2 Environment Agency response
Introduction
We welcome the Committee's report and in particular
the strong endorsement for our role as 'Champion of the Environment'.
We consider that we have made a real difference to
the environment and peoples' lives over the last 10 years, and
agree with the Committee that we will need to respond to the increasing
challenges of climate change and flood risk management.
We thank the Committee for their acknowledgement
of the improvements we have made since the 2000 inquiry, particularly
our approach to modern, risk-based regulation, improvements to
our consistency, transparency and steps taken to enhance our skills
base. However, we agree we have more to do.
The changes we have initiated as part of our new
corporate strategy Creating a Better Place will continue
to develop our approach to achieving environmental improvements
and making the Environment Agency more effective.
The Committee's report will be invaluable as we go
forward to meet the demands of the next five years and beyond.
We value the constructive working relationship we have with our
sponsors in Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government as well as
the advice we receive from our statutory committees. We will need
the further support of these partners in driving forward our action
plan to address the Committee's recommendations.
We have addressed the Committee's conclusions and
recommendations in the order in which they appear in the report.
The Agency's roles as a regulator and 'Champion
of the Environment'
Recommendation 1
The Agency's involvement in environmental protection
and conservation has increased considerably over the past ten
years. We note the concerns of some stakeholders that the Agency
is experiencing difficulties managing its wide range of responsibilities
and, in particular, that the Agency is struggling to combine its
regulatory role with that of 'Champion of the Environment'. In
this context, we were disappointed that Defra, in its written
evidence to the Committee, did not include any robust appraisal
of whether the Agency had achieved the objectives it was designed
to achieve. Neither did the Minister set out the Government's
ideas as to whether the role and responsibilities of the Agency
should change to take into account the Government's commitment
to the sustainability agenda. Given the range of cross-cutting
environmental issues faced by Government, we strongly support
the Agency's role as a 'Champion of the Environment'. However,
it is important that there should be clarity between all the Agency's
different functions, particularly between its regulatory and environmental
champion roles. (Paragraph 17)
We are pleased the Committee recognises our increased
involvement in environmental protection and we value their strong
support for us as 'Champion of the Environment'. In the last 10
years, we have continued to develop an integrated approach across
air, land and water and have achieved real results for people
and the environment as both a 'champion' and a regulator. We consider
being an environmental champion, regulator and adviser to be facets
of the same integrated role.
We note the Committee's comments concerning an appraisal
of whether we have achieved our objectives and the possible need
for changes to our role and responsibilities to take account of
the Government's commitment to the sustainability agenda.
We do however work within a clear framework of governance,
including periodically reviewed statutory guidance, that demonstrates
we have achieved the objectives set for us by Government. This
information is available to the public in our published Corporate
Strategy, Corporate Plans and Annual Reports.
Looking ahead, our new corporate strategy, recently
agreed with Government, sets out how we should take account of
future needs.
We recognise the need for others to be clear about
our different functions and consider that our new corporate strategy
will help develop a better understanding. In the light of the
Committee's comments we will see how we might go further.
Recommendation 2
We recommend that Defra examine whether the Agency
is adequately equipped for the cross-cutting environmental challenges
facing it today, not least its important role as environmental
champion and how it balances this with its regulatory role. In
particular, the Agency's capability to address the challenges
that climate change poses for its areas of responsibility should
be fully explored. As part of this examination, Defra should also
hold a series of stakeholder workshops with the Agency's main
contacts and customers to critically appraise the Agency's ability
effectively to deliver its current regulatory functions. (Paragraph
18)
We agree with the Committee's view that we should
be properly equipped for the cross-cutting environmental challenges
we face today and in the future.
These challenges, including that of climate change,
are set out in our new corporate strategy which shows how we will
use all our roles to achieve our goals. We have reviewed the impacts
of climate change on all our functions in order to help focus
our future work.
In preparing our strategy we have had extensive dialogue
with all our stakeholders to ensure we are taking the right approach
across all our functions and are agreeing plans with a number
of regulated sectors which specifically set out how we should
carry out our regulatory functions.
We will however continue to listen carefully to those
with an interest in our work to ensure we are able to respond
to their concerns. The evidence submitted to the Committee as
part of this inquiry will be an important part of our customer
feedback, and is being used in a programme to increase our levels
of responsiveness and service to our regulated customers.
Recommendation 3
We note the views of business witnesses that the
Agency should focus more on providing advisory services for companies
trying to comply with legislation. Small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in particular often require greater attention, especially
in areas where there is new environmental legislation. We were
concerned, therefore, to hear that some SMEs are discouraged from
approaching the Agency for advice because they fear prosecution.
The establishment of the NetRegs web guidance tool is one effective
means by which SMEs can obtain advice, as it can be accessed anonymously
and for free. We recommend that the Agency continue to develop
its NetsRegs web tool and to increase awareness amongst SMEs about
its existence. The Agency should also remember that not all small
businesses will turn automatically to the internet for information,
and therefore consider other forms of dissemination as well. This
would also improve its image amongst SMEs. We recommend that Government
provide additional ring-fenced funding for the development of
NetRegs and other advisory services aimed at SMEs. (Paragraph
24)
We aim to protect the environment in partnership
with SMEs and have produced a strategy specifically for this sector
that includes an objective to provide clear, readily understandable
environmental information and support, within the resources available
to us.
We are pleased the Committee has joined others in
recognising the great value of NetRegs. We are improving the service
further in 2006-7 with funding from Defra through the Business
Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) programme. Whilst the number
of NetRegs users has doubled to 240,000 in the last two years,
we want to increase this still further.
Future development of NetRegs and other SME advisory
services will need further, secure financial support and we therefore
welcome the Committee's recommendation for additional funding
to enable us to make further progress.
We also accept the Committee's recommendation that
we should consider other ways of reaching SMEs and will look for
new methods of providing advice and sign-posting our website,
working with the appropriate trade associations and the Small
Business Council.
In addition we will explore the extent to which the
Government's proposed new Environment Direct service for the wider
public could enhance our own advisory capacity.
We note the Committee's comments about the fear of
prosecution. Whilst we accept the point in principle, we remain
to be convinced of the extent of the supporting evidence, particularly
as SMEs are generally unaware of their environmental responsibilities.
Indeed our recent survey of this sector showed that only seven
per cent of businesses were aware that their activities could
be potentially harmful to the environment. We will however review
our inspection and enforcement policies and practice to minimise
the risk of inappropriate fear of prosecution when advice is being
sought.
The Agency's performance as a regulator
Recommendation 4
Proper implementation of environmental legislation
is the antidote to prosecution. Therefore, we further recommend
that the Agency undertake survey work with a representative range
of SMEs to ensure that the right balance is achieved between the
Agency's roles as an advisor and as a prosecutor. (Paragraph 25)
We agree with the Committee's views about the importance
of proper implementation of legislation and in our drive towards
modernising regulation we give advice to business on compliance
with the law.
Without specific Government funding, our general
approach is to use our limited resources by providing advice through
our front-line staff who give practical advice based on their
technical knowledge, understanding of regulations and experience.
An exception to this approach, stemming from the
particular needs of the farming community, is our Defra-funded
Catchment Sensitive Farming pilot initiative, through which we
provide officers whose principal purpose is to give advice on
pollution prevention, including good practice, the availability
of financial incentives and the requirements of regulation.
As the Committee recommends, we will continue to
engage ever more closely with SMEs and are putting a much greater
emphasis on customers' needs in our new corporate strategy. This
work has already begun through our SME strategy (see above) and
is being expanded further as part of the work we are doing on
NetRegs with BREW funding.
We already undertake much customer and stakeholder
research to gauge how effectively we are working and communicating
with others. We will continue to listen carefully to stakeholders'
concerns and will take action wherever possible, within available
funding, to achieve the right balance between our roles as an
advisor and as a prosecutor.
Recommendation 5
We strongly support the Agency's commitment to
a risk-based approach to regulation. Not only does such an approach
target those operators with the worst environmental records, it
also reduces the regulatory burden on compliant operators and,
by providing financial incentives to companies to improve their
environmental performance, improves standards across the board.
However, we recognise the force of the criticisms from some operators
that the full benefits of this approach are still yet to be realised.
We recommend the Agency continue to hone its risk-based approach
to regulation. In particular, it should emphasise the financial
benefits businesses can gain by improving their environmental
performance. (Paragraph 31)
We value the Committee's support for our modern,
risk-based approach to regulation which is central to the way
we now work and will be carried forward in our new corporate strategy.
We acknowledge that this approach is still evolving
and with regard to charges we need to progressively widen the
gap between those for the highest and lowest performing operators
in line with our regulatory effort. With this intention, for the
first time this year we have used operators' compliance ratings
to determine fees.
We are working with Government on the 'better regulation
agenda' to reduce the complexity of regulation and allow us to
further target our resources where they are most effective. Reductions
in our routine inspections are therefore set to continue with
a corresponding increase in less frequent, but more comprehensive
audits. We are also engaged in a programme to ensure that the
modern regulation approach is embraced by staff at all levels
in the organisation.
We strongly agree that the financial benefits of
better performance need to be emphasised in an increasingly competitive
global economy. A greater number of companies are already finding
it pays to improve environmental performance, not only through
reduced charges, but also through more efficient use of resources,
avoiding penalties and tapping into consumer demand. We will continue
to emphasise these benefits and along with other EU environmental
protection agencies we have published a report showing how environmental
regulation can improve competitiveness.
Recommendation 6
We welcome the measures taken by the Agency over
the past six years to improve consistency in its regulatory and
enforcement functions. Real progress has been made with initiatives
such as the establishment of Strategic Permitting Groups in respect
of issuing waste permits. However, we remain concerned that inconsistencies
still occur because of poor communication between the policy centre
and the inspectors on the ground. Variations in policy and practice
between the different regions of the Agency should be limited
to those areas where they are a result of a genuine need for local
differences in approach, rather than a lack of policy clarity
or a failure to communicate national policy and standard working
practices to local staff. The Agency must continue to improve
its communication processes to ensure a consistent approach across
the country to regulation and advice. It should also publish a
work plan to indicate what steps it plans to take to further address
the problem. (Paragraph 38)
We are pleased that the Committee recognises the
progress we have made and we are determined to build on this to
further increase consistency and speed of delivery.
We must however also seek to balance demands from
industry for consistency with calls for flexibility within a regulatory
framework.
We are confident that we have now got the structures
in place to drive a more consistent approach and wherever practical
will extend the successful use of our Strategic Permitting Groups
to other types of permit.
We agree internal communications will have a large
role to play in improving the consistency of interpretation and
approach between our policy centre and operational staff. We are
therefore implementing a training programme for our front-line
staff with an immediate focus on waste, water quality and agriculture.
We welcome examples of situations where stakeholders
feel we are inconsistent so that we can investigate and take appropriate
action. This approach to driving consistency has worked well in
the past, for example during the implementation of the Hazardous
Waste Regulations.
Specialist staff
Recommendation 7
We are extremely concerned that the Agency is
experiencing difficulties recruiting specialist staff, such as
flood risk engineers, hydrologists and geomorphologists. By its
nature, much of the Agency's work requires a high level of specialist
knowledge. It is therefore essential that the Agency employs staff
with the necessary skills to undertake its work. We understand
that, to some extent, these difficulties are indicative of a more
general industry-wide problem relating to a decline in the number
of engineers and opportunities to study specific technical environmental
courses. We welcome the Agency's attempt to improve this situation
by working with the Institute of Civil Engineers and with universities,
and encourage the Agency to continue this collaboration in order
to encourage more young people to take engineering and technical
environmental courses, and to seek employment in the Agency. As
part of this work, the Agency should consider a system of bursary
payments to encourage young people to study in the disciplines
which it needs but where graduates are in short supply. The Agency
should also be discussing with the Department for Education and
Skills further measures to increase the number of graduates in
these areas. (Paragraph 44)
We agree that our difficulties in recruiting specialist
staff are a matter of concern and that this is an industry-wide
problem.
One key area for us is flood risk management where
we have already implemented a range of actions to begin to meet
our needs.
These actions include: appointing a senior manager
to give focus and direction to this area of work; creating bespoke
advertising for flood risk management, which is already generating
significant interest; working with specialist engineering agencies
to spot talent; recruiting engineers from overseas; introducing
an improved employee referral scheme where staff members can recommend
their professional contacts for employment; increasing salary
levels to keep pace with the market; planning a graduate development
scheme for 2007 and offering sponsorship for final year students.
In addition to these initiatives: we will extend
our succession planning; promote a programme of continuing professional
development to refresh and expand capabilities; we will offer
opportunities for individuals to achieve professional accreditation;
we are keen to continue our work with the Institution of Civil
Engineers and with universities in order to encourage more young
people to take engineering and technical environmental courses
and to seek employment in the Agency; we sponsor a number of graduates
and have outline plans to extend this further to mechanical engineering
undergraduates.
We will consider how a system of bursary payments
could support these initiatives and we will open a dialogue with
the Department for Education and Skills regarding further measures
to increase the number of graduates in these areas.
Recommendation 8
It is clear from our evidence that the credibility
of the Agency depends largely on the performance of its specialist
staff in the front-line, such as its inspectors and flood risk
engineers. The importance of such specialist positions should
therefore be reflected in the pay structure of the Agency. If
the Agency is not able to offer more pay, it should ensure its
own generalists acquire appropriate technical skills as part of
their training. We therefore recommend the Agency expand the opportunities
available for Agency trainees to take a foundation degree in the
first stage of engineering. (Paragraph 45)
We agree that our credibility depends largely on
the performance of our front-line staff. These staff rely on smaller,
dedicated teams of specialists to support them in order to carry
out their duties on the ground.
We are already doing much to enhance the technical
skills of front-line officers for existing and new duties. We
seek accreditation and advice from Professional Institutes for
our training programmes and have secured CIWEM and CIWM validation
of our Environment Officer Skills Development Scheme. Our industry
secondment scheme for Environment Officers in partnership with
the Environmental Services Association (ESA) gives our staff direct
experience of the waste industry, and is in its fourth successful
year.
We have increased the salaries for our specialists
as appropriate; including raising salaries at local discretion
for externally recruited chartered engineers. Our pay system can
also be used flexibly to respond to market needs.
In spite of this, we recognise that we have lost
the competitive edge on pay in some areas and are looking at how
we can improve this situation.
We are also developing mechanisms to formally manage
and reward the development and application of technical skills
and experience to ensure that we develop technical resilience
and provide attractive career structures. The retention of front-line
staff is also being addressed through restructuring proposals
that will support better internal progression.
Our Foundation Degree in River and Coastal Engineering
(led by the University of West England) is a two-year course combining
academic study and learning on the job here at the Environment
Agency. We created the course in partnership with universities
to respond to our growing need for flood management engineers
and to the widespread shortage of people with the right skills.
Details are available on our website.
In addition, we are fast tracking new graduates and
existing staff to achieve chartered status.
Recommendation 9
Our evidence showed that witnesses regarded lack
of specialist staff as one of the Agency's most significant drawbacks.
The Agency should therefore issue a work plan with specific deadlines
to set out how it aims to solve its recruitment problems, and
publish details about its future graduate requirements. (Paragraph
46)
We are developing workforce action plans to address
the resourcing requirements of the organisation. In particular,
we will focus on building and retaining the level of expertise
of our specialist staff. These plans have already been developed
for flood risk management and will be extended across other critical
skill areas such as planning liaison and geoscience.
In our approach to developing resourcing plans, we
are developing national graduate schemes to meet our future needs.
Work is underway to market a national scheme in flood risk management
from September 2006; this will be extended to other skill areas
within the organisation.
The Agency's charges
Recommendation 10
The provision of clear and comprehensive information
to businesses and companies about their regulatory charges is
crucial. In evidence, we heard contradictory opinions about the
current degree of transparency provided by the Agency in this
area. The Agency believes it provides adequate information about
its charges and how they are reached, through its website, leaflets
and the establishment of a Charges Review Group including Government,
trade associations and partners and representatives of SMEs. We
support such initiatives and encourage the Agency to take particular
note of the comments made by representatives of charge-payers
on the Charges Review Group so that it can truly demonstrate that
they are, in the Agency's words, "fully involved in the process".
(Paragraph 50)
We appreciate the Committee's support for initiatives
aimed at increasing transparency. Although we believe that we
have already made significant progress, we have put in train a
series of actions to further improve the transparency of our charging
schemes and level of charges. For example we are developing a
'transparency framework' agreed through the Charges Review Group
to be applied progressively to each of our charging schemes during
2006-07.
We will continue to listen carefully to comments
from representatives of charge-payers on the Charges Review Group
and to consult with them in taking forward further actions to
improve transparency.
Recommendation 11
Our evidence showed, however, that a large number
of charge-payers are still dissatisfied with the information they
receive from the Agency, particularly in relation to where the
money received from charges is being spent. The problem here could
be a lack of communication with stakeholders about where they
can obtain information about charges. We recommend that Defra
examine how the Agency calculates its charges to satisfy itself
that this process is conducted in the most transparent way possible,
so that all stakeholders understand why they are charged as they
are. (Paragraph 51)
We understand the importance of being as transparent
as possible and therefore ensure that we provide information explaining
the reasons for changes to charges and how charges are calculated.
In consultation with Defra and the Charges Review
Group, we have agreed a programme of further actions designed
to further improve the transparency of where the money from charges
is spent.
We will continue to work with Defra as we take forward
these further actions, as well as to seek feedback from the Charges
Review Group to ensure the improvements address the requirements
of our charge-payers.
Recommendation 12
Business witnesses are concerned that revenue
raised from charges on legitimate operators is being used for
the policing of illegal operators. We believe that the risk of
this occurring should be minimised. Business charges must reflect
the costs of regulatory effort. The Agency should make clear how
much of the money derived from charges it is currently using for
enforcement and produce a plan to show how it intends to end this
practice. Enforcement of illegal and poor-performing operators
should be funded by Grant-in-Aid or from environmental fines.
If the Agency is struggling to fund its enforcement duties, Government
should provide additional resources ring-fenced for this purpose.
(Paragraph 54)
We agree that our charges should reflect the cost
of regulatory effort. Charges from business are only used to enforce
compliance with their permits.
Our enforcement work on illegal operators i.e. those
working without permits, is funded by grant-in-aid. There is one
exception to this general rule, for the enforcement of the Producer
Responsibility (Packaging Waste) regulations. These charges are
set in the regulations and after consultation with packaging waste
businesses, provide for the recovery of costs for the enforcement
of 'free-riders'.
We would welcome the provision of additional resources
to fund more risk-based enforcement to stop those operating outside
the law. Action against illegal operators is, necessarily, increasing
and Grant-in-Aid is likely to continue to be under pressure.
The possibility of recovering through charges the
cost of enforcement against illegal operators was an option for
further consideration identified by the Defra/Environment Agency
charging review. Current Government enforcement reviews are looking
at the best way of tackling enforcement and we will work with
Government to consider any impact this may have on funding for
enforcement activity and in exploring possible funding options.
Of course any new initiatives would involve full consultation
with Defra, the Treasury and the affected industries.
Prosecution of environmental offences
Recommendation 13
We believe a strong case exists for placing more
of the burden of enforcement costs onto fines, rather than charges.
Fines for environmental offences are still relatively small and
often do not reflect the severity of the offence. We also believe
that consistency in sentencing of environmental crimes should
be improved, and therefore support the Agency's proposal that
a team of magistrates be trained specifically to deal with environmental
cases. Consideration should be also given to the Agency having
the ability to propose payment of a fixed penalty by the offender
as an alternative to court action. We welcome the fact that discussions
are taking place within Government about the prosecution of environmental
cases. The Environment Agency and business representatives should
be closely involved in such discussions. Defra should, without
delay, publish a Green Paper detailing its proposals on the roles
to be played by other branches of Government in devising ways
to fundamentally improve the system by which courts administer
environmental prosecutions. (Paragraph 60)
We have explained that enforcement costs, with one
exception, are not borne by charges and support the Committee's
view that there is a strong case for using the income from fines
for enforcement in relation to illegal operators. We also agree
the Committee's views on penalties for environmental offences,
which are currently a weak deterrent for both criminals and the
anti-social.
Both Defra and the Better Regulation Executive are
currently reviewing penalties and enforcement. We are making a
significant contribution to this work. We will continue our input
as the current reviews progress and are grateful that the committee
support our involvement.
We hope the Committee's recommendations on specialist
magistrates and fixed penalties will receive full consideration,
both as part of these reviews and across Government. These, along
with more flexible penalties would have a major impact on the
effectiveness of our enforcement.
We note the Committee's recommendation to Government
to publish a Green Paper to improve these processes and look forward
to the practical implementation by whatever route of the outcomes
of current and future reviews.
Recommendation 14
At present, money received from environmental
fines goes directly into the Consolidated Fund, and is recycled
to the Agency through Grant-in-Aid. If the amount of fines increases
significantly, the Agency should receive the full value of any
additional revenue either through retaining fine income or through
the present arrangement. Our preference, however, is for the Agency
to be able to retain income directly from fines. We recommend
that the Treasury examine the case for allowing the Agency to
keep the fines which result from successful prosecutions and report
to Parliament about its conclusions on this matter. (Paragraph
61)
We have previously made the case to the Treasury
for the Environment Agency to retain the income from fines. Defra
has supported our view, however the Treasury has not seen the
merit of our case.
We recognise that this would not provide significant
income while fines remain low, but combined with increased fines
awarded by the courts could provide welcome funding for more,
targeted, enforcement work.
However, in view of the Treasury's previous position
on the matter, we would need confirmation from them that they
would be prepared to reconsider the proposal in the light of the
Committee's recommendation before investing significant further
effort in this cause.
We are of course mindful of the need to ensure transparent
use of income and the ring fencing of the prosecution decision
to avoid accusations of using fines as a revenue-raising exercise.
The Agency's relationship with Government
Recommendation 15
Business representatives are concerned that the
Agency appears to be increasingly involved in the development
of policy. The Agency acknowledges that, due to incoherence and
inconsistencies in legislation, it occasionally fills a "policy
void" in order to apply regulations at an operational level.
This is partly caused by poorly defined and broadly written European
Union legislation. We agree with the Agency that a common EU regulatory
code for the environment—covering such issues as definitions,
permitting, consultation periods, and monitoring arrangements—would
facilitate the effective implementation and transposition of EU
environmental legislation by the Agency, comparative agencies
in other Member States and other EU governments. We therefore
task the Government with publishing proposals to address these
problems and committing itself to raising its conclusions in the
Council of Ministers within the next six months. (Paragraph 70)
We welcome this recommendation and will be pleased
to assist Government in assessing the feasibility of such a code
which if adopted by Government, could potentially reduce red-tape
and the overall cost of compliance for regulated industry.
We are always interested in looking at ways to improve
consistency across the EU. For example, the European Commission's
Environment Directorate-General has expressed interest in using
NetRegs to provide guidance to EU member states and we will work
with them to explore this possibility.
Recommendation 16
We agree with the Agency that developing legislation
at the national level within separate regulatory 'silos' can create
problems for the effective interpretation and enforcement of policy.
It can also complicate matters for businesses and individuals
affected by that legislation. We welcome the moves to develop
a common regulatory framework for the Pollution Prevention and
Control and waste management licensing regimes. We recommend that
Defra and the Agency seek to extend this common framework to other
regimes and EU directives, ensuring that business interests are
kept fully informed of developments. (Paragraph 72)
We fully support this recommendation. We are working
with Government to create a common platform for the waste licensing
and pollution prevention and control regimes and to demonstrate
that it can deliver real benefits to business. We will then be
seeking to extend it to other regimes in consultation with industry.
This common framework should result in £8 million
savings a year to industry and lead to a 17 per cent saving in
administration costs to the waste management industry. It will
also result in faster permit determinations, an increase in applications
for waste recovery activities and greater certainty for business.
Recommendation 17
We strongly believe that it is essential for the
Agency to be involved on a regular basis in the early stage of
policy discussions with Defra. If it is not, effective assessment
of the feasibility and costs of proposed regulations is hindered.
We note Defra's reluctance in the past always to involve the Agency
in such discussions, and we hope that recent initiatives—such
as the programme and project management (PPM) approach and the
Concordant on EU and International Relations—are indicative
of a more collaborative relationship between Defra and the Agency
at the initial stages of policy discussion. In particular, we
believe PPM has considerable value in promoting systematic engagement
with the Agency. We recommend Defra expand the use of the PPM
approach throughout its work. (Paragraph 77)
We fully support this recommendation and are keen
to continue our work with Defra to ensure that implementation
issues are considered from the very outset of discussions on draft
policies and legislation.
In our experience, PPM has been successful because
of earlier and better planning of new duties and more effective
engagement between Defra and ourselves. This has helped with the
timely delivery of policy and legislation.
The Agency's role in the planning system
Recommendation 18
We are concerned that the Agency's advice on development
in areas of flood risk has sometimes been ignored. In some instances,
the Agency has not even been consulted. Along with the majority
of our witnesses, we strongly support the proposal in the current
consultation on the revision of PPG25 to grant the Agency statutory
consultee status for planning applications involving development
in flood risk areas. We are aware, however, that this new status
will not necessarily ensure the Agency's advice will be accepted:
only that its advice is considered. We recommend that, where the
Government allows development to go ahead against Agency advice,
the Government should publicly explain the reasons for not accepting
the Agency's advice. We believe this would significantly improve
transparency in this area. (Paragraph 82)
We welcome the Committee's support for a stronger
role for us in the planning process. It is essential that our
advice on development in the flood plain is listened to and acted
on in order to protect people, property and the environment.
We also strongly support the proposal in the PPG25
consultation to give us statutory consultee status for development
applications in flood risk areas.
We agree the Committee's recommendation that the
Government should make public its reasons for allowing development
against our advice.
Recommendation 19
We are concerned that the Agency lacks adequate
resources to respond appropriately to many planning applications.
This situation will only worsen if the demands on the Agency increase
considerably, as a result of it being granted statutory consultee
status in the revised PPG25. At present, the Agency receives no
income for the provision of its advice in relation to planning,
despite estimated costs of £8 million per year in this area.
We recommend that the Government re-examine the way the Agency
is funded for its work in providing information for development
and planning applications, and assess whether some of its work
in this area should be funded by the developer concerned. (Paragraph
85)
We welcome the Committee's comments on this important
area and would support any examination into increasing and securing
funding for our work in providing advice on development plans,
planning applications and development proposals.
Such a review should examine the most efficient way
of raising income including from the 60,000 planning-related consultations
we respond to each year and the opportunity for cost-reflective
charges raised from the developer concerned. This review would
also need to consider proposals to raise Planning Gain Supplement
from developers and whether other means of funding our planning
work might be more effective.
We have however, already committed to provide considerable
extra resources for this work in the next three years, in particular
funding for additional staff.
Recommendation 20
Even if, as expected, the Agency is granted statutory
consultee status for planning applications involving development
in flood risk areas, we believe action will still be necessary
to reduce the number of planning applications made in such areas
in the first place. To help achieve this, the Agency should further
improve its provision of information to developers regarding the
environmental and financial consequences of development in flood
risk areas. In doing so, the Agency should spell out to developers
and other stakeholders the extent to which flood risk is likely
to increase in the longer term. (Paragraph 87)
We work to raise awareness of flooding in a number
of ways and agree with the Committee that we should continue to
work with developers and stakeholders.
One example of our work is in the Thames Gateway
growth area, where we are working with developers to produce a
pack which will include information on a range of environmental
issues including flooding.
Flood defence and management
Recommendation 21
We welcome the Government's recent funding increases
for the Agency in relation to its flood defence work. However,
flooding risks can only increase in the future, due to the effects
of climate change. The Minister has acknowledged that spending
in this area will consequently also have to increase. We expect
him to listen closely to the Agency's advice in this area before
decisions are made in advance of the next Spending Review. We
agree with the Agency that Government should aim to increase the
Agency's funding in this area to £1 billion per year in the
long term. (Paragraph 93)
We strongly support these recommendations. Climate
change is a long-term pressure that will significantly increase
flood risk in the future. According to the Foresight report, Future
for Flooding, annual damage from flooding could rise from
the present level of £1 billion to about £25 billion
in the worst case scenario later this century. Increased resources
will be needed to address this escalating risk.
The impacts of climate change will however go beyond
our flood defence work. Government will need to ensure resources
are carefully allocated to secure adaptation to climate change
in other key areas such as water resource management, coastal
impacts, waste management and biodiversity. We will need to play
a major role in Defra's current initiative to develop the UK adaptation
policy framework.
Recommendation 22
With such a large budget comes increased responsibility
to ensure the money is wisely spent. As part of its zero based
review of flood risk management in the next Spending Review, Defra
should examine how effectively the Agency is spending its flood
management funding. (Paragraph 94)
We support this recommendation. We are already accountable
to Defra for our budget and can demonstrate that we provide value
for money and have achieved real results with the funding we are
given.
We exceeded the target given to us by Government
in Spending Review (SR)2002 by increasing the level of flood protection
to around 100,000 additional homes in England in this period and
are well on the way to meeting our SR2004 target of reducing flood
risk to a further 85,000 homes. We published an improved flood
map on our internet site in 2004 and update this quarterly as
part of our continuing investment in enhancing our understanding
of flood risk across England and Wales. However we will continue
to look, with Defra, for further improvements and efficiencies.
Recommendation 23
The provision of information and advice to households
in areas of flood risk is a crucial element of the Agency's work.
The Agency has achieved much in this area with relatively limited
resources, through initiatives such as the flood map available
on its website and its 24-hour telephone helpline. If the Agency
is to maintain and improve its work in raising awareness about
flood risk amongst the general public, Government should review
with the Agency the funding available for this work and jointly
publish proposals showing how this part of the Agency's work will
be further developed. The Agency should also consider other innovative
ways to reach out to the general public in these areas of work,
bearing in mind that not everybody uses the internet as their
main source of information. (Paragraph 99)
We agree that the provision of advice and information
in areas of flood risk is a crucial element of our work and are
pleased that the Committee acknowledges our achievements in this
area.
We welcome the recommendation that we should work
closely with Defra regarding funding for and development of this
work.
Recognising that not everyone has access to the internet,
our free Floodline Warnings Direct service provides alerts by
telephone, mobile, fax or pager. In addition, as part of our annual
flood awareness campaign, we have recently written to 430,000
people to encourage them to sign up to receive direct flood warnings
through this new service and were successful in encouraging some
113,000 new customers to register. This increased the total number
of properties for which direct warnings can be issued by over
90 per cent.
We will however continue to look at other innovative
ways to reach out to the public on these issues.
The Government's agri-environmental budget
Recommendation 24
We welcome the progress made by officials in the
Agency and the Natural England Partnership in establishing a close
and constructive working relationship. Due to the overlapping
nature of some of the Agency and Natural England's responsibilities,
it is essential that these good relations continue once Natural
England is established. We are concerned, however, that—even
before the new body has been created— tensions already exist
relating to the potential use of the agri-environment budget.
This budget will be controlled by Natural England but, in effect,
used to deliver both organisation's objectives. We therefore agree
with the Agency that, in order to avoid potential disputes, Defra
should provide Natural England with clear guidance on using the
agri-environmental funding to achieve both organisations' objectives.
It is also essential that any budget constraints that arise do
not hinder the Agency's performance in relation to its core shared
outcomes, such as the Water Framework Directive and SSSI responsibilities.
(Paragraph 105)
We welcome the opportunity to work with Natural England
as an important partner in delivering the Government's environmental
objectives.
The Memorandum of Understanding we have signed with
the Natural England confederation needs completion in further
detail so that it cements good working relationships and clarifies
roles and responsibilities in areas such as agriculture and the
environment, flood risk management and access and recreation.
We will continue to develop our partnership through more detailed
working agreements.
We welcome the Committee's agreement that the agri-environment
budget must deliver for both Natural England's and our own objectives
and that guidance should be given by Government in this regard.
This will be particularly important as pressures on these budgets
grow and the sums available diminish. As noted by the Committee,
this will be particularly important in meeting our responsibilities
under the Water Framework Directive.
Biodiversity
Recommendation 25
The current arrangement between the Agency and
English Nature—soon to be Natural England—in relation
to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan is complicated. Each organisation
has lead responsibility for certain Habitat Action Plans, depending
on its type. However, the two organisations are often required
to work together on specific Habitat Action Plans, as can occur
with the restoration of SSSIs. Evidence suggests that all the
parties involved believe that the current arrangement is the most
logical one and, more importantly, that it is delivering results.
We believe that rules and regulations defining responsibilities
and boundaries are important, but ultimately it is the people
involved in these collaborations that are vital. Provided the
Agency and Natural England continue to work closely—with
the lead organisation for each Biodiversity Action Plan Group
providing the necessary lead and vision—and deliver results
in this area, we are satisfied that the present arrangements should
continue. (Paragraph 110)
We welcome the Committee's recommendation that the
current working arrangements regarding biodiversity should continue.
We hope that the good working relationships we have
with the bodies that will make up Natural England will further
develop and help to achieve our shared objectives for biodiversity.
Environment Agency
July 2006
| 
