House of Commons - Agriculture - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on Agriculture Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180 - 199)

TUESDAY 12 MAY 1998

COUNCILLOR DEREK WHITTAKER, MR IAN SUMNALL, MR TERRY OAKES AND MR PHIL SWANN

180. Essentially it is the relationship to other policies; your colleague touched on leisure, other environmental policies, employment, transportation, those sorts of issues, for which you do have responsibility.
(Mr Sumnall) Yes.

181. The critical issue is that this should relate clearly to them.
(Mr Sumnall) Yes, and we are saying that what you are after, what we should jointly be after—central government and local government—is an integrated coastal policy. That requires national involvement, regional involvement and local involvement.

182. The argument from those on the other side has been that having local authorities involved distorts the priority system leading to particular projects getting higher priority than they perhaps should and that it presumably also leads to poor purchasing or less efficient purchasing of services to deliver the particular goals which are required.
(Mr Sumnall) We are generally happy, as we said in our evidence, with the introduction of the national priority scheme from MAFF which does bring in national criteria which are trying to rank the schemes coming forward individually. You have that system. It is not a free-for-all where who shouts loudest gets most: it is now a national priority scheme system. You have the shoreline management plans which are showing knock-on effects down coast or downstream. They have to match that plan.

183. Which there has been a history of in the past.
(Mr Sumnall) Certainly.

184. Implementation of a favoured scheme within one area produces a consequence somewhere else.
(Mr Sumnall) Yes and that is not just because local authorities have lobbied hard, it is because of a lack of understanding of the coastal system. It is an imprecise science. It is a situation where we do not understand what is happening off the coast in it entirety. We can cope with some things. We are all learning how the knock-on effects can differ.

185. Do you feel there is enough research to provide us with adequate knowledge of coastline management now?
(Mr Oakes) Research is being undertaken through regional coastal groups into subjects such as sediment transport. There is certainly one on the East Anglian coast and there has been one on the south coast to try to get a better understanding of what is happening and how these things impact upon the coastline.

186. Is that adequate?
(Mr Oakes) Is it adequate? It is a really complex issue. Until we really understand what is happening to sediment, we will not ever really know how best to defend the coastline. It is a question again of resources, I am afraid, in that shoreline management plans are trying to address the need and then prioritising.

187. What I am trying to tease out, in trying to work out this national/local responsibility, because you very honestly said that we do not know enough to be sure that what we are doing is the right thing, is whether at a national level we are allocating sufficient resources to understand this issue so that we can allocate resources effectively on coastline management.
(Mr Sumnall) It is very difficult to generalise. It must be true that more research will pay benefit. Just to take one example which is true round our part of the world in Sussex: the effect of marine dredged aggregates on sediment transportation. It is seen by a lot of environmentalists as a solution to having to have land based mining and exploration. Clearly that sort of improvement is important, the effects of global warming, the effect of the south of England dropping down, readjusting to the glacial conditions a few years ago. There are all those interactions of effects and better prediction in terms of climatology, in terms of weather prediction, where you started your questions. All those are issues which could be improved upon. We would not say that is the area where resources are needed most: it is that there are enough proven schemes around, both from the Environment Agency and from local authorities which are not getting funded which need to be funded. That is where your resource need is greatest.

Mr Mitchell

188. Is this not exactly what brings out the problem in the sense that local authorities are going to be defending local parochial interests and a national policy might require the subordination of those interests? Imagine a part of the country which has been washed away. The local authority is going to face angry demands from its ratepayers that something is done about it. It is going to need coastal defence works. On the other hand it might be in the national interest that the mud from that be washed away to protect other areas.
(Mr Sumnall) Yes.

189. So it is better to have national decision-making and national authority rather than local.
(Mr Sumnall) What I was going on to say was that already for every kilometre of coast in England and Wales there is an agreed categorisation into whether it is management, retreat, do nothing, expand or hold the line and improve the line. That is what is agreed through the shoreline management plans and the coastal cells. All those issues have been looked at, the-knock-on effects one on the other, that north of the Humber it should be managed retreat, south of the Humber it is a different policy. The issue we have to grasp as local authorities, and I am sure LGA recognises this, is that in some areas that is a very painful decision in relation to managed retreat. Are we going to start for the first time in this country to allow communities to be flooded, in the most dramatic sense, because nationally and locally we have agreed that that is the best solution, not just in terms of the knock-on effects but because the actual cost benefit of protecting that community is no longer justifiable on a national scene?

190. How do you sell that to the ratepayers?
(Mr Sumnall) National and local government have to work together on that and there has to be a system of compensation, a nationally funded system of compensation because you cannot expect those measures to be funded totally locally through whatever the policies are. Local authorities do not tend to have compensation policies for properties affected through flooding or coastal erosion.

Chairman

  191. We wanted to ask you some questions on compensation and project appraisal guidance notes but we will put those in writing to you, if we may and seek written responses. I do want to end with some questions on the planning system and flood and coastal defence. I should particularly appreciate your views here. Your memorandum says that the planning process must be capable of accommodating more economically and environmentally sustainable coastal management strategies, including SMPs. In your opinion, what are the main obstacles to the coordination of existing planning policy with the needs of flood defence and coastal protection?
  (Councillor Whittaker) The present planning regulations are not sufficiently strong enough to take into account the question of development on flood plains or in some cases on coastal issues. Therefore new regulations may well have to be brought in to toughen up those procedures.
  (Mr Swann) One of the issues we identified in thinking about our oral evidence was to go back to a memorandum of understanding which the National Rivers Authority, as it was then, agreed with the previous local authority association in 1993. This was meant to help implement the guidance set out in the DOE circular, Development and Flood Risk, which was published in 1992. We think in the light, for example, of what happened at Easter, it is time for us and the Environment Agency both to review how that memorandum of understanding has gone, the extent to which it is being implemented on the ground and also the extent to which it needs to be reviewed six or seven years on. One of the things we concluded in preparing for today was that we need to go back and talk to the Environment Agency about that six-year old agreement.

192. It sounds as though something good has come out of the simple fact of asking you here today.
(Mr Swann) Yes.

193. Is it not the case that the Environment Agency often gives advice that development should not occur in a particular location but your member councils go ahead and give permission for that development to occur?
(Mr Sumnall) Yes. I am not saying yes, it often occurs. It does occur and it would be silly not to say that it occurs and no doubt you have received evidence of specific instances and no doubt Easter has brought it home to many people in the Midlands of England. There are several difficulties. One is that that memorandum needs to be beefed up. We want to look at how that can become stronger than it currently is. There are issues of compensation. There are areas still in local plans, structure plans, allocated for growth which are clearly now at risk in flood plains. We need to look through the planning system at how those hope values or those existing values can be compensated for if those areas are withdrawn. More guidance to planning inspectors would help in these instances because I am certainly aware of instances where the local authority have taken EA's advice or the water company's advice, because it can be from either or both, and that has been overturned on appeal. That is not the normal local government excuse that it is all the planning inspectorate's fault and we are perfect as planning authorities. We are not, but areas of risk in this country are not sufficiently strongly identified within the statutory planning system and we may, particularly in relation to coastal issues, need to look again at the PPG which deals with coastal matters from this point of view as well as the other ones which have just been mentioned in terms of inland situations.

194. This problem is, is it not, that once you have made a major development on an area you are then locked into a cycle of expenditure to defend it. Think for example of Canvey Island where huge investment has taken place and now we are locked into a permanent and very expensive flood defence system there. Think what has happened in Maidenhead where development has taken place on the flood plain and the Environment Agency has had to create a very, very expensive flood protection system. Time and time again this happens and you are locked into permanent expenditure afterwards, are you not?
(Mr Sumnall) It can be all sorts of things where the environmental impact assessment is not done, like new bypasses which cut across flood plains and cause a change in the way in which those river systems work. We talk about compensation in our evidence to you in relation to rural farming areas in terms of flood plains. Compensation is not the solution to everything but the planning system either says yes or no. When it says no, it does not give some way of re-addressing what has been lost.

195. On reflection, do you think your statement in paragraph 2 of part B of your evidence, "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" really reflects what you have just said to us orally? You seem to be quite broadly critical of the current planning system as well?
(Mr Sumnall) By "major developments" we were referring to major new schemes, housing developments, industrial developments, coming forward through structure plans and local plans. I would find it very unusual if the advice from the EA or the water companies had been ignored in those instances. That must be an issue which is brought out at relevant inquiries. When I was talking, I was talking more about the one-off situations, the smaller developments or the historic situation. Perhaps one of the things which does need to be looked at, based on Easter, is how many of the areas which flooded had been approved through the local plan and development plan system. Perhaps the evidence there is wrong, if it could be proved that some of the areas which were flooded were relatively recent.

196. Do you have concerns about the requirement to build 4.4 million new homes, in the light of what you have said to this Committee this morning?
(Mr Sumnall) I can only talk about situations in West Sussex where the flood plains, through the work of the EA and the local planning authorities, are areas which are sieved out of possible future development areas. That is why, when we talk about "major", by and large the planning system works well. It is the one-off and the historic situations.

Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We have overrun our time but we are genuinely grateful to you for what you have said to us this morning. Thank you very much indeed.

Supplementary Memorandum submitted by the Local Government Association (F57)

NOTE SUMMARISING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SYSTEMS USED IN ENGLISH AND WELSH REGIONS TO DISSEMINATE FLOOD WARNINGS OVER THE EASTER BANK HOLIDAY PERIOD, AND INFORMATION ON HOW EXISTING SYSTEMS MIGHT BE IMPROVED (Q142 REFERS)

FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS

The following four experiences of local authorities during the Easter floods illustrate concerns about the adequacy of current flood warning systems and identify some areas for action.

Northamptonshire County Council's main concern was about the adequacy of the current Flood Defence Plan, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. They had minimal warning, particularly in Northampton where many houses were flooded and loss of life occurred. They will be holding their own de-briefs and Peter Bye, Chair of the Environment Agency Inquiry, will be visiting the County to take evidence on 11 June.

Buckinghamshire County Council was badly flooded over the Easter period. Much of this was flash flooding which affected 20 villages and closed 12 roads. Buckinghamshire is aware of the dangers of flash flooding and also that there is little that can be done to warn or protect against it. It was, however, river flooding in the town of Buckingham that causes the most damage and the County Council's concern here is the effectiveness of the flood warning system. At no stage did the local authorities or emergency services receive a warning that the River Ouse burst its bank at 7 pm on 9 April and the County Council informed the Environment Agency of this event. The County Council recived no warnings from the Agency. Subsequent discussions between the County Emergency Planning Officer and the Environment Agency, Anglian Region, revealed that there is no telemetry to give indications of the River Ouse rising at Buckingham. The County Council has made Peter Bye aware of their concerns and asked that the Environment Agency explain how the situation might be improved.

Warwickshire County Council is also concerned about the effectiveness of the current flood warning system. Continuity was a specific problem with some members of the public being warned by loud-hailer and others relying on the Environment Agency's current flood warning system. Other problems were: that the flood risk area was greater than the warning area and this, clearly, needs to be reviewed; the content of warnings was too simplistic—information as to whether water levels were rising or falling was not given; and the measuring equipment for water levels was inadequate—it wasn't calibrated at levels high enough to reflect water levels. The County Council and related district councils will be meeting with the emergency services and the Environment Agency to discuss the way forward. One suggestion is that the Council's Emergency Planning Unit arranges to work closely with local parish councils on initiatives involving community effort. Another is to review the licensing of caravan/holiday sites close to rivers.

Oxfordshire County Council is calling for: appropriate timing of flood warnings (in the Easter floods, the first real warning was transmitted after working hours just before a major bank holiday); flood warnings being issued at the same time as the Met Office severe weather warning, for added emphasis; an immediate extension of the automatic telephone warning system to areas within Oxfordshire which were known to flood even before 1947; an urgent review of the method of warning the public whose telephones may have been affected by the floods or who are not on the telephone—leaflets are likely to be ignored after the initial issue.

EMERGENCY PLANNING

A recent report to the LGA's Emergency Planning Panel, summarising emergency planning activities during the Easter floods is attached. The Panel has agreed to set up a national liaison forum consisting of representatives of the LGA and the Environment Agency with a view to improving emergency warning systems.

DEVELOPMENT

An unfortunate coincidence is that land liable to flooding is flat, and is that very land which is much favoured for large industrial and retail developments. On some occasions it is possible to carry out works, at the developers' expense, to protect new property and to reduce any risk of flooding. Where flood risk issues arise, they should always be taken into account by local planning authorities in preparing development plans and determining planning applications. It is the role of the Environment Agency to give advice on flood risk issues to planning authorities who ultimately have responsibility for planning decisions. The plan-led approach enables the Agency to influence development patterns in a positive rather than a reactive way. The avoidance of inappropriate development in flood risk areas is a major contribution to sustainable development. Clearly, 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. 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.

REPORT TO THE EMERGENCY PLANNING PANEL (21 MAY 1998)

The Easter Floods 1998

SUMMARY

1. A report of the role of Emergency Planning in relation to the flooding which occured during Easter, affecting many parts of the country.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2. That the report be noted and further reports be received concerning Emergency Planning activities during future emergencies.

BACKGROUND

3. The torrential rain which caused flooding to many parts of the country over the Easter period came as a reminder that flooding can occur at anytime of the year. Dealing with such situations requires effective emergency preparations by local authorities and also between all the agencies involved. These preparations are led by the Emergency Planning Service of the local authority.

4. A snapshot of the responses made in some of the worst affected areas is attached at Appendix 4a. The range of activities included provision of rest centres, help-line, information centres, sandbags, transport, feeding and other services such as the care of the elderly, dealing with the media, public health issues and drying out facilities. A key feature was the joint working and co-ordination necessary involving many agencies including the emergency services, local authorities, voluntary agencies and armed forces.

5. The Emergency Planning Service is responsible for establishing levels of emergency preparedness and facilitating appropriate responses during emergency and recovery phases. The Easter floods provided good examples of the value of Emergency Planning.

Contact Officer: Anne Swarbrick and David Goulding

APPENDIX 1

A SAMPLE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING ACTIVITY DURING THE EASTER PERIOD, 1998

Bedfordshire	Prepared Rest Centre and transport for 200 people Social Services checked on vulnerable people and care workers were sent to assist elderly and frail in their homes. 3 Rest Centres in Kempston and Bedford opened for 48 hours.
Buckinghamshire	Emergency Operations Centre opened for 48 hours. Rest Centre operated by Aylesbury District Council for 200 people staffed by Buckingham University and WRVS. Sheltered Housing development evacuated 3,000 sandbags distributed	"good liaison with the emergency services and adjoining authorities"
Gloucestershire	60 people evacuated from their homes and accommodated in a social club whilst a suspect device was detonated by a controlled explosion
Herefordshire	2 Rest Centres accommodated 70 people overnight
Northamptonshire	Alerted at 0100 on Thursday 9.4.98 Six Rest Centres operated over 4 days Numerous agencies altered and activated Multi agency response co-ordinated Requests for sandbags, signs, etc, received and met MACC requested to provide boats and personnel for rescue Information Centres established and staffed by utilities/Benefits Agency/Housing/Social Services Direct assistance included provision of a feeding services and supply of foodstuffs, cleaning materials, transport and warehousing Emergency feeding for affected areas ongoing (20.9.98) "Help-line" for offers of assistance/requests for help and advice established—will run for a month and then the need will be re-assessed Emergency accommodation provided and help given with cleaning houses
Oxfordshire	30 staff in the Emergency Operations Centre for 60 hours Rest Centre open for 48 hours 250 main meals served 1,000 meals 100 cups of tea 300 people helped MACC: 20,000 Army sandbags	"all members of the local authorities and the voluntary agencies worked magnificently with the emergency services . . . The most heartening thing to hear was the praise from those in the Rest Centres for the work of staff in difficult conditions . . ."
Warwickshire	Emergency Operations Centre open from 1130 on 9.4.98 until 1700 on 14.4.98 District EOC still open on 22.4.98 Rest Centres set up at Southam Harbury (3), Bishops Itchington, Stratford (2), Leamington (2), Alcester, Wellesbourne and Gaydon. 1,200 people accommodated 20,000 sandbags located and delivered Social Services checked on all at-risk clients Warwick & Stratford District Councils accommodated people in B&B Helplines for Social Services and Trading Standards (practical advice) set up—located supplies of pumps and dehumidifiers etc Information given out over local radio including Public Health Advice from Health Authority Household Tip hours extended for people to dispose of ruined carpets etc, 15-17.4.98; EOC still receiving over 200 calls a day for assistance	. . . responded by working closely together to bring help and advice to those affected . . . were greatly helped by the media acting as a channel of information and by an excellent community spirit . . .
Worcestershire	Rest Centre opened at Evesham at 2330 on 10.4.98 Major Incident declared Emergency operations centre opened 3 Rest Centres opened. 2 placed on standby EP staff supported by County PR department in dealing with the Media Helpline staffed round the clock until 0900 on 11.4.98 VIP visit from Deputy Prime Minister on 12.4.98

ANSWERS TO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

[F45, part B, p 3, pt 1] You mention that social and environmental benefits and disbenefits cannot be assessed easily under the present Project Appraisal Guidance Note (PAGN) system. What amendments to the present PAGN system has the LGA proposed to MAFF to reflect these concerns?

MAFF is looking to replace the existing PAGN document. The LGA has a representative on the Steering Group which is redrafting the guidance covering economic aspects of the project appraisal (PAG3). A main element of the review is reference to the government's adopted policy of sustainable development. The LGA supports this inclusion.

Assessing these benefits is a difficult and complex issue. In the available time, it is not possible to provide the solutions, we can only raise our major concern which is how to take into account in the cost benefit analysis the value of protecting rural communities.

Edmund Penning-Rowsell of the Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, produced his "Yellow Manual" to aid decision making and to avoid unwise investment. His list of characteristics to be valued did not include the community as a whole.

A good Shoreline Management Plan should identify the wider needs of the community and the overall benefits of any policy decision. These will include the benefits of protecting rural communities, retaining threatened infrastructure, conserving wildlife and natural areas as well as defending the coast. Nonetheless, it is more difficult to quantify the value of these intangible benefits. This does mitigate against rural communities which find it difficult under the present prioritisation system to score enough points to gain financial approval for coast protection schemes.

Consider the example where a defence in a rural area has collapsed already. Assuming a benefit: cost ratio of between two and three for a rural scheme, (this is above a typical value), then the following score is achieved:

Components Description Score

Priority Rural coastal/tide defence 4

Urgency Failure already occurred 10

Economics Between 2 and 3 6

Total Score 20

For 1998-99 the threshold priority which stands to be achieved before MAFF grant will be considered is 22. So, in this example, a rural defence which has collapsed already and has an above average benefit: cost ratio for a rural scheme cannot achieve sufficient points to be awarded grant aid.

There is evidence that high priority, rural schemes identified through the Shoreline Management Plan process are not proceeding. This can only lead to further problems and the possibility of emergency work. This is not a strategic approach to coastal defence.

The LGA is not looking to promote rural schemes in advance of urban schemes. It believes that all high priority, strategic schemes should proceed. This would require a larger budget so that the threshold priority score can be reduced.

Of concern to the LGA is the possibility of a move towards a funding system which would look to Operating Authorities to fund rural schemes considered high priority but which fell below the threshold score for grant aid just because it is so high.

It is strongly suggested that the Flood Hazard Research Centre be given a remit to reconsider the existing priority score system to adequately and more fairly reflect the social and environmental benefits for the rural coast.

[F45, part B, p3, pts 3 and 6] We note your advocacy of a national system of compensation to cover, in the first instance, flood storage, where the cost of alternative defences on flood plain land might be prohibitive; and secondly to cover the cost of losses of habitats, property and land, for example through coastal erosion. In your opinion, how would a system operate, and should the costs be borne at local, regional and national level?

COMPENSATION

Paying compensation could be one of the solutions considered when carrying out a feasibility study—ie (1) to do nothing; (2) to carry out some sort of defence scheme; or (3) to accept the overall benefit to the community and the environment by not carrying out a scheme and to consider paying compensation to those affected by this decision.

Awarding compensation would not be automatic. But in some circumstances it may be a more appropriate strategic and cheaper solution than constructing a defence. A similar approach could be used in considering habitat loss.

The strategic coastal defence strategies being promoted by MAFF should look more comprehensively at the value of any losses to the rural community for the "do nothing" and "managed retreat" options to establish their true costs. This approach could form the basis of an application at a true market value. In the case where the landowner is resistant Council could use their compulsory purchase powers to obtain land at public expense.

This principle of compensation would appear to the LGA to be a fairer approach and more consistent with MAFF policy where it also uses public money to defend the coastline, thus leading to a more sustainable management solution.

It is doubtful that when the Coast Protection Act 1949 was originally drafted that this form of compensation was envisaged. It is anticipated that a fundamental review of legislation may be required. In the meantime, a system of incentives may therefore be more appropriate.

FLOOD DEFENCE: PROPOSALS FOR INCENTIVE LINKED FLOOD PLAIN USE

Compensation should not automatically be offered to land owners; the use of incentives rather than compensation may be more appropriate under existing legislation. The difference is that compensation implies that land owners should be paid to accept a risk that was always there, while incentives call for managed change of land use to deliver some tangible benefits.

Flood plains are defined as land which is subject to periodic overland flooding and are identified on Section 24 (Water Act 1973) and later Section 105 (Water Resources Act 1991) maps issued by the Environment Agency. Existing flood defence measures are the responsibility of the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Drainage Boards. Cost/benefit is applied to maintenance of existing or new capital works measures. The extent to which flood plains are permitted to store water in times of flood depends upon the flood defence objectives set for the area, but it is important to note that flood plains have a natural function and their agricultural users must accept a risk of periodic flooding.

Where the cost/benefit calculation does not support the existing standard flood defences or the lowering of standards is sought, it may generally be cheaper to consider targeting incentives to land owners of rural land to encourage change of land use, but linked to positive environmental gain. In any case, regardless of any ongoing assessment, an incentive should be available.

In addition to flood plain land, it is essential to link any incentive system to the management of buffer strip land alongside streams and main rivers in the catchment draining into the flood plain, to reduce flashiness of rainfall events on rivers and consequently to lessen the impact of downstream flooding.

Options: There are three main ways in which a flood plain incentive payments could be targeted. All three options might be desirable.

Option 1 Make incentive payments available to land owners in an individual flood plain that cannot on cost/benefit grounds justify renewal of flood defence capital works to maintain existing standards.

Option 2 Offer payment to land owners in flood plains that are explicitly designated by a Regional Flood Defence Committee based upon action under a LEAP or other strategic review of flood defences.

Option 3 Offer incentive payments nationally to all rural land owners in flood plains regardless of flood defence review status.

Option 1 would be cheapest and would clearly be related to specific locally agreed use of flood plain. This option should be funded under existing local arrangements. Its principal disbenefit is that it might be seen to be a compensation scheme. It might be best suited to a Countryside Stewardship Special Project.

Option 2 would compete for funding at an EA regional level but would be best administered under Countryside Stewardship under a nationally available Annual Management payment.

Option 3 would be funded nationally under Countryside Stewardship. While it may appear expensive, it may act to promote the better use of flood plains and lead nationally to a widespread acceptance of reduction in standards of service and thus save far more money in the long term.

All three options could be treated as follows:

Flood plain Management Annual Payment

Aims:

Criteria for selection and targeting:

In addition, catchment buffer land next to streams and rivers should be eligible for a flood storage extension to the Nitrate Sensitive Area scheme, or an extension to the Countryside Stewardship "Recreating Grassland" or "Managing Arable Field Margins" annual payments.

Administration

— Eligible land must have permanent vegetation cover (excluding annual re-seeding)

— In ESA areas, available provided land is entered into at least Tier 1

(2) Optional Countryside Stewardship annual payment for specific approved habitat (as per existing national payments).

Costs and benefits:

Benefits include the reduction in costs potentially incurred in providing flood defence to land which is under such flood plain management agreement. If sufficient uptake is achieved in a given flood plain, then the valuation of flood risk may decrease, thus justifying a reduction of flood defence standards for the flood plain. Habitat creation and management of National Biodiversity Action Plan targets would also be a benefit.

4 June 1998

Memorandum submitted by Isle of Wight Council (F3)

INTRODUCTION

With a coastline of 110km the Isle of Wight has the longest coast of any Coast Protection Authority in England and Wales. The geology ranges from high chalk cliffs to weak sandstones, coastal mudslides, estuaries and dunes. The Isle of Wight is particularly affected by coastal erosion and, therefore, strategic coastal defence is a fundamental issue. The Undercliff of the Isle of Wight along its southern coast is the largest urban landslide complex in north-western Europe and poses particular management and coastal defence problems for the Isle of Wight.

The Isle of Wight became a Unitary Authority on 1 April 1995 and is responsible for both coastal defence and strategic coastal planing.

On account of the range of coastal and geotechnical problems faced by the Isle of Wight, Council staff have developed a particular experience of coastal issues and the Isle of Wight Centre for the Coastal Environment has been established within the Authority to address these issues within the context of coastal zone management as a whole and particularly with reference to Agenda 21 and sustainable development.

The Centre is managed by Eur Geol Robin G McInnes, CEng, CGeol, FICE, FGS, FRSA, who is also Chairman of the Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC), and the Coastal and Environment Working Group of Arc Manche (the Channel Arc).

CONTENT

1. The Isle of Wight fully supports the evidence submitted by the Local Government Association on behalf of the Regional Coastal Groups and Maritime District Councils/Unitary Authorities.

2. The Isle of Wight welcomes the support it has received from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions and the European Commission in terms of developing sustainable policies for the coastal zone.

3. The Isle of Wight Council believes strongly, based upon its considerable experience of coastal issues, that the coastal defence function can be delivered most effectively by local authorities with their detailed knowledge of local coastal conditions; they are able to assess coastal demands within the context of management of the coastal zone as a whole, taking account of the wide range of inter-connected issues that they currently deal with (eg as coastal landowners, beach and esplanade management, public safety, cliff stability, amenities and recreation, environmental health, maritime archaeology, seaside town regeneration, countryside management and oil spill response).

4. The Isle of Wight Council strongly supports the need for close collaboration over the development of the full range of coastal plans and strategies (for estuaries, harbours, coastal zone management and coastal defence) in collaboration with other agencies and consultees; for example the Environment Agency and English Nature. The Isle of Wight is a key participant in the EC Life project `Integrated Management of Coastal Zones'; the need for close collaboration between all coastal agencies and for plan integration will be highlighted in the final report to the European Commission.

5. In 1985 the Isle of Wight arranged a conference on "Problems Associated with the Coastline"; this led to the establishment of SCOPAC (Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline) as the first `Regional' "coastal group" in the UK. Coastal Groups provide a forum for discussion of coastal issues on a strategic basis. Since SCOPAC was established the whole of the coastline of England and Wales (and now part of the coastlines of Scotland and Northern Ireland) is now covered by Coastal Groups, their boundaries largely based upon natural "sediment cells". The coastal groups provide a valuable link between central and local government and assist in ensuring that coastal issues can be looked at on a strategic basis.

6. SCOPAC is unique amongst the coastal groups by commissioning scientific research of regional interest (research to the value of £500,000 has been undertaken over the last ten years) and by operating a two tier system comprising a "Full Conference" which involves both elected members and officers, as well as a "Technical Officers' Working Group".

7. The Isle of Wight has taken these strategic initiatives further by chairing the Environment and Coastal Working Group of Arc Manche. Arc Manche, established in March 1996, examines issues relating to the English Channel and involves all the south coast English counties and the French regions bordering the Channel (La Manche) extending from the Belgian border to southern Brittany. The Isle of Wight chairs the Environment and Coastal Working Group and thereby ensures that coastal issues are addressed on a regional basis.

8. The initiatives described above illustrate how coastal protection authorities along the SCOPAC coastline (Lyme Regis to Worthing including the Isle of Wight) are working in partnership with other key agencies, thus seeking to avoid a piecemeal approach to coastal defence. The work of the Coastal Groups and coast protection authorities has been much assisted by coast protection grant aid from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enabling the development of shoreline management plans and coastal defence strategies. Enormous progress has been made in terms of the understanding of coastal issues over the last five years with the support of the Ministry, and a major step forward has been achieved within the last two years.

9. The development of Coastal Groups and preparation of shoreline management plans has assisted in fostering a partnership approach between coastal protection authorities and the Environment Agency. Such regular meetings have ensured that a holistic approach has been adopted and a "sectoral tendency" is avoided, thereby contributing towards integrated coastal zone management.

10. The removal of the coastal defence function from local authorities would greatly diminish their ability to influence the co-ordination of plans for local sustainability, and the loss of responsibility for coast protection would in turn reduce the local authority's contribution (both technical and financial) to a wide range of coastal initiatives. The Isle of Wight believes that the establishment of the Coastal Groups has been a remarkable success over the last decade and if local authorities are deprived of an active role in coastal defence, it is likely that the interests of engineers within the coastal groups and other networks would be diminished with a reduction in their effectiveness and responsiveness to the detriment of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the UK.

11. Recent advice from the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions suggests the need for more local accountability and for a greater local determination of priorities; the Isle of Wight Council strongly supports this and the principle of subsidiarity. This trend is demonstrated by the creation of Regional Development Agencies and the partnering of local authorities to develop a strategic agenda for their areas. The Isle of Wight is particularly concerned with the proposal to transfer responsibilities to another body which would remove significant influence from the elected Isle of Wight Council, which has had particular experience of coastal problems.

12. The Council does not believe that its interests would be best served by a regional body, based off the Isle of Wight, which cannot benefit from the detailed knowledge that is available locally. The removal of responsibility to a regional agency would, therefore, result in a significant reduction in the quality of knowledge and information that could be input into a debate on priorities for coastal protection works in the future.

13. The Council believes that the Environment Agency should continue to administer those functions where it has a particular expertise (eg its current statutory consultee role with regard to planning and land drainage matters, and river management) and that coastal defence matters should in turn be left to experts within the local authorities.

14. The Isle of Wight Council believes that there is a case for "status quo" on the Isle of Wight where excellent collaboration already exists between all parties with the aim of achieving integrated coastal zone management. The Isle of Wight Area Environment Group, a standing committee of members and officers from the Isle of Wight Council and the Environment Agency, together with other private sector representatives, has expressed grave concern about the proposals.

15. The Isle of Wight Council believes it is essential to involve the Coastal Groups and their constituent authorities, in any new structure proposed for the delivery of the coastal defence function. The Isle of Wight believes with its particular experience that it can assist the review process and will be pleased to do so.

16. The Isle of Wight Centre for the Coastal Environment on behalf of the Isle of Wight Council will be pleased to expand upon any of the above points if required.

7 April 1998

Memorandum submitted by East Sussex County Council (F22)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The County of East Sussex is situated on the South Coast bordering the English Channel. It has a resident population of 485,300 (1996), of which nearly 280,000, (57 per cent), live in the coastal towns and villages. Over three quarters of the county is designated as an Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty as the South Downs and High Weald. There are some 47 miles, (76 kilometres), of coastline which include nationally and internationally known locations. Of particular note are:—

— the ports of Newhaven and Rye;

— the coastal resorts of Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings;

— the Chalk cliffs at Peacehaven, Beachy Head and Seven Sisters; and

— the low-lying wetlands of Pevensey Marshes, Pett Levels, Rye Harbour and Camber.

1.2 There are four main rivers in the county rising in the High Weald. Three of these, the Ouse, Cuckmere and Rother flow into the English Channel; the Medway flows into Kent and thence the Thames Estuary. The Ouse, Cuckmere and Rother are tidal and require significant flood protection measures. The cross-channel port of Newhaven is privately owned and managed; the Harbour of Rye is managed by the Environment Agency.

1.3 The area of land in the county below the 4.5 metre contour and identified as "land at risk to tidal and fluvial flooding" totals around 20,300 hectares. The majority of this lies adjacent to the sea. This area is at greatest risk from flooding due to breach of sea defences. However, most of these wetland areas are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Several sites are of international ecological significance and are expected to be formally recognised as such in the near future.

1.4 The predominant economic activities associated with the developed coastal area are tourism, leisure and service industries. In the undeveloped area, the main activity is farming: grazing and arable. There is a small, but economically significant fishing fleet based at Newhaven, Hastings and Rye. Several thousand homes are sited below the 4.5 metre contour. The area of Pevensey Bay is particularly at risk and was nearly breached by the sea twice during the storms of January 1998.

1.5 Thre is significant transport infrastructure either close to the sea or at risk from flooding in low-lying areas. The A259 is a Primary Route carrying between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day, and is the main coastal route, east to west. East of Pevensey the A259 is Trunk road except where it passes through Hastings. At Saltdean the chalk cliffs are eroding at about 1 metre per annum and the A259 is less than 100 metres from the cliff top. The A259 passes along the seafront at Eastbourne and Hastings and has to be closed when storms and high tides coincide. Across the Pevensey levels the A259 (T) is close to sea level and is at risk if the sea defences at Pevensey Bay were breached. A similar risk occurs, but to a lesser extent, at Glyne Gap, Bexhill. There are sections of the rail network also at risk in low-lying areas. The London to Newhaven line is at risk in the Ouse valley. The Lewes to Hastings line is particularly at risk behind Pevensey Bay, and at Glyne Gap sea defence measures have been necessary to protect the line where it runs very close to the sea.

1.6 The East Sussex economy faces a number of serious difficulties. These include persistent high levels of unemployment, declining local job opportunities and poor economic performance compared with other counties in the South-East. The main towns along the coast have been and will continue to be the main focus of development and change in the forseeable future. Most of Rother District and Hastings has Assisted Area Status. Considerable investment is taking place aimed at improving the economy mainly in the coastal towns. An example is the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund (SRB) winning initiatives in Newhaven, Eastbourne and Hastings. Most of Rother District and part of Wealden is a Rural Development Area.

2. EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL'S FLOOD DEFENCE AND COASTAL PROTECTION INTERESTS

2.1 With rising sea levels, global warming and the increasing incidence of severe weather events, flood defence and coast protection issues are very important to the local authorities in East Sussex. Invariably, it is these authorities which have to "foot the bill" for the social and environmental effects of flooding and coastal erosion and the damage to infrastructure.

2.2 In East Sussex, the County Council, and its Borough and District Council partners' key priorities are the environment, the economy and the quality of life of its residents. Management, protection and development of the coastal and low-lying areas in particular must therefore be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. In 1994, an independent survey was undertaken to establish the attitudes of County residents towards the environment. This revealed that three out of the top five environmental concerns of County residents centred on marine pollution. Whilst this issue is indirectly related to flood and coastal protection it has a relevance in many of the activities and responsibilities associated with this.

2.3 In 1996 the County Council published "A Strategy for the East Sussex Coast" which presents its views on those issues of most importance to East Sussex. This develops the Coastal Planning Guidelines for the South East published by SERPLAN in 1993. In its submission of evidence to the Agriculture Committee, the County Council considers that the government's attention should be drawn to the following issues relating to flood and coastal protection:—

— the definition of the "coastal zone".

— the roles and responsibilities for flood and coastal protection.

— funding.

— sustainability.

— marine aggregates.

— ports, harbours and marinas.

— pollution.

— fishing.

— wildlife.

— archaeology.

— landscape and heritage coast.

— land drainage.

— flood warning.

2.3 The Coastal Zone

2.3.1 It is suggested that the term "coastal zone" is used to define the area extending both landward and seaward determined by the geographical extent of natural processes or human activities within it. There are different laws, overlapping responsibilities and practices over land and sea within this coastal zone that can lead to confusion. This has potential to cause conflict and damage to land and sea alike. A comprehensive and integrated approach to coastal protection, planning and management is needed.

2.3.2. Above low water mark, local Planning Authorities have powers to control the use and development of land. Below it, they have no jurisdiction, even though what determines the environment above low water mark may occur below it. This strategy therefore defines the seaward boundary of the coastal zone as extending 12 nautical miles out to sea, (ie the extent of the Crown Estate's ownership of the sea-bed and also the current limit of UK territorial waters), and the inland extent as being within the visual range of the shore, (although this may need to be varied to allow adequate coverage of issues such as water pollution). This 12 mile nautical limit was proposed by the House of Commons Environment Committee in 1992. The County Council considers that local Planning Authority powers should be extended 12 miles out to sea from the Mean Low Water Mark.

2.4 Roles and Responsibilities for Flood and Coastal Protection

2.4.1 Operational responsibility for coastal protection lies with the District and Borough Councils and the Environment Agency. Whilst District Councils are responsible for protection against erosion within their area, and the Environment Agency is empowered to carry out Works relating to flood defence, MAFF is responsible for both National policy and for approving and grant-aiding individual schemes. The costs of coast protection schemes are therefore shared between landowners, Central and Local Government with MAFF providing up to 70 per cent of the costs.

2.4.2 For coast protection schemes, approved for grant by MAFF, Borough and District Councils receive support from Central Government through Supplementary Credit approval. Although the County Council is now only encouraged to make a nominal contribution to those schemes, it is obliged to make a substantial contribution to flood defence schemes through the Environment Agency levy. However, the County Council is consulted on all protection and defence schemes and provides comments regarding potential impacts on issues such as ecology, archaeology, public safety and transport infrastructure of the area.

2.4.3 There is often little to distinguish flood defence from coast protection however, and this can exacerbate the problems of overlapping priorities and responsibilities. Similarly, it is difficult to ensure that all the different schemes complement each other and yet are also effective in environmental terms. The overall policy role of MAFF, which has a separate and sometimes conflicting responsibility for farmland and fisheries, has also been an issue in the past.

2.4.4 An opportunity to resolve many of the above-mentioned difficulties lies in the preparation of the Shoreline Management Plans, (SMPs). MAFF encourages the production of SMPs by "coastal groups" consisting of the local coastal defence authorities together with other interested local parties, including the County Council. However, these plans are not Statutory and the coastal groups adopt the SMPs as a "voluntary strategy". The chief significance lies in the fact that MAFF will only fund Works compatible with the SMP for a given area. This will help to ensure that greater priority is afforded to existing local characteristics providing appropriate involvement and consultation has taken place. It is essential therefore that environmental criteria are built into the Shoreline Management Plans at the outset—local authorities, particularly County Councils are best-placed to provide these inputs.

2.4.5 Since the treatment for each particular area may have knock-on effects for other stretches of coastline cross-boundary co-ordination is essential to ensure the safety and sustainability of coastal protection and flood defence in the region. With regards to the preparation of Shoreline Management Plans and Strategies the County Council asks the Government:

2.4.6 to divert more resources to improve the knowledge and understanding of the natural processes of the marine environment and of the effects of global warming; and to ensure that the knowledge gained is made freely available to all those authorities with maritime responsibilities.

2.4.7 to support the setting-up of regional and sub-regional groups of responsible authorities and other interested parties to co-ordinate policy and action over a wide range of topics relating to coastal management as proposed by the government and to assist the discussions of any such groups by providing appropriate information wherever possible.

2.4.8 to press for a full range of environmental criteria to be built into Shoreline Management Plans and other plans and strategies which affect the coast, and also to ensure that full consideration is given to the ecological and archaeological effects that the Works are likely to have in that area.

2.5 Funding

2.5.1 For flood defence, most of East Sussex comes within the area of the Environment Agency's Sussex Flood Defence Committee, though a small part of it is within the Kent FDC area. The budgets each year are fixed by the FDCs and must be endorsed by a majority of the local authority representatives on the Committee. The budgets cover both revenue and Capital items. The Environment Agency has no borrowing powers for Capital. However, there are Capital grants paid by MAFF, but the local contribution to Capital in effect comes from revenue. The total budget is then paid for by the constituent authorities in proportion to their council tax base. In 1997-98 the flood defence levy for East Sussex County Council was £2.773 million. East Sussex County Council Members sit on the Flood Defence Committee which manages the strategy, programme and funding of the work.

2.5.2 The lack of a proper funding base for Capital makes it very difficult to entertain major Capital schemes like Pevensey Bay, (c £30 million). It would be easier if there were borrowing powers. Private finance is being used as a substitute for borrowing, but as yet this is an untried method and has much wider implications for long-term maintenance as well.

2.5.3 The local authority contributions, ("levies"), are supported by a specific element within the Standard Spending Assessment formula, (SSA). This is based upon amounts actually levied, and is in effect a payment in arrears. It is known that central Government is considering changing this basis, or even abolishing the SSA for flood defence altogether. Coastal authorities, in particular East Sussex, strongly oppose any reduction in funding for flood defence and any reduction in the SSA element relating to flood defence or coastal protection. The County has no choice over whether to pay its levy and therefore this should continue to be reflected in full in the SSA.

2.5.4 Currently, the annual maintenance costs for Pevensey Bay sea defences alone amount to £650,000. The Treasury and MAFF have asked the Environment Agency to look at a "Public-Private Partnership Programme", (PPPP—Private Finance), deal to secure a long term solution to the sea defences between Langney Point and Cooden. This will be one of the first such schemes in the country to be funded this way; the only other scheme, at the present time, being in the Fens.

2.5.5 Coast protection, as opposed to flood defence, is primarily the responsibility of District Councils. They are able to attract borrowing approvals for Capital schemes and these in turn are supported through the debt charge element of SSA. For County Councils the SSA element relating to coast protection was withdrawn in 1991-92.

2.5.6 The annual flood defence levy is based upon the forward Capital Plan. These levies have to be paid for out of the capped budgets of the local authorities. The Environment Agency pays little heed to this restriction and asks for much larger amounts than the authorities can afford. Following the flood emergencies on the Sussex coast in January 1998 local authority representatives were criticised in the press for not agreeing to an 11 per cent increase in the levy. This underlines that there are no special funding arrangements for emergencies. Government is asked to review this and make provision in a special fund.

2.5.7 In order to meet the flood defence strategy for the Sussex Coast for the next 10 years, the Environment Agency subsequently agreed a 4 per cent increase in the levy for 1998-99. Bearing in mind that the Sussex Coast has probably the highest risk rating in the UK relating to flooding, (Selsey Bill, Chichester and Pevensey Bay), the 4 per cent increase is considered to be the minimum necessary to meet the agreed strategy of "holding the line". With the revenue stream required to meet the 20 year private finance scheme for Pevensey Bay this will place the funding bodies, particularly the County Council in a very difficult budgetary situation.

2.5.8 With the current level of the Rate Support Grant and capping, the County Council is having to make year-on-year budget reductions of around 3 per cent. The financial pressures on local authorities, exacerbated by capping, mean that present and future allocations for flood defence are therefore inadequate to meet the commitments and needs of the Sussex Coast, Pevensey Bay in particular, over the next 10 years at least. Sussex is a special case. This should be recognised by Central Government and specific financial assistance given for the high risk schemes, such as Pevensey Bay.

2.5.9 Whilst the development of private finance schemes such as "PPPP" for flood defence projects can bring early implementation of key projects, which is to be welcomed, the procurement procedures give rise to concern over the environmental and other impacts of the chosen design. The procedure places the entire concept in the hands of the tenderers and is driven by the most advantageous economic profile. Inevitably, this is likely to be low initial cost, but higher on-going costs. Such solutions may be environmentally disadvantageous and damaging to such other activities as tourism, recreation and access. It it essential, therefore, that environmental impact assessments are undertaken at the earliest stage and early consultation takes place on acceptable design concepts with the relevant local planning authorities.

2.6 Sustainability

2.6.1 "Soft engineering" methods are those which work with natural processes, (eg off-shore breakwaters), rather than against them, as is the case with "hard engineering" methods, (eg rigid sea walls). Seaford's beach is a case in point. Re-formed in 1986-87 with 55,000 tonnes of granite and 3,000,000 tonnes of shingle, the beach is continually being moved eastwards by the sea and can only be sustained by feeding 160,000 tonnes of shingle back from its eastern end annually. Government funding arrangements have been amended so as not to discourage "soft engineering" methods.

2.6.2 The choice of materials used is critical in the achievement of sustainable coastal defence. Although foreign hardwoods such as greenheart are considered the most durable material for timber groynes, it is a complex and difficult task to demonstrate that their harvest has not led to the destruction of wildlfe habitats, thereby reducing the world's biological stock. Forest destruction therefore contributes through global warming to sea level rise—the very problem that coastal defence works seek to remedy.

2.6.3 There is little wrong with cutting down trees, however, if it is part of a forest's sustainable management, and the use of timber certified by an accredited scheme as having come from a sustainable source. Coastal operators should therefore "think global and act local" by buying as much wood as possible from close to home. In the High Weald there are some 750,000 tonnes of sustainable annually renewable Oak available for such work.

2.6.4 The County Council asks government to ensure that where coast protection Works are justified, such Works are sustainable by supporting the use of "soft" engineering methods such as offshore breakwaters and the use of timber from independently verified sustainable sources for groynes.

2.7 Marine Aggregates

2.7.1 The consumption of aggregates used for construction in East Sussex, (mainly sand and gravel), susbstantially exceeds the production from land-based sources. In 1992 output from gravel pits in the country ceased. Imports of sea-dredged material through Shoreham, Newhaven and Rye have therefore met an increasing proportion of local and regional demand. There is also an increasing demand for marine aggregates to be used in beach replenishment, as was done at Seaford and is proposed for Pevensey Bay, to ensure that coast protection programmes are maintained. Pleistocene gravels won from marine extraction should be used primarily for sea defence. The construction industry should be encouraged to recycle more.

2.7.2 The Crown Estate owns about half of the UK's foreshore, almost all of the seabed out to the 12 mile limit and the right to exploit natural resources, (excluding hydrocarbons), on the UK continental shelf. The Crown Estate therefore owns the minerals, licences their exploration and extraction as appropriate within UK territorial waters. Applicants for such licences are most often consortia of mineral operators. The Crown Estate does not decide whether extraction takes place however. This decision is reached through an extensive consultation process known as the "Government View Procedure", administered by the Minerals and Land Reclamation Division of the former DoE, now the DETR. Licences are not granted without a positive view. The former DoE announced a favourable government view on the licence to extend extraction from the Hastings Shingle Bank, subject to extensive monitoring of the effect of dredging and restrictions to protect the local fishing industry.

2.7.3 A separate procedure exists under section 18 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 which allows District Councils, as coast protection authorities, to licence extraction; this process is not subject to the Government View. These powers are little used; the last known case in East Sussex being shingle extraction at Cuckmere Haven in the 1960s. As mineral planning authority however, the County Council has no jurisdiction over which areas of marine aggregates are extracted, nor the conditions under which extraction is carried out. Although the Crown Estate does consult the County Council in matters regarding marine extraction, the County Council believes that its mineral planning powers should be extended 12 miles out to sea so as to unite the control of land and sea mineral extraction.

2.7.4 Although environmental assessments are carried out for all applications for extraction licences, there are a number of uncertainties as to both the long and short-term effects of aggregate extraction and a lack of information from either experimental or monitoring studies. This does often cause concern, particularly from the fishing industry. The County Council would like to see monitoring and research undertaken by MAFF and the Crown Estate into the effects of dredging on the flora and fauna of the seabed.

2.8 Ports, Harbours and Marinas

2.8.1 The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (DETR), regulates commercial harbours and MAFF has a similar role in relation to most fisheries harbours. Almost all port undertakings are administered by harbour authorities whose Statutory powers and functions relate to safety of navigation and the public right of access to port facilities. These also include powers to make harbour bylaws, which have to be confirmed by the DETR or MAFF as appropriate. Such harbours have therefore been perceived as being relatively autonomous in planning terms.

2.8.2 The existence of viable sea ports in the County is of strategic importance for the development of maritime trade that benefits the local economy and environment. Maintenance and improvement of access to the County's ports is therefore vital in promoting the continued prosperity of Newhaven and Rye. The marina at Eastbourne, together with the increased recreational use of Newhaven and Rye Harbour contribute to the County's tourism assets.

2.8.3 Ports are necessarily engaged in constant efforts to control the natural forces of the sea to maintain their infrastructure and keep navigation channels operational. Disposal of the spoil is invariably by dumping in the sea. The location of dredging is controlled by MAFF who see that spoil is not removed from the sea if it could destabilise local coastal processes. Nevertheless, as the practices have been going on for many years, fishing and navigation interests have been the determining factors in deciding where not to dump. Other factors which should now be considered are the smothering of areas of wildlife, archaeological or recreational interest, (either directly or through dispersal), and the possible toxicity of spoil. More creative uses for the spoil need to be investigated as the total amounts are very large. (eg 150,000 cubic metres per annum for Shoreham Harbour).

2.8.4 The Harbour of Rye is owned and managed by the Environment Agency, in conjunction with drainage and flood defence responsibilities for the River Rother and Romney Levels. Its land ownership includes 157 hectares of the Rye Harbour Nature Reserve. The interlocking responsibilities and co-operation with other interests in the area make continued direct control of the Harbour of Rye by the Environment Agency desirable.

2.8.5 The essential role of ports in coastal planning and protection requires closer working relations with all the relevant national and local agencies; more joint arrangements on the lines of Chichester Harbour Conservancy would be helpful.

2.9 Shipping

2.9.1 The English Channel is the busiest commercial shipping lane in the world. The possibility of maritime disasters occurring off the county's coast, and therefore having adverse effects on the county's marine environment, is significant. This is a major concern to the county's residents. However, the more persistent, but less publicised threat from occasional discharges and hazardous chemicals being washed overboard perhaps poses greater problems. The culprit cannot always be identified and the recovery of costs is very uncertain.

2.9.2 The County Council is responsible for dealing with the effects of oil pollution incidents on the East Sussex coast that are beyond the capacity of the District and Borough Councils. Although the County Council has no Statutory obligations to deal with remedying the causes, it urges Central Government for appropriate action to secure implementation of the recommendations of the Donaldson Report; "Safe Ships, Cleaner Seas". In particular, specific recommendations relevant to the County's coast are:

— The designation of the English Channel as a special area where the disposal of oily waste at sea would be illegal.

— Statutory obligations and publicity campaigns both to ensure and encourage operators to use disposal facilities at ports.

— The establishment of Marine Environmental High Risk Areas, "MEHRAs".

— Statutory responsibilities on local authorities to clean beaches.

— The establishment of a fund to pay for emergency assistance and greater emergency standby response capability.

— A national and European strategy to safeguard coastal and marine habitats and resources.

2.9.3 The County Council is well placed to consult and collaborate with ports, marinas and other facilities along the East Sussex coast and other agencies such as the Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee on control and environmental issues at ports. It is already working with Arc Manche partners, (West Sussex County Council, Picardie, Haute-Normandie, Hampshire County Council and others), relating to pollution in the Channel with a view to formulating bids to the EU for cross-frontier projects. Also, the County Council has asked SERPLAN to update its coastal policies and to develop appropriate policies towards ports and maritime transport as part of the Review of Regional Planning Guidance.

2.10 Pollution

2.10.1 A key objective of the County Council is to ensure that rivers, beaches and in-shore waters are clean and support a rich aquatic life, (including commercial fish), and as broad a range of recreational uses as possible. It is important therefore that Statutory Water Quality Objectives are set and take into account the all-year round recreation and ecological sensitivity of the East Sussex coast, and also that they are met. Many of the current sewage treatment facilities are over capacity, and this has significant financial implications for Southern Water Services, (SWS).

2.10.2 It is important to inform the public about the bathing water quality on the day they wish to bathe in the sea. Water quality on the south coast can vary greatly from day to day. One of the issues arising from this is the treatment of all waste water prior to it being discharged out to sea. The Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment lays down discharge standards for sewage works, requiring improvements in infrastructure status by 2005. This provides a considerable opportunity to install ultra-violet plants to achieve disinfection. This is the only system consented for long-term use by the Environment Agency. Upgrading works have been carried out at Shoreham Harbour and Langney Point, Eastbourne. Works are under way at Brighton, (Portobello) and Hastings. Newhaven and Seaford should be under way before 2005. These works will invariably have impacts for part of the undeveloped coast and should therefore be designed to minimise their adverse environmental impact.

2.10.3 Recent studies have yielded strong evidence that discharges of sewage effluent containing oestrogenic chemicals can disrupt the reproductive systems of fish. This "mutagenicity" results in physical deformities and other abnormalities which may lead to the extinction of species altogether. The demise of the Dog Whelk in the southern North Sea is a prime example. Research into this is in its infancy and there is a lack of consensus on the issue amongst regulators, scientists and the water industry on what measures should be taken. More research needs to be undertaken therefore on the mutagenic effects of toxic effluent discharge and publication of the results.

2.11 Fishing

2.11.1 The East Sussex fishing fleet consists of around 230 boats and employs some 500 fishermen which, whilst comparatively small in national terms, has potential socio-economic implications from any reduction. As elsewhere in the UK, it is subject to the effects of over-fishing and declining fish stocks. Conservation is hampered by enforcement difficulties.

2.11.2 The County Council is responsible for part-funding the Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee which is responsible for managing and developing sea fisheries around the coast. Although it is empowered to make bylaws that control minimum fish landing sizes of certain species, most of the legislation on this comes from the EC. It employs staff to enforce these and is in a good position to carry out a wider ranging maritime enforcement role covering other conservation interests. Mutual benefits to the fishing industry and nature conservation could be achieved by zoning some coastal areas as "protected areas" where marine life, including commercial fish, can recover its diversity and quantity.

2.12 Wildlife

2.12.1 Much of the undeveloped landward side of the East Sussex coast consists of Chalk cliffs, unimproved grasslands, marshlands and sand dunes. Whilst such areas are recognised as being of high quality for wildlife, and protected accordingly, little such protection exists on the seaward side.

2.12.2 The international, national, and local recognition of the high quality wildlife of the East Sussex coast manifests itself in the following designations:—

— proposed "RAMSAR" sites (Pevensey Levels; Pett Level to Dungeness).

— proposed "Special Protection Area" (Pett Level to Dungeness).

— candidate "Special Area of Conservation" (Rye Bay to Dungeness).

— National Nature Reserve (Pevensey Levels).

— Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs; Seaford to Beachy Head; Pevensey Levels; Combe Haven; Hastings Cliffs to Pett Beach; Pett Levels; Rye Harbour; Camber Sands and Rye Saltings).

— Local Nature Reserves (Seaford Head; Filsham Reed Beds; Winchelsea Beach; Rye Harbour).

— Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (Cliff grassland, Peacehaven; Peacehaven Heights; Newhaven Cliffs; Seaford Green; Tide Mills; Seaford Head; East Langney Level; Glyne Gap Marsh; Glyne Gap to Bulverhythe shingle beach and cliffs; Gorringe Stream; Water Tower grassland; Cliftonville Road, Hastings; Castle Hill, Hastings; High Street Wall, Hastings; All Saints Street wall, Hastings; Rock-a-Nore shingle beach).

— proposed Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (The Crumbles, Eastbourne; Combe Haven).

2.12.3 In East Sussex, much of the undeveloped coastal land is owned by the following:—

— East Sussex County Council (Seven Sisters Country Park; Camber Sands).

— Lewes District Council (Seaford Head).

— Eastbourne Borough Council (Beachy Head).

— Rother District Council (Fairlight).

— The National Trust (Crowlink, Birling Gap).

— The Environment Agency (part of Rye Harbour Local Nature Reserve).

2.12.4 There is little protection on the seaward side equivalent to that on land. No Statutory designation or planning power extends below the low water mark except "Special Area of Conservation" which can cover both land and sea and "Marine Nature Reserves", an intended parallel to landward National Nature Reserves. Only two such reserves have been designated in the UK, (Skomer and Lundy), in 15 years! The County Council therefore urges Central Government to introduce effective legislation to provide for the designation and protection of areas of marine conservation importance, and to extend SSSI notification beyond the low water mark.

2.12.5 The County Council was instrumental in setting up the "Seven Sisters Voluntary Marine Conservation Area" covering the seaward side of the Heritage coast. This has achieved improved co-operation among different organisations. It is also been pro-active in its support for the Sussex SEASEARCH project together with West Sussex County Council and others. The project is administered by the Marine Conservation Society on behalf of the Sussex Seasearch Committee. Its aim is to establish the variety and distribution of seabed habitats and their biological communities up to 5 miles out to sea. The survey also records human impacts in these waters, such as those caused by fishing methods, sewage outfalls, litter and gravel extraction. This work has begun to result in the identification of marine Sites of Nature Conservation Importance.

2.12.6 The main threats to nature conservation below the low water mark are pollution, fishing, dumping, aggregate extraction and some forms of recreation. Even with recognition of these threats and legislation to overcome them there remains the practical difficulty of ensuring that laws are enforced.

2.13 Archaeology

2.13.1 The County's maritime archaeological heritage is particulary rich. One of the greatest known concentrations of historic sunken ships in the world lies off the shore of South East England.

2.13.2 Unintentional human interference can arise from activities such as construction of coastal protection works, marinas and breakwaters, all of which can alter the sediment flow along a coast thereby threatening archaeological sites indirectly.

2.13.3 Again, whilst land-based sites enjoy considerable protection from legislation and planning policies, little of this is available under water. This is because the jurisdiction of local planning authorities stops at the low water mark.

2.13.4 The County Council supported the recommendations of the joint Nautical Archaeology Committee which urged for the following:—

— new legislation to protect underwater sites of archaeological interest.

— a national and local register of sites.

— archaeological implication surveys to be required before approvals were given to aggregate extraction and other development disturbing the sea bed.

— a Maritime Heritage Protection Agency to be established to identify, protect and manage listed sites, and co-ordinate training and educational services.

— Government "owners" of wrecks, (Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office), to recognise their archaeological value and transfer their responsibility to such an agency.

2.14 Landscape and Heritage Coast

2.14.1 East Sussex contains some of the most distinctive coastal scenery in the UK. Whilst planning control can protect the undeveloped coast, the positive management of such areas plays an equally major part in the conservation of such natural assets for the enjoyment of all. The County Council has put considerable effort into the planning and management of this area of "Heritage Coast" over the last two decades. The basic objectives of Heritage Coast designation are—

— to conserve the natural beauty of the coastline;

— to enable low-key recreational use of them;

— to preserve and enhance important habitats for flora and fauna;

— to protect architectural, historical and archaeological features.

2.14.2 This management approach should be applied to all other stretches of undeveloped coast and the sea adjoining, whether or not they merit national recognition at present. In these areas there will need to be even greater emphasis on improving management practices. This accords with the schemes of various government agencies, such as the Countryside Commission, English Nature and MAFF, who all provide substantial financial incentives to landowners and managers, as well as the National Trust, Sussex Wildlife Trust and many others.

2.15 Tourism, Recreation and Access

2.15.1 Tourism has long since played an important role in the coastal economy of East Sussex. It is the high environmental quality of the county's coast—in terms of its landscape, heritage, water quality or recreation—that provided the basis for the tourist industry and still plays an important role. Public access to the landward and seaward side of the shore, as well as to the beaches themselves, remains essential. The advantage of this form of recreation is a low Capital cost; it does, however, require skilled management of the coast and its users so as to ensure that the natural resource does not suffer and that different forms of recreation can be enjoyed.

2.15.2 The implementation of coastal protection measures should have regard to this important economic activity. Low cost; high maintenance schemes, which may be favourable economically, could have a seasonal impact on shoreline recreation. It is essential that the impact of coastal protection schemes on tourism, recreation and access is taken into consideration at the planning and design stage, and that full local consultation takes place.

2.16 Land Drainage

2.16.1 Land Drainage law is characterised by its dependence on permissive powers as opposed to mandatory legal duties. To be otherwise would be impossible to fund nationally. The principle responsibilities lie with the Environment Agency, and with District Councils under the Land Drainage Act. The County Council, despite being a major contributor in terms of funding through the levy, has little role in maintenance and improvement of watercourses, flood prevention and mitigation of flood damage. However, County Councils as highway authorities, have powers to implement necessary highway drainage, but also have duties to maintain the highway in a fit state for the travelling public.

2.16.2 The "boundaries" between land drainage responsibilities and highway drainage responsibilities are not often "black and white". In many instances highway authorities are asked to fund drainage projects which are as much to do with land drainage as highway drainage. Contributions are sought from the District Councils and the Environment Agency as the principal land drainage authorities wherever justified. However, unless "main rivers" are involved the EA refuses to contribute. With every County Council experiencing reductions in the annual highway maintenance SSA, this expectation that the highway authority will pay for flood mitigation is becoming unreasonable. Where there is a betterment to land drainage and flood mitigation through improvement to the highway drainage systems, then shared funding with the District Councils and Environment Agency should be reasonably expected.

2.16.3 The combined effect of new developments and the increasing incidence of shorter, more severe storms is creating more frequent flash flooding problems. For future development to be sustainable a full assessment of the area-wide drainage impact must be carried out. The production of flood risk maps for Planning Authorities by the Environment Agency must continue to be given priority and appropriate funding. Developers should be expected to meet the full cost of off-site drainage works made necessary by their proposals.

2.17 Flood Warning

2.17.1 The Water Resources Act 1991 gave the Environment Agency power to provide and operate flood warning systems on all water courses and tidal and sea defences. From 1996 the Environment Agency took over the lead role from the Police to disseminate flood warnings to the public. This activity is an essential public service and provides all the emergency services, including those operated by local councils with invaluable advance warning.

2.17.2 Tidal models, meteorological and flood warning systems are extremely complex and require not only extensive remote monitoring stations, but also sophisticated computer-based analytical systems. The flooding experienced in the Midlands in April 1998 was difficult to predict and received severe criticism. The systems operated on the Sussex coast have to be reliable so that heavy plant can be mobilised, if necessary, to reinforce flood defences. Pevensey Bay and Selsey Bill are prime examples where breach points were forecast in January 1998. The flood warnings must be accurate and timely bearing in mind the lead time for remedial action. (eg. the time of one high tide). Government should give high priority to funding the continual development and improvement of flood warning systems.

3. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

3.1 The ability of the coast to sustain pressures highlighted above depends on how well all parties are able to plan and manage the use of the coastal zone whilst adjusting and working with natural and human forces alike. The House of Commons Environment Committee concluded in 1992 that on the whole this had not been done very well in the UK:

"It is partly because the land and sea areas of the coast have been planned and managed separately, partly because there has been no central direction on coastal policy, and partly because the range of issues within the coastal zone is so wide and has traditionally been compartmentalised that there has developed a multitude of organisations with a responsibility or interest in the coast".

3.2 "Coastal Zone Management" (CZM) may provide a solution. CZM is an approach which provides a framework for the planning and management of the coast, covering the full range of uses and activities on land and sea, including both sea defences and conservation. It has been accepted in principle by the EU's Fifth Action Programme which proposes that a strategy be prepared for the integrated management of coastal zones in order to provide a coherent and environmental framework for integrated and sustainable forms of development.

3.3 CZM aims to promote sustainable use of the coast. This involves balancing the demand for resources, resolving conflicts of use, promoting environmentally sensitive use of the coastal zone and promoting strategic planning for the coast. It emphasises that the planning and management of coastal land and waters require an holistic approach and cannot therefore be dealt with separately. It also requires an integrated approach to planning and management, and co-ordination and co-operation between planners, managers and users.

3.4 The County Council's approach to CZM has the following main strands:—

— Developing and supporting a hierarchy of plans.

— Taking specific action on various issues.

— European initiatives.

— Consultation and partnership.

3.5 Implementing CZM requires the preparation of plans to which all the relevant agencies are party. The UK government's Bio Diversity Action Plan and its Strategy for Sustainable Development help set long term objectives and guidelines for implementing coastal policy, and the former DoE's publication "Policy Guidelines for the Coast" clarify the uses and responsibilities of the various government departments and agencies involved in coastal matters. Plans at regional and local level help establish how policies should be applied.

3.6 The County Council is very active in European matters including promoting the interests of the County and tapping into European funding programmes. Its European activities are aimed at influencing policy, attracting funding and promoting trade. These activities include INTERREG co-operation, (this has achieved some £8 million funding for trans-frontier co-operation), The Arc Manche federation of regions, (to address issues of common interest including maritime traffic, coastal pollution and CZM), Co-ordinated Action on Seaside Towns, (COAST), to address the problems of seaside towns, and The Assembly of the European Regions, where the County Council has led on tourism matters as an important industry.

3.7 The County Council is committed to the principle of consultation and partnership. This is achieved through Public Consultation, involvement in Committees and Working Groups, such as the Hastings Area Committee, Rye Harbour Local Nature Reserve, The South Downs Conservation Board, and the Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee. The County Council would vehemently oppose any changes to the management of flood defence, coastal protection and management which would reduce either local democratic accountability, or local consultation processes on related issues.

3.8 In conclusion, Coastal Zone Management brings together all the interests and activities associated with the coastal environment. The mechanisms already exist for planning and managing these activities and interests through SERPLAN, the County and District Councils and the Environment Agency. They are well-placed to think and act strategically, operate locally and be democratically accountable. Networks are already established with the other stakeholders and, in particular, European agencies to secure sustainable development for the future. Creation of another agency, such as a National Coastal Authority as has been mooted, could dilute the already limited funds, remove local democratic accountability and narrow the focus on the broad activities and interests associated with the coastal zone. Adequate funding for flood protection and emergencies remains the real issue to be addressed.

17 April 1998

Examination of Witnesses

MR ROBIN G MCINNES, Coastal Manager, Isle of Wight Council, MR STEPHEN ANKERS, Assistant Director, Development (Transport and Environment) and MR JOHN HOWES, Deputy County Treasurer, East Sussex County Council, examined.

MR ROBIN G MCINNES, MR STEPHEN ANKERS AND MR JOHN HOWES

Chairman

197. Welcome to this session of the Agriculture Committee's inquiry into flood and coastal defence. I am sorry about the slightly implausible pairing of local authorities but to avoid playing musical chairs all morning we thought it sensible to put you together at the table. We will address questions to you individually in turn, if we may, but if your colleagues from East Sussex say something to which you would like to add, feel free. This is a dynamic process not a static one so add to it in any way you choose. Your pairing is entirely arbitrary and I cannot think of any logical connection between you. My Clerk suggests the pairing of authorities may have something to do with the county cricket championship, but I do not know what Hampshire's role is with the Isle of Wight these days in that respect now you have unitary status. Your names speak for themselves; I shall dispense with the formality of asking you to introduce yourselves. When we come to your individual questions perhaps we can do that. Mr McInnes, you are the Coastal Manager for the Isle of Wight.
(Mr McInnes) Yes, that is right.

198. May I begin with the Isle of Wight then. I worry about the Needles. You note that following the Isle of Wight's designation as a unitary authority you now have responsibility for both coastal defence and strategic coastal planning as a council. Has that changed the way you approach coastal defence?
(Mr McInnes) It has been helpful as a model having a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight dealing with both the coastal defence aspects, which were formerly dealt with by two district councils, bringing the expertise of the coastal engineers together with the strategic planners within the former county council who dealt with coastal zone management issues. Clearly as an island there are distinct advantages to being a unitary authority and being able to speak as one voice for the island. We have been very fortunate that the SMP process and the development of a strategic coastal policy for the island have come at this time because they have coincided with the production of a unitary development plan for the island as well. We have been able to integrate the two together.

199. Who are your major partners when you sit down for these things? Who do you spend most of your time talking to outside the island?
(Mr McInnes) May I explain that my job as coastal manager is within the Directorate of Development, which actually includes highways, economic development, tourism and planning. Obviously a great deal of dialogue is with my planning colleagues but also in the development of different kinds of strategies for coastal defence, estuaries and coastal zone management. Our most frequent discussions are with English Nature and the Environment Agency as well and the adjacent local authorities. Although we are separated, we have a lot of dealings with district councils on the mainland because we have mutual interests in the Solent and the English Channel area.



© Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 1 July 1998