Examination of witnesses (Questions 440 - 459)
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 1998
MS SUE
COLLINS, DR
GEOFF RADLEY,
MR ROGER
CLARKE and MR
MARTIN MOSS
440. Is not that unfortunately called democracy, but
do we not have examples now of the new police authorities which
are diluted democratically on the joint boards but that they appear
to be able to deliver decisions?
(Ms Collins) English Nature is not an expert on
institutional change and we do not want to overstep our remit
in advocating particular solutions. We have made it quite clear
that we do not think the current arrangements are delivering in
practice and we think that a more sustainable approach would be
achieved by integration between national, regional and local levels
in particular. How you design a new institution that has some
regional democratic control but has this national/local link is
maybe a new sort of institution and it needs very careful thought.
(Dr Radley) If the Committee was minded to go
down the route that you suggest, of joint boards, similar to the
police authorities, one thing you have to bear in mind is that
we would very strongly recommend that such bodies would have to
integrate the coast protection responsibilities of local authorities
and the flood defence responsibilities currently discharged by
the Environment Agency because the Committee saw on its field
visit how within one short section of coastline which needs to
be maintained as a whole you have alternating control at the moment
between the Environment Agency and coast protection authorities.
Chairman
441. It is a very powerful point you are making. Can
I just be clear about something else you wrote? You talk about
the fact that nature conservation objectives are not being fully
incorporated into practical action at the local level, and you
say that MAFF and the Environment Agency should "explore
ways of ensuring that national policy and guidance is followed
and implemented." Are you talking there about structural
change, the kind we have just been discussing, or are you looking
at monitoring and enforcing mechanisms?
(Dr Radley) I think a bit of both. There is a
whole suite of issues that seem to get in the way of bringing
the very laudable principles set out in MAFF's current policy
to bear on individual schemes. Some of these relate to the criteria
for grant aid, the sectoral boundaries of responsibility. You
very briefly saw some of those on your field trip in North Norfolk
where erosion of the coastline into an internationally important
site requires, in order to achieve a sustainable solution there,
that you look outside the coast in order to maintain the habitats
that would be lost to the sea.
442. This is Cley?
(Dr Radley) Yes, and there are similar cases at
Brancaster further along on the North Norfolk coast. That is a
duty of Government as a whole to do it, but it is not currently
seen as the duty or the purpose of MAFF grant aid or for the Environment
Agency's flood defence function to do that. There is a structural
problem there in terms of boundaries and actual responsibilities.
There are also examples of solutions not being adopted where they
are controversial, despite the fact that they are technically
appropriate. I think you have already heard examples such as the
North Sea camp around the Wash. There are a number of other such
examples at the scheme level which we would be happy to provide
some evidence on in due course if you want it. Another problem
is that the first generation of Shoreline Management Plans, which
are intended to guide schemes on the coast, have uncovered some
really rather big problems in long term sustainability which people
have felt unwilling to face in terms of proposing definite solutions
and long term solutions all at one go. A lot of Shoreline Management
Plans have said, "There is a problem but in the meantime
we are going to hold the line", and that is actually preventing
exploration of long term sustainable solutions, and again we saw
examples of that on your field visit in north-east Norfolk.
Ms Keeble
443. This question is for English Nature. You mention
on page 3 of your evidence that you would like to see action taken
to restore past damage to riparian habitats, and you mention it
in the context of agricultural or rural areas. I wondered if you
thought the same sort of action should be extended to the more
urban riparian habitats so that we did actually get back towards
more wildlife habitats if nothing else in some of the more urban
areas.
(Ms Collins) They are of course linked and we
would like to see some increase in biodiversity right down the
catchment of the rivers, obviously. Dr Radley can comment on the
flood defence issues and so on.
(Dr Radley) There are two distinct areas behind
that recommendation. The first recommendation is to look carefully
at how we manage the actual channels of rivers. With the Environment
Agency and its predecessors they have developed over the years
with our help a lot of expertise in managing channels so they
continue to provide or even provide a better standard of flood
defence whilst also providing more room for wildlife in them.
There are techniques using low level berms where you have areas
that are marshy in normal times and then flood to provide extra
capacity when a lot of water comes down. There is scope for doing
those in urban areas. There is also scope for doing that sort
of thing on a broader scale, what we call washlands, areas which
are deliberately designed to flood and store water. There are
lots of options for doing that in urban areas and in rural areas
which would then have a benefit for urban areas.
444. When I say urban areas, in the middle of towns,
I am thinking for example about the middle of Northampton where
there is an area around the River Nene and the canal which has
been in fact derelict land but it is quite beautiful green space,
and part of it was developed for industry. Are you saying that
people should go back and look at those inner town areas, not
just urban but right in the middle of the town, and say, "How
do we use this to demonstrate a flood plain area with the wildlife
that will go with it"?
(Dr Radley) Both the Environment Agency and ourselves
have quite strong views on the inadvisability of development in
flood plains. That applies to active flood plains within the curtilage
of towns just as much as in rural areas.
445. In terms of the review that you recommend of the
level of protection for inland agricultural land, who do you think
should do the review? Is the implication here that there is too
much protection for inland agricultural land?
(Ms Collins) Not necessarily. We think the Environment
Agency would be well placed to do it in consultation with farming
interests, the FRCA, ourselves and so on. We think that if there
is to be this more strategic approach to river restoration it
inevitably will mean that you look at the levels of protection
but not necessarily to reduce them, although in some cases it
might be okay to do so. We will be looking at the balance between
that and nature conservation.
(Dr Radley) As I said, there is an awful lot you
can do. In many areas the solution is to look at the channel itself
and try to improve the standard of wildlife you can get in the
channel, whilst maintaining the current standard of flood defence
and levels of drainage as well. There are however some areas where
the objective of government policy has changed since the original
capital schemes were done. We are talking particularly of headwater
streams here. A very good example is the headwaters of the Waveney
and Ouse valleys in Suffolk, on the Norfolk/Suffolk border where,
in the early sixties, the imperative of Government policy was
to improve agricultural production by allowing arable farming
in areas that had previously only been suitable for summer grazing.
Within those headwater valleys there are now surviving wetland
areas which are of international importance. They are candidate
SACs, special areas of conservation. We have great difficulty
in maintaining the interest of those because of the lowered water
tables resulting from that 1950s/1960s capital drainage scheme.
What we are saying is that in a relatively small number of areas
like that there is a case for reviewing whether the level of drainage
provided in the sixties in the context of wanting to grow more
food is still appropriate but it is limited and it is local.
Mr Todd
446. You referred to development on the flood plain and
I think implicitly in coastal areas subject to erosion being inadvisable
in your view. Would not one go a little stronger than that and
say that that is both dangerous to those who occupy the properties
that are built and also interferes with the proper management
of either the flood plain or the coastal strip in a way which
prejudices long term choices?
(Ms Collins) Yes, we would agree with that. We
actually think that there is a need for a strong presumption against
new development in areas subject to erosion.
447. How would you make that presumption against delivering
reality?
(Ms Collins) Local authorities and planning authorities
ought not to give planning permission for developments such as
the one under consideration in St Ives in Cambridgeshire where
gravel pits in the Ouse valley flood plain are being considered
for housing development, and that would foreclose a number of
sustainable flood defence options for the whole of the Ouse valley
washlands. Once you have built new houses there you then have
a strong lobby for protection and flood defence. A lot of unwise
development control decisions have been made in these areas.
448. They ought not to do it but they do. How do we prevent
it?
(Ms Collins) Planning guidance already advises
them not to but it is not being implemented.
(Dr Radley) There is actually very good guidance
from the DETR Planning Policy Guidance number 20 on the coast.
The circular on development of flood risk zones inland is rather
older and perhaps needs updating. There are hard controls if you
like in terms of very strong presumptions and perhaps we could
look at guidance to planning authorities rather similar to that
which governs the circumstances under which you are allowed to
damage internationally important conservation sites for something
like overriding public interest: "You are only allowed developments
on flood plains in cases of overriding public interest and absence
of alternatives".
449. Would not an alternative be to pass a direct veto
on a development of this kind to a responsible agency in the same
way as is given to a major utility for example over sewerage arrangements
and so on?
(Dr Radley) That would be an alternative model.
I think we were concerned to try and avoid Mr Hurst's point about
the quango state, to try to stick within the current democratically
accountable system of planning controls and make it work.
450. What we witnessed in our east coast tour was a number
of local authorities blithely allowing construction of homes and
businesses behind a sea wall in such a way as to oblige the general
taxpayer, not themselves or their local taxpayers, to support
that hard defence into the future. They were taking no risks in
the matter, nor were those who were occupying the properties,
because it was assumed that the taxpayer would pick up the tab
for continued defence of that particular coastline. That just
seems irresponsibility.
(Ms Collins) It should not be allowed to happen.
451. In the strict meaning of the word.
(Ms Collins) Yes.
(Dr Radley) I agree. I think our preference would
be to work through the planning system and to make that work,
but with your experience of the processes of Government, you may
be right. That is not enough.
(Ms Collins) There is the problem of existing
properties and moving, say, caravans and so on that are on eroding
coasts and then maybe we need some incentives to re-locate some
people in areas where past decisions——
452. I think moving people who are already there is a
slightly different subject which I suspect we will come to, but
prevention of further development——
(Ms Collins) It is a standard that ought to be
applied.
453. Can I turn briefly to the Countryside Commission
and question whether this process might be a way of safeguarding
the Heritage Coastline as well?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, it would, and we have long taken
the view that major development is inappropriate on Heritage Coasts
and that is a point of view that has been confirmed by Government
in its support for the Heritage Coast concept. Our view I think
would be that we need to make the planning system effective in
relation to preventing inappropriate development either on the
coast or in areas liable to flooding inland and the way to do
that is through Government guidance cascading through the emerging
regional planning systems to the more local levels of plan.
454. Do you have any examples of inappropriate development
on Heritage Coasts that come to mind?
(Mr Clarke) Not any that come to mind. There is
the current controversy in Martin Moss's area about the creation
of a sewage works adjacent to the Heritage Coast at Scarborough;
is that correct?
(Mr Moss) Yes. There is a bit of controversy about
whether you have a large, effectively industrial plant construction
being placed next door to a National Trail and within the Heritage
Coast there are local planning complexities to that case. Overall
Heritage Coasts are defined as undeveloped coastlines and they
are considered to be our finest national stretches of coastline.
455. And on the whole have local authorities responsible
for those areas respected that designation?
(Mr Moss) The policy is to integrate strong coast
development and protection into the local plan. Obviously it is
not a statutory designation but on the whole I would say that
those authorities have put in fairly strong controls.
(Dr Radley) Not specifically on heritage coasts,
but we do have examples of inappropriate development being proposed
on the undeveloped coast. A case that we are dealing with at the
moment is a proposal for a housing estate behind an eroding cliff
which is also a geological SSSI at a place called Newhaven in
Sussex. We also have a slightly more subtle problem which comes
up a lot, what we call the redevelopment cycle, where you have
something which is fairly temporary and fairly short term being
consolidated into a long term development.
456. Like a caravan site coming into an estate of bungalows,
for example?
(Dr Radley) That is right, yes.
457. Which we saw quite a bit of.
(Dr Radley) Yes, exactly.
Chairman
458. We are trying to draw the session to a close at
11.25 if we can to accommodate one of our witnesses, so I want
to move on quite rapidly to managed retreat or, as English Nature
seems to call it, managed re-alignment. I am not sure if that
is a more attractive concept than Dunkirk and Gallipoli overtones
of managed retreat. I would just appreciate clarification that
managed re-alignment is the same thing. It does not have some
subtle different meaning that I have overlooked?
(Dr Radley) You have to blame MAFF for "managed
re-alignment". They thought it was a more sensitive term
and they asked us to use it.
Mr George
459. Bearing that in mind in this new speak to make managed
re-alignment more palatable and acceptable to farmers, the issue
of compensation is clearly going to be the key amongst us and
the first question is aimed at English Nature. Although you recommend
promoting experimental managed retreat or re-alignment projects
to be expanded, it is clear that the response from farmers is
going to be lukewarm until there is sufficient incentive or compensation
available to them, and certainly the evidence we have received
from them suggests that. What do you believe would be an appropriate
level for compensating affected farmers for the loss of their
land asset? Do you take a view?
(Ms Collins) We would like to think in terms of
incentives to people to agree to managed re-alignment in those
cases where it offers value for money in terms of flood defence
and nature conservation rather than a wider right to compensation
more broadly. In terms of setting a level of incentive that is
needed, we have a little bit of experience because we have worked
on a couple of cases.
(Dr Radley) At the moment the incentive mechanism
in place is the salt marsh creation tier of the habitat scheme
which is part of the agri-environment programme financed by the
EU, which is not actually specifically designed for the purpose
but which is the only tool that we have at the moment, and that
offers an annual payment for a period of I think 20 years, and
the precise level I am not absolutely sure. We can get back to
you on that or you could ask MAFF, but I think it is about £500
a hectare per annum for arable land. What the farming community
tell us is that they would like some form of recompense which
recognises the loss of capital value of the land, and certainly
on the occasions when we have sought to acquire land for managed
re-alignment for experimental purposes we have had no difficulty
in locating and purchasing suitable sites at normal agricultural
land prices.
| 
