Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220 - 237)
TUESDAY 12 MAY 1998
COUNCILLOR DEREK
WHITTAKER, MR
IAN SUMNALL,
MR TERRY
OAKES AND
MR PHIL
SWANN
220. This is certainly an area the Committee have expressed
worries about in previous evidence and that is at least in the
past the willingness of authorities to grant planning consents
in areas which are clearly at flood risk. Indeed we have heard
from your colleague from the Isle of Wight of the Canute-like
confidence of the Victorians that they could resist the sea and
erosion. Would you believe that there is major progress on the
part of district authorities in considering flood risk as a major
element now when coming to grant planning consent?
(Mr Ankers) That is certainly my understanding. One
of the LGA people before said that he also understood that to
be the case and a lot of the development we are looking at which
is causing the problems may be really quite long established development.
Certainly looking at one of the most recent ones, which is the
Lewes district local plan, which is going to its public inquiry,
that is very specific and very tight on preventing such developments.
I would have thought that lesson was being taken on board.
Mr Todd
221. You have drawn attention to the financial limits imposed
on authorities by capping and presumably also through the other
mechanisms for allocating resources to local authorities on the
provision of flood defence and coastal protection. If one were
to assume that the overall level of spending available to local
authorities was not going to change radically, what would you
do about this situation?
(Mr Howes) It seems to me that one of the great tussles
which a county council has in setting its budget is between what
I describe as the personal services and the protective services.
Clearly just at the moment the personal services have very strong
backing and that is a very high priority. I am talking particularly
about schools and also services for the elderly. The basic problem
for funding flood defence is just that: flood defence is competing
against funding for schools and so on in terms of priority. We
are not talking about a situation where we used to have the ability
to add just a bit more to the council tax to take account of that.
We are talking about a limited budget where a little bit more
for flood defence means a little bit less for other services.
It does seem to us that there would be merit in looking at these
things slightly separately rather than within the same system,
particularly given the fact that the funding arrangements for
flood defence are basically on a shared basis through the flood
defence committees.
222. Are you suggesting ring fencing of money?
(Mr Howes) Either ring fencing or at least what the
latest DETR green paper on capping describes as disregards for
flood defence levies. It says disregards could be extended to
elements over which local authorities have little or no control.
In the sense that the levies are set by the flood defence committees,
which are joint bodies and they involve numbers of councils and
also non-councillors, those would seem to be a very appropriate
candidate for leaving on one side when the capping regime is set,
whatever it is going to be in future.
223. Let us say the same broad regime applies to local authority
finance, that this is seen as a matter of importance to the national
exchequer and needs to be controlled at a global level and that
the mechanisms are broadly maintained so you do not get ring fencing,
you are not given disregards which mean increasing local authority
expenditure overall. What do you do about that situation?
(Mr Howes) You really pose the ultimate Catch 22 in
all senses.
224. May I suggest a path which you might consider which
is that you have to weigh up if your finances are constrained
and you have calls from your key personal services which are regarded
by your members as a high priority? Then you have to prepare a
set of plans to deal with a declining expenditure in this area
which may mean loss of certain defences over time and allowing
the sea and the river systems to take their course.
(Mr Howes) That clearly is a wider concept than something
which is within the gift of an individual authority, certainly
in just simply looking at its budgetary context. One of the points
I did want to make was—
225. You do not sound very keen to pursue that particular
line of thought. Obviously at an individual local authority level
that may be precisely the dilemma you may face.
(Mr Howes) I do not disagree with that. One of the
points which would be helpful to us in terms of the current financial
arrangements would be if expenditure on flood defence, the levies
in particular, were to be treated on all fours with other services.
For example, when it comes to the additional money being provided
for schools or budget being provided for schools through the SSA
system, we now have what are described as the passporting arrangements
which enable grant money to be translated into actual spend. It
does not work quite the same way with flood defence and coastal
defences' expenditure. That is part and parcel of a much wider
bank of expenditure including services as diverse as libraries
and trading standards. A lot can depend on what is happening to
the budgets and the SSAs for those as to whether money which has
been provided for flood defence in the SSA can actually be translated
into spending or not. A shift in the system is perhaps needed
there to help us.
226. Is there any help from the European Union in this area
in terms of resources?
(Mr McInnes) Unless an area is eligible for European
structural funding, there is no European funding, except perhaps
for research but not for actually carrying out works.
227. Presumably since structural funding is currently being
reviewed and glancing along your areas of responsibility it is
rather unlikely to apply to your particular communities.
(Mr McInnes) We are trying.
228. But you do not hold out great hope for this particular
avenue of resource.
(Mr McInnes) No.
Mr Collins
229. Soft engineering, gentlemen. Paragraph 2.6.1. of the
evidence from East Sussex tells us about this. Could you tell
us first of all in what way offshore breakwaters work with natural
processes rather than against them?
(Mr Ankers) Compared with what we would regard as
hard engineering, revetments at the foot of cliffs and so on,
they are at least an attempt to divert and affect the tidal actions
at least some way off shore in the same way that shingle does
on a beach.
230. It is really diverting rather than resisting.
(Mr Ankers) Yes.
231. It is not actually any more working with nature, it
is just not putting a blank face in the face of nature.
(Mr Ankers) It is a grey area as to whether one would
regard that as hard or soft.
232. In your evidence you also tell us about three million
tonnes of shingle being involved in the reformation of one beach
a little over a decade ago. Could you give us some idea of the
scale of materials which authorities in East Sussex use annually
on that sort of project? Was that a one-off or is that the sort
of project you undertake fairly regularly?
(Mr Ankers) I would have to give you a more detailed
note on the scale of the exercise. I know that these things are
continually happening but I could not tell you at what scale or
what sort of figures are involved.
233. You also indicated that you were very keen to make sure
that materials which are used in soft engineering processes are
environmentally sustainable and you talk about global warming
and so forth. Are you confident that you are able to do that virtually
all the time? Is that an objective which is an aspiration or is
it an objective which is usually attained in terms of the use
of sustainable materials?
(Mr Ankers) It is something we would like to see.
In practice it is extremely difficult to do. There is a major
issue in one of our coastal towns over the last couple of years
where the groynes are being replaced and the traditional solution
was to go abroad for this very resistant wood called greenheart.
That raised all sorts of environmental concerns about whether
that was an appropriate timber to use, bearing in mind it was
from a tropical rain forest and so on, with a lot of pressure
to use local timber even if it had a shorter lifespan. We had
the usual argument about costs. In the end the council concerned
were able to satisfy themselves—though I am not sure they
were able to satisfy everybody else—that they were actually
getting their greenheart from certified sustainable sources. It
is an area where we would very much welcome government action
in terms of supporting nationally recognised accreditation systems.
These are being worked up by people like the Forestry Stewardship
Council and so on. Local authorities, like members of the public,
often want to do the right environmental thing and it is rather
like eco-labelling: unless we are sure and can believe in the
label, then we are not sure we are buying from the right source.
Perhaps the key point we are trying to make here is that we are
using the word "sustainable"—I have heard it used
already this morning in terms of what we are actually doing on
the ground, whether it will still be there in so many years and
what its local impact is. That has to be seen against a wider
global context as well. There is no point us solving our problems
not just at the expense of people five miles down the beach but
at the expense of some wider global environmental issue.
234. Quite right. Turning to paragraph 2.7.3. of your evidence,
there is a wonderful imperial land grab here. You indicate that
you wish the county council's mineral planning powers to be extended
12 miles out to sea. Wars have been fought over less.
(Mr Ankers) To the limit of our territorial waters,
should I say?
235. The Department of the Environment in 1995 specifically
ruled out the option of local authority control over these things.
Could you develop a little on why you would like to have these
powers?
(Mr Ankers) Many maritime local authorities pressed
for that at that time and were disappointed with the response.
We obviously have on land a very well established transparent
accountable system for weighing up competing development pressures.
People can dispute whether we come out with the right answer every
time but they exist and people are able to lobby, are able to
see the evidence. One of the key issues is that once one moves
below the mean low water mark you have a whole different set of
regulating authorities who are making their decisions on a different
basis. Local authorities and others may be consulted but those
decisions are made in an entirely different way. Although it would
require some different skills to be acquired and different resources
to be available, a lot of maritime authorities, not just ours,
would still say that the extension of those planning powers to
fit in with 12 miles, or whatever the limits of the territorial
waters were, would make sense.
236. As far as you know, is that the view of the majority
of those authorities?
(Mr Ankers) It was certainly a well held view. Until
recently I was a member of a group which may have been mentioned
already in your evidence, the national coasts and estuaries advisory
group, which had officers from counties, districts, unitary authorities.
It was certainly the view of that national grouping. We were advising
the local authority associations at that stage, this is before
the merger. I have been out of touch with that group for a couple
of years since the LGA was set up, but I should be very surprised
if all those local planning authorities who thought it was such
a good idea a few years ago have suddenly changed their minds.
(Mr McInnes) May I comment on that very interesting
point? We would have liked to see local authority powers extended
below the low water mark. We are being urged to look at integrated
coastal zone management, which is not just land based issues but
marine issues as well, particularly now that a considerable extent
of the coastal waters in our area, a number of the estuaries and
so on, are being designated as European sites. It is very difficult
to integrate the marine with the terrestrial coastal zone issues
with a responsibility only going down to the low water mark. Under
the Coastal Protection Act as it exists, section 18 allows local
authorities to exert powers over mineral dredging within the three-mile
limit; we had those powers available for the Isle of Wight right
round our coastline. Unfortunately, as we see it, these are being
absorbed within new legislation proposed for aggregate dredging.
We would actually lose that ability to control activities within
the coastal zone. We see that as a bit of a retrograde step. Many
of the local authorities feel that it is difficult to take coastal
zone management as far as we would like with this restriction
on the boundaries.
Chairman
237. That concludes our questioning. Is there anything you
think we should have asked you which we have not?
(Mr McInnes) I cannot think of anything at the moment.
(Mr Ankers) I am sure we will on the way back.
Chairman: You are always at liberty to write to us again
with anything you would like on reflection. You have promised
us a couple of documents and we are grateful for that. Thank you
very much indeed.
| 
