Select Committee on Agriculture Sixth Report

APPENDIX 7

Memorandum submitted by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Flood Defence Committee (F12)

INTRODUCTION

  The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Flood Defence Committee (LFDC) held an Extraordinary Meeting on Wednesday 14 April to consider the inquiry of the Agriculture Committee "into current issues of concern relating to flood and coastal defence", as described in the Press Notice No 19 of 6 March 1998. Although called at short notice, the meeting was well attended, with all local County and Unitary Authorities represented.

  The Committee decided to make its own views known to the Agriculture Committee, as well as advising the Southern Regional Flood Defence Committee and the Environment Agency of its views.

SUMMARY

  The LFDC considers that the strength of the current system lies in its provision of a strong national policy direction with local responsibility and accountability for implementation.

  The Local Flood Defence Committee wishes to make four major points:

  1.  Although there may have been inconsistencies in local delivery of national policies, the current planning and liaison arrangements for Flood Defence and Coastal Protection, provide the foundation for making further improvements to the system.

  2.  The LFDC believes, however, that there may be confusion in the minds of the public about which agency or authority is responsible or has powers for providing which service.

  3.  The LFDC recommends that three main criteria should be used to assess the relevance of any changes being considered by the Agriculture Committee:

i.  any change should be based on improved effectiveness, efficiency and value for money;

ii.  any change should be compatible with Environment Agency's or local authorities' other responsibilities, and should not result in breaking existing synergies; and

iii.  any change should lead to improved consultation and co-operation at a local level, between the Environment Agency and local authorities.

  4.  The LFDC would ask the Agriculture Committee to note the particular features of The Solent area and the nature of local arrangements, which underline the importance of devolved local responsibilities and accountability.

  Lastly, should the Agriculture Committee recommend significant change to the system which the Government in its turn is minded to implement, the LFDC would welcome a Government white paper or appropriate consultation opportunity, to allow for fuller consultation on the specific changes.

1.  SUPPORT FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM

  The Committee believes that there have been progressive improvements in Flood Defence and Coastal Protection over past decades in terms of effectiveness and value for money. It expects that further improvements will accrue from current work in progress including, Strategic Planning, Section 105 Surveys, the Asset Management Project, and in flood plain mapping techniques including LIDAR.

  National initiatives in developing a Flood Warning System and in Flood Defence Management Studies are welcomed.

  Local co-operation and partnership should provide the mechanism for managing natural processes in coastal cells and in integrating responsibilities for Flood Defence and Coastal Protection. This is being achieved through joint-working between the Environment Agency and coastal local authorities. Locally, they are jointly preparing Shoreline Management Plans within the context of Coastal Zone Management Plans which, in turn, cover wider social and economic aspects. On the land, co-operation and partnership between agencies is developing through Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs) as they affect river catchments.

2.  SOME CONFUSION ABOUT POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  Some members of the LFDC felt that confusion existed in the minds of the public about which agency had responsibilities and powers for Coastal Protection or Flood Defence, for local planning approvals, or for the maintenance of some structures (eg where rivers pass under the highway). Additionally, some members expressed the view that national policies were not always implemented uniformly across all local authorities.

  In the time available, the LFDC were not able to offer tidy solutions, but education and clarification of powers and responsibilities in publications, and in the course of co-operation meetings will be helpful.

3.  "CRITERIA" FOR ANY CHANGES

  The LFDC considered that any new proposal suggested by the Agriculture Committee should demonstrate an improvement on the existing arrangements in terms of:

I  Effectiveness, Efficiency and "Value for Money"

  This "criteria" means demonstrating improvement in the physical or operational effectiveness of defences in meeting their objectives for protection of life and property, and also for protecting the environment.

  Proposals should also lead to a more efficient service which can be demonstrated in financial terms.

 II  Assist the Agencies in discharge of their other responsibilities and functions

  The LFDC considered that this applies particularly to the Environment Agency's responsibilities for "regulation of air, water and waste". Any new proposals should strengthen, or at least not damage the ability of the Agency to work with clients, and other agenices including local authorities, in making progress towards achieving "sustainable development".

  Similarly, bearing in mind the synergy between the Agency's functions for the management of river catchments in terms of flood protection, water quality, fisheries and recreation, any new proposals should not damage but should improve the Agency's ability to co-operate with other agencies and local authorities.

III  Local Co-operation and Influence

  Current arrangements for co-operation in the supervision and funding of Flood Defence between the Environment Agency and County and Unitary authorities are already established. Similar but less formal relationships for co-operation also exist between the Environment Agency and Unitary and District Councils for Coastal Protection, in joint-working on Shoreline Management Plans, for example. These arrangements assist local authorities in their wider local consultations including activities for meeting Agenda 21, as well as managing recreational opportunities for social and economic purposes.

  The LFDC would wish to emphasise that any new arrangements proposed by The Agriculture Committee should reinforce close working relationships between the Environment Agency locally, and local authorities.

4) PARTICULAR FEATURES AND ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SOLENT AREA

  In considering wider aspects of Flood Defence and Coastal Protection, the LFDC would ask the Agriculture Committee to note particular features of The Solent area and the nature of local arrangements which have evolved. The LFDC believes these demonstrate the importance of devolved local responsibilities and accountability. The particular features and local arrangements for the Solent are described in Attachment 4.

ATTACHMENTS

  1.  Map of Hampshire and Isle of Wight: Rivers and Environmental designations. [not printed].

  2.  Map of Hampshire and Isle of Wight: Flood Risk areas. [not printed].

  3.  Facts and figures relevant to Hampshire and Isle of Wight LFDC.

  4.  Particular features and arrangements of the Solent Area.

---

---

Prepared 5 August 1998