APPENDIX 43
Supplementary Memorandum
submitted by the Environment Agency (F 69)
1. In a letter dated 25 June the Committee
invited further comment from the Agency following informal discussions
during Committee site visits and arising from the Agency's oral
evidence.
2. Organisation
2.1 The Committee has been interested in
how the Agency would respond if its remit for flood and coastal
defence were to be extended. The Agency has already recognised
the significant benefits that can be attained by adopting a national
approach to the procurement and delivery of its capital investment
programme. The Agency is appointing a national capital programme
manager who will be responsible for the procurement and commissioning
of all significant capital projects. The existing Agency staff
working on this will be under this manager's direct line management.
This will give the Agency greater buying power, it will also facilitate
the development of dedicated skills and expertise with an adequate
critical mass.
2.2 If the Agency should receive a substantial
increase in its flood defence remit it would cause the organisation
to re-examine its structure. The initial view of the Chief Executive
and Directors is that an increase in responsibility of 20 per
cent or more would cause it to move in the same direction as for
capital programme delivery, in the interests of value for money,
level of service to the customer and dedicated skills.
2.3 The Committee has noted the diifficulty
the Agency has in delivering the Minister's priorities eg, Flood
Warning and Flood Risk Surveys on a nationally consistent basis,
because of current devolved funding arrangements. A change in
balance between MAFF grant to the Agency and levy income through
Revenue Support Grant could enable Ministerial priorities to be
delivered with confidence.
3. Committee Structure
The current inherited structure and number of
Flood Defence Committees are inconsistent and may not be an efficient
use of resources. Clearly, this could be addressed by some rationalisation.
The Committee may wish to consider the balance to be struck between
better value for money and retaining local input to decision making.
4. Planning Powers
Following the Easter Floods it is clear the
Agency needs greater and more consistent influence on Planning
decisions. We are not convinced this should be an absolute right
of veto. A key issue is that currently the developer does not
have to pay the full cost of mitigating effects either on site
or upstream and downstream. An approach, akin to that of planning
gain, where developers have to fund fully the offsetting measures
may be a more pragmatic way forward.
2 July 1998
| 
