Industry Awards 2011, and (c) the Birse Civils Managing Directors Safety Awards. 2.0 SECBE Constructing Excellence Awards Client of the Year 2.1 Constructing Excellence aims to create better built environment by driving improvement in the construction industry. The Environment Agency South East won this prestigious national award in recognition of having achieved, and in some instances exceeded, all Defra and government targets across a range of challenges including project management, sustainability, community and supplier engagement. The impact of our work was acknowledged as outstanding, reducing risk of flooding for an additional 49,711 households and creating habitats for at risk flora and fauna. To deliver, we instigated and led an innovative approach to delivery and management of our capital programme ( 100million+ pa) through the development of supply chain frameworks and by embracing the principles of Constructing Excellence. The judges noted that we had achieving efficiency savings exceeding 10% in 2010/11, enabling us to deliver more outcomes whilst keeping health, safety and the environment at the heart of what we did. 3.0 The British Construction Industry Awards Civil Engineering Project Award (for projects from 3m to 50m) 3.1 The Environment Agency South East won this award for the High Knocke to Dymchurch sea defences frontage A scheme. Throughout design and construction, sustainability was a key consideration with the aim of creating a project with a low carbon footprint that is S/RFCC/12/09 Page 1 of 2

56 both safe and robust enough to survive the changing climate. Innovative design and construction methods were used to allow work to be completed close to homes and a busy tourist centre with the minimum of disruption. The Environment Agency consistently rated its satisfaction at over 90% during independent customer satisfaction surveys and the general public, local stakeholders and businesses provided fantastic feedback. The project was completed two months ahead of schedule and achieved savings of more than 10% on the projected cost whilst being both highly functional and aesthetically pleasing. Judges commented "As well as protecting the town, it has created a sense of style and place and is already proving a significant influence on regeneration". 4.0 Birse Civils Managing Directors Safety Awards 4.1 These awards were in recognition of high health and safety standards, low instances of reportable incidents and a good attitude to safety at: Oxford Short Term Measures Rye Harbour Farm Habitat Creation Newmans Sluice Rob Hall ncpms Regional Operations Manager rob.hall@environment-agency.gov.uk 21 December 2011 S/RFCC/12/09 Page 2 of 2

57 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 14 Report no. S/RFCC/12/10 SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: REGIONAL FLOOD EXECUTIVE MANAGER SUBJECT: WATER SITUATION REPORT NOVEMBER 2011 Summary RFCC members are asked to note: November was a dry month with below average rainfall. Soil moisture deficits are high for the time of year and there has been little recharge. Groundwater levels, river flows and reservoir levels continue to decline. The continuing combination of high soil moisture deficits, declining groundwater levels, record low river flows and declining reservoir levels highlight the delicate balance of the water resources in the region. Significant prolonged rainfall is required to alleviate the situation. 1.0 Rainfall 1.1 November was the third consecutive month with below average rainfall across the South East region. Most of the rain fell between the 2 nd and 4 th of November, and in North East thames, this rainfall accounted for more than 80% of the monthly total. The heaviest rainfall fell on the 3 rd of the month, with daily totals in excess of 40mm over the north and south downs. There was some additional rainfall along the south coast on the 30 th, but there was no further significant rainfall during November. 1.2 The South East region received 60% of the long term average for November; 55% of the average for the three month period from September 2011, and 80% of the average rainfall for the fourteen month period from October The Cotswolds and the chalk in the Thames basin and the Thanet chalk near Dover had the third driest period from September 2011 on record. The fourteen month period from October 2010 has been the 2 nd driest on record for Cotswolds west, after 1921; and the 3 rd driest for the upper Thames, Cherwell and Lee chalk, after Soil moisture deficit, recharge and groundwater levels 2.1 Although the soil moisture deficits were not as high during the summer as for example, 2003 and 2005, they are now very high for the time of year. As a result, significantly more rainfall is needed before soils will be wet enough to allow winter recharge and runoff. Groundwater levels continue to decline, with three of the key monitoring boreholes recording exceptionally low and most of the others notably low levels. Chilgrove in the south downs has recorded the 3 rd lowest level for November on record, which started in S/RFCC/12/10 Page 1 of 2

58 3.0 River flows 3.1 Flows have continued to decline during the month after some limited response to the rainfall on the 3 rd of the month. Six of the key monitoring sites had exceptionally low flows in November, there being at least one in each of the areas. In addition, a number of sites across the region have recorded the lowest mean monthly flow on record for November. These are largely in west Thames, and include the river coln at Bibury and the river Kennet at Theale. The rivers Darent and Teise have been augmented during November and remain either in the normal or below normal range; the wey at tilford had a significant response to the rainfall which has resulted in the monthly mean flow being in the normal range; and the Ver at Hansteads has responded to reduced groundwater abstraction in the catchment. 3.2 There were fluvial flood alerts on the 3 rd for the rivers ravensbourne, shuttle and cray in south london; 3 flood alerts on the 4 th for the river blackwater and emm brook in the loddon catchment and the upper itchen in Hampshire. 4.0 Environmental impacts 4.1 There have been more fish rescues this month, mainly in the Churn and Ampney brook in west Thames. 4.2 The continuing combination of high soil moisture deficits, declining groundwater levels, record low river flows and declining reservoir levels highlight the delicate balance of the water resources in the region. Significant and prolonged rainfall is required over the remaining winter months to alleviate this situation. 5.0 Reservoir storage/water resource zone stocks 5.1 Reservoir stocks have continued to fall during the month. South east water has provided revised data for Ardingly and Arlington reservoirs. Ardingly, Arlington, Bewl, Weir Wood and lower Lee reservoirs are below or close to the lowest stocks ever recorded for November. Jane Allam Technical Specialist Groundwater and Contamination Jane Allam@environment-agency.gov.uk Contact details: The full report including colour maps and charts is available for RFCC members upon request from Karen.Jouny@environment-agency.gov.uk S/RFCC/12/10 Page 2 of 2

59 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 15 Report no. S/RFCC/12/11 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: DIRECTOR OF FLOOD AND COASTAL RISK MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT STRATEGY Recommendations RFCC members are asked to note: 1. The new Sustainable Engineering Procurement Strategy (sent electronically to Members). 2. The proposed Next Generation Supplier Arrangements to deliver major FCRM projects 3. The need to embrace the new ways of working under the Floods and Water Management Act to enable efficient application of the revised procurement strategy and delivery models. 1.0 Background 1.1 Over the next ten years, we predict we will be investing more than 2.5 billion to reduce the risk from river and coastal flooding and to secure wider environmental and social benefits. Our professional relationships with both contractors and consultants will be crucial to delivering these multiple benefits. 1.2 This paper outlines the context and direction of travel of the Sustainable Engineering Procurement Strategy Key Challenges 2.1 Our new supplier arrangements need to be effective within the context of the following : The Spending Review 2010 settlement; Achievement of the 15% efficiency savings described in the SR10 settlement; The new Partnership Funding arrangements; Closer working with Lead Local Flood Authorities who will develop, maintain and monitor local flood risk management strategies; and The new Regional Flood and Coastal Committees who will advise on and approve the implementation of programmes of work for their areas. 2.2 Crucially, in order to deliver further efficiency savings we need to change our approach to the delivery of the capital programme, in particular, we will need to: allow suppliers to commercially optimise programme delivery whilst ensuring local customer expectations are met; commit to larger contractual packages of projects, over longer periods of time; S/RFCC/12/11 Page 1 of 4

60 allow a more standardised approach, reducing design costs and enabling off-site manufacture of products; be clearer and more consistent with our project requirements, avoiding change during project stages; and adopt a more outcome based approach to project specifications and allow the supplier to determine the best means of delivery. 3.0 Context and Direction of Travel 3.1 Our Long Term Investment Strategy (LTIS) states that: In general, contracts and specifications will be tailored to deliver whole, asset management based, solutions; There will be greater integration of the supply chain and a greater involvement of suppliers in core activities; People with key skills and knowledge will be developed to provide more added value; We will retain and develop the intelligent client role with partners becoming more active in planning and programming work; Innovation and efficiency will be encouraged and rewarded. 3.2 Infrastructure UK (IUK, part of HM Treasury), Efficiency Reform Group (part of Cabinet Office) and Major Projects Authority ((MPA) also part of Cabinet Office) have all recently published reports regarding how further efficiencies may be achieved in capital programme delivery. To summarise, particular areas for potential improvement identified in their reports are Programming: achieving greater levels of packaging and providing greater visibility of work pipeline to our suppliers (still considering localism, Small- and Mediumsized Enterprise (SME) access and Partnership Funding); Sharing frameworks across public authorities New procurement models Better use of our cost database information to inform project targets More programme level control of risk budgets Better measurement of achievement of efficiencies 3.3 The Sustainable Engineering Procurement Strategy (sent electronically to Members) reflects the above drivers and presents our proposed overall direction for the next ten years. We will - Continue to build on current best practice; Maintain flexibility in our commercial arrangements; Use a variety of procurement models; Trial a number of 'pathfinder' projects to see whether greater efficiency gains are possible from adopting more innovative contracting approaches; Maintain the appropriate level of cost management, market intelligence and supplier competition to clearly demonstrate any value for money gains. 4.0 Proposed New Framework Arrangements 4.1 We are seeking to rationalise the number of contractual arrangements but maintain access to the best resources in the market place. 4.2 We are procuring a single national Water and Environmental Management Framework. This is sub-divided into four separate lots to ensure that we procure the specialist skills that we need. The lots are as follows - S/RFCC/12/11 Page 2 of 4

61 o Lot 1: Mapping, Modelling and data services o Lot 2: Environmental Services o Lot 3: Engineering and Related Services o Lot 4: Asset Delivery (this features integrated, contractor led, design and construction teams, capable of delivering a project through appraisal to construction We will be able to use the framework flexibly: projects could be delivered through just Lot 4 or Lot 3 and 4 or all four Lots, depending on the project procurement strategy: We will make the framework attractive and accessible to Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards and to this end we are engaging a significant number of local authority representatives to help design the frameworks and select the suppliers; Greater supplier incentivisation to deliver our outcome measures; Contracts for programmes of work (similar to Humber, TE2100, etc) rather than projects; More co-located teams; Move towards specifying the outcomes we want, rather than how they might be achieved; Being clearer and more consistent in our requirements; Maintaining access to our work for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) 4.3 We will encourage local specialists or third sector organisations to be part of the frameworks through consortia or joint ventures. We will still be able to contract with those organisations directly if this will offer best value. We will encourage and monitor the use of local labour and apprenticeships in the frameworks. 4.4 In the new frameworks, we will achieve value for money through In-framework competition; Using our Project Cost Database information, so we can challenge and if necessary set target costs; and Keeping the option to procure from outside the frameworks, for highest risk and cost profile projects, as for instance with TE Conclusion and recommendations 5.1 The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to note: a) The new Sustainable Engineering Procurement Strategy (sent electronically to Members) b) The proposed Next Generation Supplier Arrangements to deliver major FCRM projects c) The need to embrace the new ways of working under the Floods and Water Management Act to enable efficient application of the revised procurement strategy and delivery models. Mark Hagger Commercial Development Manager mark.hagger@environment-agency.gov.uk 21 December 2011 S/RFCC/12/11 Page 3 of 4

62 Page Intentionally Blank S/RFCC/12/11 Page 4 of 4

63 Environment Agency South East Agenda item no. 16 Report no. S/RFCC/12/12 SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11 JANUARY 2012 PAPER BY: SUBJECT: David Murphy, Coastal & Inland Overview Manager NATIONAL FCRM REPORT FOR ENGLAND Recommendation RFCC members are asked to note: The contents of this paper and the request for LLFAs to contribute information on their progress in implementing the Floods and Water Management Act (FWMA) in England.: 1.0 Background or Introduction 1.1 Section 18 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires the Environment Agency to report to Ministers about flood and coastal erosion risk management including information on the application of the national Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) strategy. The national FCERM strategy for England came into effect in July 2011 and confirms that reporting will be carried out annually with more detailed reports provided to coincide with the six-year cycle of the Flood Risk Regulations. 1.2 Following approval by the Minister, the report will be published by the Environment Agency and will present a picture of how the management of flood and coastal risks is progressing. This will include progress on the implementation of legislation and government policy; strategic planning (Catchment Flood Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans) to manage risks at a catchment and coastal cell as well as Local Flood Risk Management Strategies at a local level; the delivery of schemes and activities to manage risk and major developments in approaches, understanding and science. 1.3 The report is part of the Environment Agency's Strategic Overview role and will consider the scale of all sources of flood and coastal erosion risks and their management. It is intended that the report will be of value to all those involved in flood and coastal risk management, providing a national view of progress against which local developments can be considered. 1.4 The first report for England is expected to be published in the autumn 2012 and will include progress made from April 2011 to March A significant proportion of the underlying data required to inform the report will be drawn from data that the Environment Agency already collects routinely. However, several pieces of information will be required from Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). S/RFCC/12/12 Page 1 of 4