1. EFFECTIVENESS
OF MAFF POLICY
ON FLOOD
AND COASTAL
DEFENCE
This evidence will support the "Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Welsh Office Policy which
is aimed at reducing the risks to people and the developed and
natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion, by encouraging
the provision of technically, environmentally and economically
sound and sustainable defence measures".
The proactive stance taken by the Ministry in
issuing a framework of guidance through its series of publications
for the protection of the coastline is welcomed.
The following is given as evidence in support
of this proposal:
— Following the lead given by SCOPAC,
to which this Council is a full subscribing member, the Ministry
have encouraged the setting up of coastal groups around the country.
— The production of Shoreline Management
Plans has been welcomed by both the Local Authorities and the
Environment Agency, although more work needs to be undertaken
particularly in protecting the natural environment.
— MAFF have issued draft guidance for
preparation of strategy plans which are now starting to be commissioned/implemented
by both local authorities and environment agencies.
— A better understanding of our coastal
processes is now available through these plans, which are also
identifying the ongoing monitoring requirements.
— The promotion of strategic research
is now undertaken on a co-ordinated regional basis.
— The decision making process, which
is now subjected to a national priority scoring system, has provided
transparency to the levels of coastal protection and flood defence
that can be prioritised nationally. This process has both identified
schemes required nationally and, also, highlighted schemes which
are not sustainable, as they are predominantly reliant upon benefits.
— Coastal Group activities, which promote
co-ordination between Authorities, require continued encouragement
and support from MAFF.
— MAFF have found themselves in a reducing
financial position with currently only £38 million in MAFF
grant available for UK local authorities.
— The new "National Priority Score"
system, will demonstrate to the Government that approximately
three times the level of investment (ie over £100 million)
is required to secure all local authority frontages from flooding
and coastal erosion. A similar position can be demonstrated for
the Environment Agency frontages.
— In the absence of internal drainage
boards, local authorities, according to their need, engage engineers
to assess and co-ordinate flood and coastal defence on behalf
of, and to the standards of MAFF. In order to operate effectively,
each local authority manages work demand through the flexible
engagement of contract staff and consultants. However, it is the
familiarity of local authority engineers with local circumstances
that ensures that the appropriate standards are adhered to.
— The present arrangements for implementing
and funding of works are seen by local authorities as being accountable
to the public and any substantial weakening or changes in local
authorities' roles in the future management of the coast for both
flood and coast protection will be seen as being contrary to the
powers conferred on local authorities by the Coast Protection
Act 1949.
EFFECTIVENESS OF
MAFF POLICY ON
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLEMENTATION
— As with sustainable development,
there is an expectation that local authorities should formulate
specific plans which integrate issues associated with the coastline
such as shoreline management plans, tourism, highways, development
planning and leisure and amenity provision.
— MAFF, through the preparation of
the Shoreline Management Plans, have defined which areas are inappropriate
for development. This approach reflects the potential excessive
cost involved in the protection of our coastline in comparison
to the level of benefits that are available.
— The Social benefits/dis-benefits
cannot be assessed easily at the present time. Any policy will
need to be reviewed against significant environmental impacts
on any loss that could occur in and around our coastal resorts.
— Recent DETR publications stress the
need for more local accountability and for greater local determination
of priorities. This is heightened by the creation of Regional
Development Agencies and the expected partnering of local authorities
to develop the strategic agenda for their areas.
— This process has begun to open up
a dialogue that many local politicians have felt uneasy with.
It has, however, begun a process which has caused many to reflect
upon coastal defence strategies which no longer accept the status
quo for protection as the norm. This reflection will ultimately
inform, in the medium to long term, the planning process.
— The continuation of present policy
objectives will, through the various plans, lead to higher flooding/erosional
risks, particularly where there is not a clear economic argument
to protect the coastal frontage. This policy may lead to planning
blight and the inability to obtain adequate insurance cover to
protect assets from loss or damage.
— Local Authorities through their elected
Members have already had an input into future policy when considering
Shoreline Management Plans, and more specifically, future strategic
options for the coast. This involvement and understanding is paramount
in any development of MAFF policy, to ensure sustainable management
solutions are developed, to ensure both our rural and urban coastal
communities are protected and regenerated for future generations
to come.
— A balance needs to be struck between
economic and environmental factors/impacts.
3 April 1998
