3.0 FUNDING
Recommendation (h) and (I)
(h) Potentially, there are strong arguments
for the centralisation of all funding on flood and coastal defence
in a single national Agency, which would enable spending to be
prioritised to fulfil national and regional objectives far more
effectively than can be achieved at present. However, we recognise
that, were this to come about, there would also be considerable
disbenefits in terms of the loss of political accountability,
especially at local and regional level, which is seen by some
as one of the existing system's enduring strengths. We therefore
urge the Government after proper consultation with operating authorities
radically to simplify the existing funding procedures for flood
and coastal defence activities, with the aim of achieving measurable
improvements in policy efficiency through cutting out unnecessary
bureaucracy and administration. As we are in favour of devolving
greater decisionmaking responsibility for flood and coastal
defence to the regional level, one possibility for consideration
may be to replace schemespecific grantinaid
from MAFF and the Welsh Office with block grants, allocated to
Regional Flood Defence Committees or regional coastal groups,
as appropriate (paragraph 51).
(I) We favour the assumption by Regional
Flood Defence Committees and coastal groups of local authority
competence for flood and coastal defence. We recommend that MAFF
liaise with DETR to assess the difficulties confronting district
councils in funding this policy area. Furthermore, the ringfence
on local and regional precepts should be removed to permit resources
to be used flexibly in the context of national, rather than local
priorities (paragraph 53).
Links to Recommendations (f), (g), (o) and (hh)
3.1 The Agency welcomes the modest increase
in spending resulting in the Comprehensive Spending Review on
Flood Defence but, as pointed out in our evidence, considers the
function is under funded by £30-40 million pa and we remain
concerned that the Government's priorities may not be adequately
met.
3.2 The Agency has previously pointed out
that the situation of funding is variable. Some Committees are
able to raise the required funding whilst some, like the South
West Committee in Devon and Cornwall have seen a 16% reduction
in the levy since 1992.
3.3 Implementation of the recommendations
of the Independent Review will place pressure on all Flood Defence
Committees. Even with new resources the situation in some parts
of the country may still mean that it is not possible to continue
to renew existing but deteriorating flood defences.
3.4 The Agency is midway through a programme,
which will develop a robust case for the resources necessary to
maintain an adequate flood defence service over the next 10 years.
Early indications remain that there is a noticeable shortfall
at present.
3.5 The Agency supports the need for simplified
arrangements for funding and would be willing to participate in
a review. Simplified funding would enable increased expenditure
to be spent on direct services. The Committee recognised that
ideally the centralisation of all funding would provide the most
efficient arrangement and that the current arrangements fall well
short of this goal. Any review of funding arrangements will need
to consider the relative merits of the simplicity of greater central
funding and the potential loss of local democratic involvement
via the RFDCs.
The Agency believes that there would be merit
in a separation of funding for a range of topics from those primarily
driven by the need to maintain defence structures and river channel
flood capacities. Under this approach the Regional Flood Defence
Committees would be locally accountable for funding the delivery
of the Ministry's top priority of Flood Warning, together with
the Agency's's Supervisory Duty, Control of Development and production
of Asset Management Plans. This arrangement would account for
about 25% of funding and should be affordable and not subjected
to major annual fluctuations. The Government would directly fund
the works programmes of capital and maintenance which would assist
in the delivery of best value solutions. This would also remove
differential grant rates that favour capital replacement. It would
also enable the available funds to be focused on the highest priority
works.
3.6 The Agency will raise the issue of sufficient
working balances with Government as part of the funding review.
4.0 CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN
Recommendations (t), (u) and (v)
(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).
(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 override national or regional Flood Defence strategy
(paragraph 90).
(v) Our view is that much greater emphasis
must be placed on the dissemination to the public of locallyappropriate
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).
4.1 The Agency does not believe that it should
have a right of veto but our "influence" should be strengthened
with an appropriate planning policy guideline. Our recommendations
on "flood risk" should have greater standing in the
planning appeal process, especially for new development proposals.
4.2 The Agency has carried out a internal
review as part of the Easter Floods work on the Agency's input
into the planning process in relation to development in the floodplain.
The findings of the review are that 91% of the plans reviewed
included a policy relating to development in the floodplain. However
the style and strength of the policy included in the plans varied
considerably. They ranged from completely prohibiting development
in the floodplain, to allowing it subject to certain mitigation
measures or stating that development should not increase flood
risk.
4.3 The Agency recommends that the Government
should consider providing clearer and stronger guidance on development
in the floodplain to overcome the varying strengths of existing
policies.
4.4 If, in exceptional cases, the Local Planning
Authority recommends that new development should proceed in the
floodplain, then it should be on the condition that the developer
enters into a Section 106 agreements for funding the required
Flood Defence works, together with a commuted sum for future maintenance.
These works should alleviate problems both upstream and downstream
of the site.
4.5 The Agency concurs with the view expressed
in the report that "This does not mean that private
developers should be able to evade or over-ride national or regional
Flood Defence strategy." In addition, the comments
made in paragraph 89 should be accepted, i.e. "We also
urge local authority planning departments to have regard to both
the individual costs of flooding - loss of lives, property, and
assets - and cost 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."
4.6 The Agency has reviewed progress on the
production of indicative flood risk maps and the revised target
for the delivery of maps for all Local Planning Authorities is
April 2000.The Agency can meet this timetable by producing maps
based of current knowledge of flood events subject to RFDC and
LFDC providing the appropriate funds.
5. SUSTAINABILITY
© The lessened need for domestic agricultural
selfsufficiency, and the significant costs of farm policies
encouraging agricultural overproduction, need to be explicitly
acknowledged in the implementation of local level responses to
Flood Defence and coastal protection of agricultural land, including,
where appropriate, the managed realignment of the coastline. Suitable
compensation arrangements will need to be put in place (paragraph
40).
(bb) We are firmly convinced of the need
to put in place a robust financial mechanism for the reimbursement
of property holders and landowners whose assets are sacrificed
for the wider benefit of the community. This mechanism will ensure
a major step is made towards attaining the economically and environmentally
sustainable coastal policy MAFF aspires to, while recognising
the important role played by individuals in securing this wider
social goal. In our opinion, the Ministry has postponed this task
for too long and should investigate the practicalities of such
a mechanism urgently (paragraph 104).
(j) As a matter of priority, MAFF must develop
methodologies addressing social and environmental criteria for
inclusion in Project Appraisal Guidance Notes (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).
5.1 The Government should produce clear policy
guidelines on current compensation mechanisms and how they should
be applied in the future.
5.2 In reviewing the methods of payments under
the Habitats Saltmarsh Scheme, the Government should consider
a change to one-off lump sum payments which may encourage more
landowners to enter the voluntary scheme.
5.3 The Agency acknowledges that the Government
is already committed to pursing a review of the Project Appraisal
Guidance Notes (PAGN) to include social and environmental criteria.
The Independent Review Report also concurs that a review of PAGN
should be carried out to include social, environmental and political
issues. The Agency will work with the Government on the review
of PAGN.
(cc) The Environment Agency and MAFF must
give greater priority within national policy to managed realignment,
washlands creation and source control than has been the case hitherto.
In each case, the total area of land which would be affected represents
only a tiny fraction of the national land surface, and the associated
costs could be diminished by implementing managed realignment
of the coast and reorganisation of flood plains over long timescales.
At the same time, alterations to the planning system should be
gradually phased in to deter inappropriate development on floodprone
land and in rapidly eroding coastal areas. Through advice and
exhortation to relevant operating authorities, and the introduction
of a reimbursement mechanism along the lines we have suggested,
MAFF must ensure that over the next five years a start has been
made on the national implementation of these techniques in appropriate
locations (paragraph 105).
5.4 The Agency is committed to working with
Government and English Nature on the introduction of a strategic
approach to the management of rivers and the coast. The Agency,
English Nature and the RSPB are preparing a bid for an EC LIFE
funded project on restoring flood plains and their contribution
to flood defence. A further LIFE bid is being prepared for developing
guidelines on implementing solutions for managing dynamic coastal
habitats within the framework of the Habitats and Birds Directives.
5.5 More generally the development of Shoreline
Management Plans and water level management plans has been helpful
in encouraging a broader approach to flood defence and its impact
on the environment. These provide a basis for further developing
a more sustainable approach.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The Agency fully supports the main emphasis of
the Agriculture Select Committee's report in that there is an
urgent need to streamline flood and coastal defence institutional
and financial arrangements to achieve a more efficient, effective
and value for money service that can deliver long term sustainable
policies.
The Agency does not support the proposed administrative
arrangements of the implementation of all inland Flood Defence
policy by Regional Flood Defence Committees and all coastal flooding
and erosion policy by Coastal Groups.
The Agency recognises that primary legislation
would be required to achieve any main institutional and financial
changes but believes considerable progress can be made as summarised
below:
The Agency is committed to:
(i) Working with Government on:
- a review of National criteria to assess how rationalisation
of Flood Defence Committees may best be achieved;
- to determine how the Agency's supervisory and enforcement
role may be strengthened;
- the development of asset management plans on a nationally
consistent basis by all operating authorities;
- the production of national guidelines for funding priorities
for Flood Defence Committees;
- the production of a revised Project Appraisal Guidance
Note to include social an environmental criteria;
- develop minimum standards of performance for all involved
in flood defence.
(ii) Working with the Association of Drainage
Authorities on:
- the rationalisation of Internal Drainage Districts through
consortia or amalgamations based on national criteria;
- improved partnership arrangements on day to day service
delivery.
(iii) Working with Local Authorities on:
- improved partnership arrangements on scheme promotion to
maximise the potential for procurement arrangements
The Agency believes Government should consider:
- providing clearer and stronger guidance against development
on the floodplain;
- local authority planning departments to enter into Section
106 agreements with developers;
- carrying out a review of Coastal Groups to establish their
number, boundaries and membership;
- consider changes to the Habitats Saltmarsh Scheme payment
mechanism to encourage more landowners to enter the voluntary
scheme;
- seek to streamline the administration of flood defence.
The Agency will:
- encourage Regional Flood Defence Committees and Local Flood
Defence Committees to provide the necessary funding for flood
warning, flood risk mapping and the River Defence Asset Survey;
- develop proposals to better educate the public on the roles
and responsibilities of organisations involved in Flood and Coastal
Defence;
- ensure Ministerial priorities are met consistently and
to agreed timescales across the country;
- develop a firm but fair, active supervisory role.
Separately, the Agency will publish in November
a detailed Action Plan with key delivery dates to implement the
lessons identified from the Easter Floods.
DIRECTOR OF WATER MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
October 1998
| 
