Project Appraisal Guidance Note (PAGN)
(j) As a matter of priority, MAFF must develop
methodologies addressing social and environmental criteria for
inclusion in PAGN. Operating authorities should also be required
to identify the best practicable environmental option from among
the range of choices submitted to MAFF, and such options should
be given increased weighting by the Ministry in the project approval
process. PAGN should provide greater encouragement for projects
with multiple functions - for example, defensive, social and environmental
- than at present; only by doing so can MAFF's multiple goals
for sustainability be realised. There must also be far more transparency
in the process by which MAFF's decisions under PAGN are reached,
and the Ministry should review ways of simplifying and speeding
up the whole process of project appraisal (paragraph 60).
The current Project Appraisal Guidance Notes
were published in 1993 to provide guidance to operating authorities
on the selection of options for flood and coastal defence schemes.
They provide, inter alia, guidance on benefit
assessment and the appraisal of environmental gains and losses,
complementing other Ministry guidance specifically targeted to
environmental appraisal procedures. As an additional safeguard,
consultation with English Nature is a central part of scheme approval.
The Government recognises that there is room for further improvement.
The Countryside Minister, Elliot Morley announced on 9th July
1998 that the need to protect internationally important habitats
and species designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives
would override the current spending formula.
The Government is currently updating its
project appraisal guidance to reflect that announcement and to
produce an integrated suite of documents which provide a wider
perspective on all aspects of project appraisal. The updated guidance,
which will seek to address the concerns contained in this recommendation,
will improve the tools available to decision makers and assist
option selection. This further clarification should reduce the
scope for misunderstanding on the part of operating authorities
and in that way has the potential to speed up scheme appraisal
by them and facilitate the overall decision making process.
The Government encourages the operating authorities
to be as open as possible in releasing project appraisals. Where
the detailed analysis cannot be released, for example on grounds
of commercial confidentiality, the Government has provided guidance
on the format of a summary report. MAFF's priority scoring system
was introduced in 1997 with a view to optimising the allocation
of available funds for flood and coastal defence. The system is
open both in terms of the guidance given on developing scores
(based on Ministerial priorities, urgency and benefit:cost ratio)
and in feedback from MAFF to operating authorities on the prospects
of schemes being funded.
Rationalisation of legislative base of flood and
coastal defence policy
(k) In our opinion, the Government should rationalise
the legislative base of flood and coastal defence policy in England
and Wales as soon as possible, with, among other aims, the ending
of the artificial distinction between sea defence and coast protection
responsibilities. We recommend that coastal groups take responsibility
for sea defence and coastal erosion. Similarly, the logical basis
for dividing responsibilities for main river and non-main river
flood defence between the Environment Agency and local authorities
should be re-evaluated by the Ministry. We recommend that the
RFDCs take on responsibilities for flood defence activities on
non-main rivers currently undertaken by local authorities and
riparian owners (paragraph 67).
The distinction between flood defence and
coast protection could not be removed without change to the institutional
arrangements. The Government's response to recommendation (h)
therefore also responds to this recommendation.
The Government notes that the Committee's
proposal would replace one suggested artificial distinction (between
flood defence and coast protection) with what the Government considers
to be another (between coastal defence and inland defence). The
Government prefers to rely on the Environment Agency, in fulfilling
their supervisory responsibility, providing an appropriate level
of oversight, guidance and monitoring to ensure consistency of
actions by all operating authorities, whether on the coastline
or on river systems. Further details are in the responses to recommendations
(e), (k), (l), (p) and (s).
The Government is unclear why the Committee
recommends that the defence responsibilities of riparian owners
on non-main rivers (only) should transfer to RFDCs. All defences,
whether on main rivers, non-main rivers, or at the coast remain
the responsibility of the relevant landowner unless they are adopted
by operating authorities. Companies such as Railtrack, and those
involved in power generation, own and maintain significant flood
defence assets. Transferring some or all landowner responsibilities
to the public sector would be expensive and difficult to justify.
The Government acknowledges that the effectiveness
of the current arrangements is enhanced by adoption of appropriate
administrative procedures and partnerships between authorities
such as consortia of IDBs. The Government will consider with the
Environment Agency and other operating authorities how the Agency
can, in exercising its supervisory duty, assist in building on
best practice.
Improving the delivery of national strategy for flood
and coastal defence
(l) We recommend that MAFF and the Environment
Agency, as appropriate, provide clearer guidelines for Regional
Flood Defence Committees and coastal groups to ensure that, while
local needs are respected, the regional targets set through Shoreline
Management Plans at the coast, or Local Environment Agency Plans
inland, also advance relevant national strategic requirements.
These guidelines should be updated in the light of the latest
scientific research, and be monitored by MAFF or the Environment
Agency at regular yearly or biennial intervals to ensure that
they are being observed (paragraph 70).
The Government always seeks to update and
improve guidance, taking account of latest scientific research
and other knowledge, and as a means of promoting best practice.
The Government shares the Committee's concern
about advancing the national strategy and is already discussing
with the Environment Agency the adoption of high level targets
to measure their achievement of the Government's aim. Similar
discussions will be held with the other operating authorities.
The Government considers that further Government
monitoring of plans, at a greater level of detail, could in practice
amount to another level of approval with the associated bureaucracy,
and undermine the proper responsibility of operating authorities.
However, it is discussing with the Environment Agency and other
operating authorities what further monitoring is consonant with
the Agency's general supervisory duty.
(m) We have a national flood and coastal strategy
in principle, but not in practice. More must be done by the Ministry
to ensure operating authorities translate national strategic priorities
into positive action on the ground (paragraph 70).
The Government does have a national strategy
and has worked hard to translate it into practice by commissioning
research into new approaches to flood and coastal defence, by
placing conditions on grant aid for capital schemes and through
extensive guidance to operating authorities. This has led to some
notable practical results, such as the adoption of large scale
beach recharge on the Lincolnshire coast and the operational use
of managed realignment at Orplands in Essex. However, more needs
to be done to translate the national strategy into action on the
ground. The Committee has highlighted elsewhere in its report
areas which need to be considered further. For example, the Government's
response to recommendations (l), (q), (r) and (s) describe the
work which is in progress to improve the co-ordination and consistency
of implementation of the Government's aim and strategic priorities.
(n) We propose a reorganisation of institutional
and administrative responsibilities for flood and coastal defence
which we urge the Government to consult upon with relevant parties
(paragraph 75).
(o) We are firmly convinced that the functions
of Local Flood Defence Committees and Internal Drainage Boards
would be more appropriately discharged by Regional Flood Defence
Committees, which should be responsible for the delivery of all
inland flood defence policy nationally working under the guidance
and supervision of the Environment Agency. The decision on how
policy should be implemented in particular regions - for example,
by bodies represented within the RFDC, or by letting contracts
- would be the responsibility of the relevant Committee in consultation
with the Environment Agency and, where appropriate, Regional Development
Agencies. This does not necessarily imply the abolition of IDBs,
although the decision whether or not to devolve duties relating
to the implementation of inland flood defence policy would rest
with the appropriate RFDC. They would remain in existence and
would retain, at the very least, an important consultative role.
We believe a higher proportion of RFDC funding should be provided
from central Government, which need not necessarily involve higher
expenditure: indeed, it might provide some savings though reducing
the convoluted bureaucracy of the current financing system. An
element of local level funding should, in our view, be retained
for permissive projects agreed by the RFDC. Membership of RFDCs
should be vetted to ensure they fully reflect stakeholder interests
and that the levels of democratic accountability offered by the
existing administrative arrangements are not in any way compromised
(paragraph 76).
(p) On balance, we think it inappropriate to
introduce a single agency with sole responsibility for flood and
coastal defence policy, taking into account the Government's plans
for enhancing decision-making responsibility at the regional level
and the implications that this will have for the delivery of flood
and coastal defence. Our general view is that, with the appropriate
mechanisms to ensure local level accountability, flood defence
responsibilities should instead be enhanced at the regional level
and through the Environment Agency assuming new powers, for example
to discourage inappropriate property development on land liable
to flooding (paragraph 79).
As noted in the response to recommendation
(h), the Government does not propose making fundamental changes
to the present institutional arrangements.
Local Flood Defence Committees may be established
in areas where a need has been identified. The Government will
be considering with the Regional Flood Defence Committees and
the Environment Agency the preparation of guidance on the continued
need for local committees, and the appropriate number and composition
of regional committees.
The Government considers that internal drainage
boards are good examples of bodies responsible for local delivery
of flood defence, which is pertinent to the needs of the area
and raises income from local beneficiaries. Some Boards have increased
effectiveness through creation of consortia or amalgamation. The
Government does not, therefore, propose to change the institutional
arrangements affecting IDBs, but will be considering with them
and the Environment Agency whether greater standardisation of
the arrangements for flood defence provision is necessary.
Recommendation (f) refers to the review of
funding that will be conducted. This will address the possibility
of funding from Central Government. RFDC arrangements will need
to be considered in the light of any changes that might flow from
the review.
The point regarding the Environment Agency's
powers to discourage inappropriate property development is dealt
with in the response to recommendation (t).
Improving co-ordination between competent agencies
in the coastal zone
(q) If Shoreline Management Plans are to play
the strategic role in coastal defence and foreshore management
originally envisaged by MAFF, thereby contributing to the creation
of a genuinely sustainable national coastal policy, we believe
their guiding provisions should be given full statutory status
in the local and regional planning process (paragraph 81).
The concept of Shoreline Management Plans
(SMPs) and strategic planning was developed to encourage operating
authorities to work together, to consider the impact of their
schemes on neighbouring authorities and overall to improve decision-making.
The first generation of SMPs is now nearing
completion. Whilst many of the current plans do provide a useful
guide to decision making, the level of analysis undertaken is
not, and was never intended to be, sufficient to demonstrate unequivocally
to the Government or to others that a particular course of action
or defence option was necessarily the optimal solution for any
particular section of coast. This will be achieved as authorities
move forward from SMPs to produce more detailed implementation
strategies. Where appropriate they have been accepted as a basis
for a grant aided scheme. Also, in the context of strategic planning,
the Government will expect individual schemes submitted for grant
to be consistent with SMPs. The Government is not, therefore,
persuaded that SMPs should have statutory status given their present
role and content.
The Government affords priority to the development
of a second generation of SMPs. Experience in preparing the current
plans will be reviewed and guidance prepared in consultation with
English Nature and operating authorities.
(r) Advancing the integrated sustainable national
coastal strategy advocated by MAFF will require greater effort
by the Ministry and DETR and all relevant parties to develop and
implement Coastal Management Plans, and to ensure the objectives
of relevant Shoreline Management Plans are prioritised within
them. As sponsor of national policy in respect of coastal defence,
the Ministry should liaise with DETR to identify ways of facilitating
this process where there are difficulties, and of speeding up
development and implementation of Coastal Management Plans where
these plans have been agreed, but not yet put into practice (paragraph
84).
Coastal Management Plans (CMPs) are local,
non-statutory plans, produced under the auspices of local authorities
or nature conservation bodies, by partnerships of interested groups.
These often include Government departments, statutory undertakers,
commercial, recreational and conservation organisations. Their
purpose is to manage the diverse activities that take place in
a particular area, where conflicting uses are most intense. The
local focus ensures that local expertise is harnessed, and local
needs and aspirations are reflected in any management plan drawn
up. The Government published guidance on production of such plans
in 1996, entitled Coastal Zone Management - Towards Best
Practice.
There is no requirement that CMPs should
be drawn up covering the entire coastline. However, the Government
agrees that where specific management measures for an area of
coastline are required, any management plans drawn up - be they
CMPs, SMPs or Local Environment Agency Plans etc - should be properly
integrated and co-ordinated to ensure that no conflicts arise,
and that the legitimate interests of all parties are safeguarded.
On the wider question of Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM), the Government is keen that everyone should
learn from best practice. We are involved in the work being done
at European Community level in the EC's Demonstration Programme
on ICZM. Thirty five projects throughout the Community, including
eight in the UK, are being monitored to determine which approaches
to integrated management are most successful. The Programme is
expected to be completed next year, and officials are maintaining
close links with the UK projects and the progress of the Programme
generally.
(s) We warmly endorse the co-ordinated approach
to coastal management through coastal groups, and believe a more
strategic approach could be taken to larger stretches of the UK
coastline if coastal groups were given statutory status and granted
formal powers to assume the responsibilities and resources of
their constituent local authorities in the sphere of coastal and
sea defence policy. Membership of existing groups should be vetted
to ensure they represent the full spectrum of stakeholder interest.
Furthermore, they must work within the much more clearly defined
set of national guidelines already mentioned. These guidelines
should be reflected in the content of the pertinent Shoreline
and Coastal Management Plans. Periodic monitoring of these plans
should be undertaken by MAFF to ensure that these guidelines are
being observed, and that national objectives are being furthered
through action on the ground (paragraph 85).
The Government is satisfied that coastal
groups, which operate voluntarily for the England and Wales coastline,
perform satisfactorily without needing to move to a statutory
basis.
The response to recommendation (l) explains
the Government's concerns about further Government monitoring.
We are, however, discussing with the Environment Agency what future
role they might play under their general supervisory duty. The
Agency has already played an important co-ordination role in sea
defence surveys.
The relationship between proposed schemes
and SMPs is covered in the response to recommendation (q).
Integrating flood defence requirements within the
planning system
(t) We believe that a clear presumption should
be made against future development in flood plain land where the
flooding risk attached to a particular development, as determined
by the Environment Agency, is deemed to outweigh the benefits.
In such cases, the Agency should intervene at all stages of the
planning process in such a way as to deter inappropriate development,
including, where necessary, referring the matter to the Secretary
of State for his or her determination. Such powers would be more
likely to be exercised in relation to sizeable and significant
developments and the constraints should apply primarily to new
development of land in coastal and inland flood plains, rather
than redevelopment of existing urban or industrial land, undesirable
as the latter may be in some cases. We also urge local authority
planning departments to have regard to both the individual costs
of flooding - loss of lives, property, and assets - and costs
to the community, for example, the expenditure incurred by emergency
services, and through increased insurance premia, that the granting
of planning permission for inappropriate development inevitably
brings (paragraph 89).
The Government recognises the concern about
the legacy of development on flood plains, much of which pre-dates
the operation of the modern planning system. Existing guidance
to local planning authorities (LPAs) strongly advises against
development in areas at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency
is a statutory consultee on development plans and LPAs are advised
to consult the Agency on all applications within both coastal
and river flood plains, as well as on other development that would
cause a significant increase in surface run-off. Flood risk is,
of course, not the only consideration that has to be taken into
account by LPAs in reaching their decisions both on policies for
development plans and on individual applications for planning
permission. Research published in 1995 (Review of erosion,
deposition and flooding in Great Britain: Rendel Geotechnics,
for the Department of the Environment) illustrated the extent
of flood risk policies in development plans and did not indicate
any problems with the consultation arrangements between LPAs and
the former National Rivers Authority.
However, in the light of the Committee's
report, the recent report of the Independent Review of the Easter
Floods, and any specific evidence from the Agency regarding deficiencies
in the planning system, the Government will consider whether the
present guidance to LPAs should be strengthened. In the meantime,
as noted in relation to recommendation (gg), the Agency is producing
flood risk maps which will assist LPAs.
The Government looks to LPAs and the Environment
Agency to maintain effective liaison on flood risk matters, both
in terms of preparing development plans and commenting, as necessary,
on individual planning applications.
Financial obligations on private developers
(u) In future, in those exceptional circumstances
where planning permission on land liable to flooding is considered,
the Environment Agency should have powers to require developers
to set aside sufficient monies for the provision of the required
flood defence works both at the point of development, and upstream
and downstream of it, before planning permission is granted. This
does not mean that private developers should be able to evade
or over-ride national or regional flood defence strategy (paragraph
90).
The Government agrees with this principle.
It is already Government policy that new development in areas
subject to flood risk should make provision for flood defence
and that beneficiaries should make an appropriate contribution
to the cost. Guidance to LPAs indicates that they should take
steps to ensure that development is not brought into use until
appropriate works have been carried out. This can be achieved,
inter alia, by requiring that development does
not take place until the necessary flood defence measures are
in place and/or by entering into planning obligations under section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government
looks to LPAs and the Environment Agency to ensure that appropriate
provision is made for developers to fund flood defence works consequential
to new development in the flood plain. This should take account
of the need for works both upstream and downstream of the development,
and over the lifetime of the defence. The present guidance will
also be reviewed as indicated in the response to recommendation
(t).
Dissemination of information to the public and acceptance
of flood and erosion risk
(v) Our view is that much greater emphasis must
be placed on the dissemination to the public of locally-appropriate
information on the degree of risk to persons and to property presented
by flooding and coastal erosion. Our belief is that this is a
fundamental component in any national strategy seeking to minimise
the hazards posed by these processes, and we are surprised that
more effort in this direction has not been made already by relevant
agencies. It is only on this basis that informed judgements can
be made by the public as to the most appropriate method for managing
flood and erosion risks at the individual level, leading to acceptance
of ultimate responsibility for personal actions. Title deeds of
properties at risk of inundation should be amended to show clearly
and unambiguously that this is the case, and this information
must be relayed to potential purchasers as part of the property
conveyancing process. Insurance companies should be obliged to
provide advice to individuals in flood risk areas as to how to
mitigate the effects of flooding, and how to address property
and asset claims afterwards to ensure their rapid settlement.
The Environment Agency and local authorities should ensure that
persons at risk from flooding are made thoroughly aware of the
warning procedures in place and the action to be taken in the
event of emergency (paragraph 92).
As noted in the response to recommendation
(gg), the Government supports, and affords priority to, the production
of the flood risk maps that are being prepared by the Environment
Agency. These maps should be provided to local authorities where
they will be readily available for consultation by prospective
house purchasers and other members of the public. However, it
must be recognised that such maps are necessarily indicative rather
than definitive, especially at the margins of the flood risk area.
For any individual property there are considerable variations
in degrees of risk, which would be difficult to encapsulate in
a simple assessment. No two extreme flood events will necessarily
have the same effect. Accordingly it is not possible to say with
absolute certainty that a building or area is, or is not, at risk
of flooding.
Title deeds and the Land Register provide
evidence of the extent of the property and the nature of the tenure
and any third party interests. They are not suitable vehicles
to warn of natural phenomena such as flooding. In areas where
flooding is known to be a risk, conveyancers may ask about it
as part of their standard enquiries. A misleading reply to such
a question would be actionable and a refusal to reply should trigger
further enquiries. With the availability of flood risk maps mentioned
above, they ought to become part of the conveyancing search process
which operates under voluntary arrangements agreed between local
authorities and the Law Society. The Government will pursue this
with the organisations concerned.
The Government has drawn this recommendation
to the attention of the Association of British Insurers. However,
we do not believe it is appropriate to place obligations on the
insurance industry, as recommended by the Committee. Advice on
mitigation measures is in the companies' own best interests and
it is also good practice for companies to inform their customers
how to address claims.
The further point about public awareness
of flood warning procedures is dealt with in the response to recommendation
(ii).
| 
