B. EFFECTIVENESS
OF MAFF POLICY
ON SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
MAFF, through their support of local authorities and the
Environment Agency in the preparation of the Shoreline Management
Plans (SMP's) has encouraged the identification of sustainable
coastal defence policies, which in turn also assists in directing
future development to the most suitable locations. This approach
reflects the potential excessive cost involved in the protection
of our coastline in comparison to the level of benefits that are
available.
There is a case for a more cohesive regional response to
deliver Government Policy on flood and coast protection. The relationships
between local authorities and other bodies and the necessity to
prioritise and allocate resources more effectively is also important.
The following issues need to be addressed:—
1. The social benefits/dis-benefits cannot be assessed
easily under the present arrangements. Coastal defence policy
will also need to be reviewed against any significant environmental
impacts and any losses that may occur in and around our coastal
communities.
2. In relation to development on flood plains, it would
be helpful to local authorities to have specific, good quality
planning policy guidance. This would require the Environment Agency
to complete its revision of inland flood defence strategies to
discriminate more selectively between the protection of life and
built property on the one hand, while on the other, setting standards
of flood defence in flood plains appropriate to the combination
of agricultural, environmental and sustainability objectives set
for these areas. The current planning system is effective for
major developments but guidance is needed where there are existing
developments in areas where there is no flood defence scheme in
operation.
3. In addition, Government should consider compensating
land owners if areas suited to flood storage associated with flood
plains are cheaper to use than funding flood defence capital works.
Arrangements should be made to offer positive incentives for beneficial
management of those areas for national Biodiversity Action Plan
targets, where management for conventional agricultural production
is not cost-effective.
4. 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 coast defence
strategies which no longer accept as the norm the "status
quo" for future protection. This reflection will ultimately
inform the planning process which must be capable of accommodating
such advice.
5. The continuation of present policy objectives may
through the various plans, lead to higher flooding/erosional risks
and particularly where there is not a clear economic argument
for protection of 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.
6. The production of SMP's has focused the attention
on a need for a national mechanism to cover the cost of compensating
for lost habitats, land and communities in appropriate cases.
Guidance is required on this issue, and also on the acceptability
of schemes for cliff restoration where coast protection works
are considered at risk.
7. Local authorities, through their elected Members,
have already had significant input into future policy when considering
the SMP process and more specifically, strategic defence options.
This local involvement and understanding is paramount in any development
of MAFF policy, to ensure sustainable management solutions are
prepared that protect both rural and urban coastal communities
and are locally acceptable.
8. The complexities of coastal management and associated
protection of the coast are such that it is highly desirable that
the system is not run on a centralised basis, although there is
a necessity for Central Government to be involved. The system
needs to be run on a decentralised basis with local decision making,
in order that protection of the coast can be married with other
coastal management issues. Priorities should be decided at a regional/local
level, with a system of bids to central Government, based on agreed
strategic policy documents [Regional and SMPs] ideally with resources
distributed to enable a three year programme to be progressed.
This would then avoid prolongation of scheme approvals where MAFF's
staff have to undertake a detailed vetting of individual schemes.
9. Central Government expects local authorities to develop
a sustainable and holistic approach to the integration of environmental
and economic needs. There is an important relationship between
the management of flood and coastal defence and the environmental
stewardship and economic regeneration of local areas. With the
responsibility for coastal defence, local authorities have the
ability to influence and co-ordinate plans and proposals for local
sustainability. The co-ordination of specific local authority
responsibilities such as planning and tourism could not be embraced
effectively without this local involvement.
10. It is recognised that the current system is far from
perfect. There could be an improvement in the definition of roles
of local authorities and other bodies with responsibilities for
coast protection and flood defence as the demarcation of responsibilities
between flood defence and coast protection can be artificial.
However, improvements should not be at the cost of democratic
control.
11. Priorities are set to allocate limited resources
in accordance with specific land use categories. Therefore, the
service is not an end in itself but rather a means of meeting
wider community needs. This has been a fundamental aspect in the
preparation of River Catchment Area Plans and Shoreline Management
Plans.
C. CONCLUSION
The current arrangements for flood and coastal defence are
complex and many agencies are involved. Within this complex set
of arrangements, there is scope for local government to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of its responsibilities. There
is also scope for more joint working and collaboration between
the bodies involved with a view to balancing their different interests
and there is a need to balance national and local considerations
in putting into place coastal and flood defence measures. Local
government's involvement (through the LGA, which is committed
to working with local government) is central to ensuring that
communities are represented in a balanced way.
An appropriate means of taking work forward in this area
could be by the establishment of a stakeholders's group, which
would examine the issues in a collaborative way in order to produce
a workable solution to deliver a strategic programme. The involvement
of local government in such a group would add value to the process
and lead to best practice.
5 May 1998
