Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160 - 179)
TUESDAY 12 MAY 1998
COUNCILLOR DEREK
WHITTAKER, MR
IAN SUMNALL,
MR TERRY
OAKES AND
MR PHIL
SWANN
160. You believe that the strategic studies should include
the existing defences which are already there presumably.
(Mr Oakes) It all depends. The answer is yes, but
it all depends what policy option is proposed for a particular
length of coastline. Some defences will be a small part of that
length of coastline, some will cover the whole length. It is really
just a question of what the policy is for any particular length.
I would imagine that looking at the existing defences will play
a part in any study.
161. It is presumably possible that some of these existing
defences may not be the most efficient means of delivering the
strategy. Is that right?
(Mr Oakes) Yes, in some cases that is true.
162. You may indeed need to remove certain defences to achieve
certain other goals.
(Mr Oakes) It may be that the policy is to do nothing
and let a defence deteriorate and eventually disappear. It may
be that there will be managed retreat, in which case you might
make amendments or alterations to the existing standards of defence.
It is feasible that a scheme could require a defence to be removed
but I have not actually come across that myself personally. Generally
speaking a do-nothing policy would be to let it fall into disrepair.
People do promote the removal of defences; there is no doubt about
that. They consider that some defences would be better removed
to allow coastal processes to take their normal course. That is
feasible.
163. Is that a perfectly reasonable approach to coastal defence
since that sacrifice of one defence system may improve the resilience
of other parts of the defence system?
(Mr Oakes) Yes, in theory that is the case. If it
is in line with the policy adopted for that length of coastline,
then it could be the action taken.
164. Therefore it is sensible to include the analysis of
existing defence systems within those strategic studies and presumably
then to use the science of analysing the effect of those existing
defences on planning your next course of action.
(Mr Oakes) Yes, you would have to.
(Mr Sumnall) The trouble comes when, having done that
analysis and said yes, that is what we should do, the priority
scoring system does not give recognition of that particular feature
based on the amount of resources there are nationally.
165. The priority scoring system does not take account, say,
of the need to remove an existing defence system.
(Mr Sumnall) The scoring system does give recognition
to it in general terms. The problem comes because you have to
get such a high score to get funding because of the lack of resources
coming from MAFF in terms of help for coastal defence and as we
see it at the moment most of the money is coming for areas where
there is failure or imminent failure of existing works. That is
the trouble. The theory is right, that the plans can take account
of the instance which you have raised. In practice, because of
the lack of resources, it is very difficult.
166. They always say that is a lower priority than this area
which is just about to be washed away.
(Mr Sumnall) Yes. You have no doubt seen the priority
scheme system, have you? You have looked at that and you can see
what scores high and what scores low. Unfortunately we do not
see that in the instance you have mentioned, which is not that
common in our experience, it cannot be properly taken account
of and perhaps is therefore a deficiency in the current way the
scoring system is put together.
Mr Collins
167. I should like to explore a little further your relationship
with MAFF and start with the issue of coastal groups. You refer
to the roles which coastal groups have in liaising with MAFF.
In addition to calling for more money, what other things could
MAFF do in support of the work of coastal groups which would help
them more than is the case already?
(Mr Oakes) Coastal groups are voluntary organisations,
mainly of officers. There are two examples where council members
are involved. MAFF does support them quite well. We have the coastal
defence forum which meets twice a year. They use the forum to
disseminate information to operating authorities. I foresee the
role of coastal groups as being to continue to coordinate activities
at the coastline between operating authorities. In answer to your
question, I am not sure how MAFF would do that. It would be through
dissemination, through support, making sure that the research
and development programme is relevant to the work of the coastal
groups, that they consult on some of those sorts of things and
ensure that they have sufficient resources, probably at a regional
level, to support the work of the coastal group because they are
members as observers I guess. The regional engineers do go to
the coastal groups and if they had sufficient resources to be
able to ensure that they attend and give us advice and guidance
from HQ, that would be a good thing.
168. In your experience, are you entirely satisfied that
MAFF are doing all they could and should do in support of these
things you talked about, particularly dissemination of information?
(Mr Oakes) Yes, they are producing some good guidelines
for the coastal groups. They put on their annual conference, currently
at Keele, and local authorities and coastal groups are encouraged
to attend. They welcome presentations from local government and
try to give out best practice.
169. You mentioned that coastal group membership is voluntary.
Is there a case for making it compulsory?
(Mr Oakes) When I say "voluntary" I mean
there is no national funding for it. I think I am correct in saying
that every maritime authority and region of the Environment Agency
is a member. You would not see any change by making it compulsory
to be a member of the group.
(Mr Sumnall) One thing local government does feel
has worked better over the last few years in terms of help from
ministries is the government office system—MAFF are not
part of the government office system—in putting forward
our views on the regional way of getting better integration and
subsidiarity and devolution. MAFF regional engineers being based
in government offices and integrating with DETR officials there
would make a lot of sense from our point of view of pushing forward
shoreline management plans and their integration into the statutory
joint plan system.
170. Are you satisfied that MAFF is the right department
for dealing with these matters? Given that its primary focus is
bound to be agricultural, do you think it makes sense for MAFF
to be responsible for these matters?
(Mr Swann) That is something it is proper to scrutinise.
It is difficult for an agency like the Environment Agency to be
accountable to two ministries, primarily to DETR but for part
of its functions to MAFF. That is bound to make the agency more
difficult to run than if it had a single department, set of ministers,
to report to. We are also aware that the future role of MAFF is
being looked at in the context of whether or not there should
be a single rural ministry or not. The LGA has supported the idea
of there being a single rural ministry and in that context it
makes sense for MAFF's responsibilities for these areas to go
to DETR, where ownership of the Environment Agency lies and also
where primary responsibility for local government funding lies.
There is considerable merit in all the responsibilities being
integrated in a single department.
171. Is that your view as well, Councillor Whittaker, as
a politician in these matters?
(Councillor Whittaker) Yes, I would concur with those
observations.
172. Just before coming on to another question about coastal
defence, returning briefly to the subject of money, which you
touched on before, in your evidence to us you lament the fact
that MAFF are in a difficult and resource constrained position—everybody
is, as my bank manager knows. You lament the fact that there are
only £38 million of MAFF grants available to local authorities
at the moment. Could you give us some sort of feel, without being
necessarily terribly precise, for the order of magnitude of sums
which you think ought to be available? It is clear from what you
are saying that you do not think £38 million enough, but
are we talking about it being £38 million when it ought to
be £380 million or that it ought to be £70 million?
How much more would you want in an ideal world?
(Mr Sumnall) I am not sure we would ever talk about
the ideal world. In the next paragraph of evidence we say we think
that £38 million is about a third of what would get us out
of this firefighting situation and properly get an implementation
of the strategy from the shoreline management plans. We are concerned
and we are just talking coastal defence here. We are not talking
about inland. We are concerned that we are not into prevention
as we should be, we are into reaction and that is not a good thing.
While we would not say that 38 x 3 is ideal, it certainly would
be beneficial in the long term—and we are talking about
long term infrastructure here. We would normally plan for measures
which would take account of 25, 50 to 75 years. It is good investment
if it can be ratcheted up in the short term.
173. That actually leads on to the phrase which occurs several
times in your evidence: sustainable coastal defence policies.
Could you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by that or is
that in fact what you have just said: policies which are going
to result in success over a period of many decades?
(Mr Oakes) Through the shoreline management plans
we are trying to take a holistic approach to defence of the coastline.
Sustainability is really trying to work with the coastal processes
to get the best solution to do that job. Sometimes it will be
doing nothing at all; other times it will be taking a particular
solution. It is really taking it into account when deciding the
best way forward; taking sustainability into account as part of
the feasibility study on how to deal with the problem when deciding
what to do.
174. In their evidence to us MAFF defined sustainable defence
as including the phrase that it should avoid locking future generations
into inflexible and expensive options for defence. In one sense
is not all defence about being inflexible and will it not encourage
developments which will continue the defence needs?
(Mr Oakes) The problem we have at the moment is that
most of our urban areas of coastline are protected by very large,
substantial inflexible defences. It really is a question for politicians
in whether we continue to protect those sorts of communities and
spend the necessary money to do that or do we look to some other
form of defence which might need relocation or some compensation
to avoid spending money at the coastline because it is in the
better interests of the community not to do that. It is a really
difficult issue.
175. Some other of my colleagues will be asking questions
on that area later on. Finally from me, what is your view of the
role of coastal groups in the development of sustainable policies?
Has the introduction of these groups aided sustainable policy
or has it actually not made much difference?
(Mr Oakes) It is helping because pre coastal groups
it is fair to say sometimes works were carried out in the absence
of communication or consultation with neighbouring authorities.
Now the coastal groups have increased communication and there
is a general agreement that work upstream or up the coast carried
out by one authority should not take place to the detriment of
another.
Chairman
176. One paragraph which particularly intrigued me was paragraph
12 in your evidence, where you talked about the implications of
the way the SSA works leading to the possibility of overspending
on flood defence. Having established this theoretical possibility,
you then go on to say it does not actually happen in practice.
I will not pretend to understand the mechanism entirely but what
do you mean by overspend? How do we know it is not happening?
(Mr Sumnall) There is certainly enough evidence if
you look at outturn figures that there is not greater or significantly
less expenditure than what has been budgeted for. I do not pretend
to know everything about standard spending assessments either
but it is unique in relation to coast protection that what is
fed into the formula is based on budget, not on need. We have
had consultants commissioned who have reported on looking at this
issue and their advice is that the way in which it is done at
the moment is closest to equating to need, that the local authorities
are acting responsibly in spending what they have been allocated
through the SSA system and therefore overspend does not occur.
We were not saying overspend occurs, we were being accused of
putting in inflated figures and then coming forward with something
less. We are as content as you can be with the SSA system in relation
to coast protection.
177. It makes a change for the LGA and local councils generally.
(Mr Sumnall) I have to qualify it is very much in
relation to this. It is resources which are the issue.
178. Your comments there were about flood defence. Would
they also apply to coastal protection measures?
(Mr Sumnall) Yes.
Mr Todd
179. You state that 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. We
touched on this earlier and clearly that is not an entirely consensual
view. What added value do you think is brought by having local
authority democratic participation in this process?
(Mr Sumnall) The system we have in this country does
give local government a lot of related responsibilities, social,
economic, environmental responsibilities; not exclusively.
| 
