Memorandum submitted by Halcrow Group
Ltd
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The work of the Environment Agency is wide and
varied and the evidence provided relates to the areas in which
we work as a supplier to the Environment Agency across England
& Wales.
It has been our experience that the Environment
Agency are constantly striving for further improvement and this
is underpinned by the delivery against corporate targets, to which
they have aligned themselves and their suppliers.
Specific examples of success include:
— The substantial numbers of properties
that now benefit from reduced flood risk.
— The balance the Environment Agency
achieve in delivering value for money flood defence schemes, whilst
still achieving environmental enhancement.
— The demonstrable value savings across
the Environment Agency's capital delivery programme that equate
to in excess of £7 million in 2004.
— Collaboration and training within
the overall project delivery teams to achieve the Egan and Latham
goals for the construction industry.
— The way the Environment Agency has
become an integral part of the planning process despite not having
statutory powers within that process.
— The significant public awareness
that exists of flood risk within England & Wales and the transparency
of flood risk achieved through the flood mapping.
| Points of Evidence
| Response |
| 1. How successful the Environment Agency has been in its role as enforcer of environmental regulation and controls, and how well it manages its wide range of activities
| In its enforcement role.
1.1 It is sometimes apparent that the Environment Agency's environmental protection role conflicts with their duty to secure the proper use of water resources, due to risk that (abstractive) water use may threaten water-dependent habitats. The comment is made specifically in relation to the work underpinning PR04, where quantitative justification sought by the financial regulator for schemes to be included in Environment Programme proved challenging.
1.2 The water resources role also causes tension with the financial regulator/water companies, with the Environment Agency wishing to see greater investment in demand management and the others questioning its cost-effectiveness. Inability to predict and cost environmental dis-benefits with confidence compounds this difficulty.
1.3 Despite these issues, foundations have been laid for some good environmental outcomes from the AMP 4 period. The Water Act 2003, which requires companies to conserve water in their operations, will also help. However a regulatory regime that looks to minimise abstractions, rather than focus on particular ways in which abstracted water is used/wasted (eg leakage control) may be less contentious and complex to regulate.
1.4 PR04 showed that the Environment Agency have vastly improved its effectiveness in water resources regulation; it would benefit from reinforcement of the message to consumers by Government and other stakeholders that water is a scarce and valuable resource
Managing a wide range of activities.
1.5 Whilst the Environment Agency operates in many different disciplines the specific evidence we would like to submit is in relation to flood risk management. In this discipline governance is well prescribed with project boards and project teams set up to drive projects forward, proactively and efficiently. These teams engage and include key stake holders where appropriate (eg English Nature) to ensure that all schemes implemented are sustainable in the social, economic and environmental sense.
1.6 A key component of the Environment Agency's ability to drive sustainability in all that they manage is the Environment Agency's environmental procedures which are based on best practise and are complied with even when there is no statutory requirement to carry out specific environmental assessment works. The Environment and sustainability is a key part of everything they do.
1.7 The sustainability of flood risk management projects is further supported by the integrated teams that operate on projects thereby ensuring best value delivery in many of the Environment Agency's target areas is achieved. This has been strengthened further by the setting up of the National Environmental Advisory Service (NEAS) to drive excellence in the field of the environment on all projects.
1.8 Whilst implementation of the enhancement is often achieved at a local project level, the many projects are connected through high level strategic assessment on a catchment basis that links and compares benefits in one key area such as flood risk management with the environmental objectives for the catchment. Forward thinking in terms of habitat creation projects and complying with the need for compensatory habitats are essential in this process, as is the need to look wider in terms of making space for water and the whole water cycle.
|
| 2. Whether the Agency operates efficiently and provides good value for money
| 2.1 We have been working with the Environment Agency under the National Environmental and Engineering Consultancy Agreement (NEECA) since 2000 and over this period it has become apparent that the Environment Agency has made significant changes in the ways it delivers and significant improvements have resulted. Some examples of this include
— Delivery of SDA targets, by getting all suppliers to focus on programme and risk. The SDA targets are a clear deliverable of the Environment Agency and its flood defence functions (combined with the National Capital Programme Management Service) are focused on achieving (and are achieving) these goals. The delivery against the SDA targets clearly demonstrates the value of corporate targets within the public and private sectors and the benefit of alignment of client and supplier goals.
— The alignment of suppliers is driving added value delivery. For example recorded value engineering saving through 2004 resulted in excess of £7 million of savings. This is in line with the Achieving Excellence targets. Examples of the type of added value delivery being achieved are given in the tables 1 to 4 below. (projects 1 to 11);
— Collaboration, team working and joint training to improve the way flood defences are delivered in the UK. For example the Environment Agency and its suppliers have invested in "masterclass" training, h&s improvements etc; to ensure the right culture and procedures are in place to start achieving the Egan and Latham goals for the construction industry. This training combined with challenge within the project team to deliver value for money and the Environment Agency targets has resulted in many successful projects.
— A key performance indicator system is in place to drive continuous improvement in every project and every supplier, thereby continuously improving the value for money service provided.
|
|
| |
Table 1
PROJECT EXAMPLES
| Project 1 | Project 2
| Project 3 |
| Project title: | Broadlands (PFI) Flood Alleviation Project.
| Lower Lancaster Flood Alleviation Scheme |
River Rother Tidal Walls Flood defence project
|
| Location: | Norfolk | Lancaster
| Rye, East Sussex |
| Details of successes and failures on the commission
| — excellent relationships with external stakeholders through early and focussed consultation resulting in "right first time" planning applications, so mitigating key project risk.
— innovative and sympathetic flood defence designs received a local award.
— In excess of 100 houses will be protected.
| — National Review Group (NRG) comment "good example of how the project team and NEAS can work well together".
— £17k predicted fee saving through risk management.
— early communication of issues with EIA team identified and addressed.
— 800 houses will be protected.
| — excellent relations formed with over 40 landowners to ease planning application and construction work.
— approval of the business case for the scheme by NRG on first sitting.
— engaged with flood defence client to meet O&M needs.
— forecast delivery within approved business case budget.
— 652 houses will be protected.
|
| Value added to the project | — improved flood defence that also met targets for recreation and ecology.
— co-location of project staff improved financial control, and decision making.
— developed comprehensive GIS for whole Broadland system. This provides extensive data to be easily accessed by the design team and all stakeholders.
| — proposed option to create woodland, wetland and open water habitat. This provided environmental enhancements to 37,500m2 that helped towards our joint environmental targets.
— used existing hydraulic computer models to build on the work of others rather than reinventing the wheel on this project specifically.
| — £1.1million saving on capital cost through use of "soft engineering" solutions, facilitated by a £10k fee increase.
— 700m3 of concrete waste eliminated from project by incorporating existing walls into new design.
— 12,000m2 of sheet piling removed from project by use of brushwood mattress.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
Table 2
PROJECT EXAMPLES
| Project 4 | Project 5
| Project 6 |
Project title:
Location: | Quaggy River Flood Alleviation Scheme, Lewisham & Greenwich, London
| Boscastle Flood Defence Scheme,
Cornwall
| Mold Flood Alleviation Scheme
Mold, Flintshire-North Wales
|
| Details of successes and failures on the commission
| — contributes 616 properties to SDA27 target.
— significantly enhances the local environment
| — immediate response by the EA following the flood event enabling design to be completed and construction to commence less than a month after the flash floods with 1st phase completion in December 2004.
| — concept to start of construction in 12 months
— contributes 200 properties to SDA target
— environmental enhancement incorporated into the scheme (eg otter refuge)
— phase 2 works delayed by funding constraints
|
| Value added to the project | — £400k public enquiry avoided through effective public consultation and stakeholder engagement
— 2 month saving on design programme enabled start at optimum time of year
— 30,000m3 of material recycled on site
— £20k of saving through the re-use excavated gravels
— £350k saving through value engineering
| — used a form of contract incentivised against time to reflect the need for urgent delivery of the works
— contributes 12 properties to the SDA27 target. Houses protected within 3 months of a major flood event
| — £30k saving made through design amendment to avoid uncharted services
— £20k saving through embankment design facilitated by £6k fee increase
— Significant additional contaminated land costs (current estimate in order of £600k) avoid by £2k increase in fees—awaiting final approval
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
Table 3
PROJECT EXAMPLES
| Project 7 | Project 8
| Project 9 |
| Project title: | Humber Estuary Flood Defences
| Bulverhythe Sea Defences | Thames Barrier Rising Sector Gates—100 year life—Stage 3
|
| Location: | Nr Leeds | Nr Hastings, East Sussex
| London |
| Details of successes and failures on the commission
| — the collaboration between consultancies on the EA framework to provide a combination of skills fulfilling Environment Agency requirements and programme
— environment-led flood defence project
— development of strategy and PAR documentation to accommodate scope and diversity of project
— 39,000 properties identified as at flood risk—Do Nothing scenario
| — NRG gave positive feedback, particularly on environmental reporting
— re-use of existing materials in new groynes and revetment, minimising waste and reducing costs
— active engagement of Agency stakeholders
— SDA target contribution of 777 properties will be achieved by November 2006
| — early reconnaissance in summer 2004 identified better than anticipated condition
— focus on improved H&S and evidence gathering for future monitoring and maintenance.
— establishment of track record for improved future asset management of the gates
— failures: Programme delivery has been hampered by splitting down of stage 3, phase 1, however, this has enabled better in-project learning
|
| Value added to the project | — collaboration with another NEECA consultant enable us both to ensure that the EA had best people available in the right place at the right time.
— please refer to the essay answer overleaf.
| — £350,000 saving in maintenance costs through whole life cost approach
— we brought innovation gained through preparation CIRIA Rock Manual
— £15,000 saving in SI work, due to existing knowledge
| — enabled release of intellectual property to the EA from original designer
— estimate £10,000 saving on fees, through management of risks
— deferred non-essential remedial works due to improved knowledge of gate condition saving potentially
£1 million pa for each year of postponement
— use of industry leading non-intrusive investigation and monitoring techniques
|
| | |
|
Table 4
PROJECT EXAMPLES
| Project 10 | Project 11
|
| Project title: | Harbertonford Flood Defence Scheme
| Preston Gauging Station Replacement, South Devon
|
| Location: | Harbertonford, South Devon
| |
| Details of successes and failures on the commission
| — reservoir storage area for wildlife habitat seen by Defra as best practice washland creation
— promotion of migratory fish pass
— enhanced river habitat and reduced future maintenance
— improved "connectivity" with river
— Green Apple award for environmental enhancement to a civil engineering project
| — design check list developed to assist with future designs
— no reportable H&S incidents on site by working proactively with planning supervisor/contractor
— project cost increases although final project delivered £57,000 below approved budget
|
| Value that you added to the project | — integrated engineering and environmental team in design development out of one office
— reduced riverbank protection and dredging through channel improvements made in conjunction with the RRC
— use of natural bedrock to form scour pool downstream of dam avoided cost/impact of a traditional concrete solution
— habitat creation provides recreation and amenity value in keeping with the local landscape
| — £11,000 saving through additional SI investigation and cost analysis
— £1,000 saving by use of innovative cable route
— existing design used to reduce design costs
|
| | |
| Points of Evidence | Response
|
3. The structure, governance and accountability of the Agency
| 3.1 No comment
|
| 4. Its relationships with Defra, Defra-sponsored bodies and the rest of Government, including the Agency's role in the planning system
| 4.1 Historic development of new housing in areas vulnerable to flooding shows relationship with planners has been insufficiently effective in the past.
4.2 Recent changes to planning guidance may fix this problem and early indications from the implementation of PPG25 (Planning Policy Guidance 25 : Development in flood plains) are very positive, with active engagement occurring between developers, the Environment Agency and Planning departments.
4.3 Further improvements would be achieved if the requirements of PPG25 were supported by statutory authority for the Environment Agency within the planning process.
|
| 5. The Agency's relationship with non-Governmental stakeholders and the general public, and how the Agency monitors satisfaction with its services
| 5.1 We are not party to the methods used in this monitoring, but a good indication as to the success in this area is the Environment Agency's ability to deliver projects. If the stakeholders and public are not engaged with successfully then project delivery is significantly delayed. There is always room for further improvement, but currently the relationship is sufficient to enable the Environment Agency's delivery targets to be met.
5.2 Over the course of the last 5 years there has been a noticeable improvement in the way the Environment Agency communicates with all parties.
|
| 6. The Agency's responsibilities for flood defence and flood mapping, including guidance to the public
| 6.1 There has been significant work in this area over the last 5 years, with SDA 27 targets for protection of 80,000 houses a key deliverable. Examples of projects delivering these targets are described in Tables 1 to 4. The use of the Defra priority scoring system to determine the best use of public money in a given year is an effective system that encourages focussed scheme assessment and delivery.
6.2 The delivery of flood defence solutions on the ground is supplemented by flood warning/awareness activities. This includes flood mapping which has significantly improved awareness of the public, through information published on the Environment Agency's web site. This area is improving all the time and is becoming more efficient through the use of framework suppliers who are investing and developing technology in response to significant demand.
|
| 7. How the organisational changes brought about by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill will affect the role of the EA
| 7.1 No comment |
8. How the Agency's work in improving wildlife habitats will tie in with Natural England's work on biodiversity
| 8.1 No Comment
|
9. The Environment Agency's forthcoming corporate strategy 2006-11
| 9.1 The corporate strategy as proposed will we believe develop and transform the Environment Agency and their suppliers, with a clear delivery focus of creating a better place for people and wildlife for present and future generations, in England and Wales.
9.2 There is clear direction on what the end desired result is and what the Environment Agency intends to do in order to achieve these end goals.
9.3 The Environment Agency's suppliers are also aligned with this vision for "Creating a Better Place" as demonstrated by the following statement of commitment from the 6 most significant delivery consultants to the Environment Agency of whom we are one.
CREATING A BETTER PLACE THE NEECA2 CONSULTANT'S CONTRIBUTION
The National Engineering and Environmental Consultancy Agreement 2 (NEECA2) comprises a major framework agreement between the Environment Agency and six of the leading multi-disciplinary consultancies operating in the UK—Arup, Atkins, Black and Veatch, Halcrow, Jacobs Babtie and Royal Haskoning. This framework constitutes a significant opportunity to help Create a Better Place and the NEECA consultants are committed to assisting the Environment Agency with this endeavour. This will be achieved principally by assisting with the delivery of a programme of measures to reduce flood risk. However, the NEECA2 Consultants will seek to reduce flood risk in a manner which also enhances the built and natural environment and increases biodiversity. To achieve this we will work collaboratively with the Environment Agency and their full supply chain. The NEECA2 consultant's particular contribution to CaBP will be as follows:
— We will drive forward measures to improve health and safety through a programme of education, awareness-raising and performance monitoring.
— We will promote the adoption of measures to minimise the disruption caused by construction activities and to maximise the quality of completed schemes given the available budgets.
— We will seek new and innovative ways to reduce flood risk at reduced cost to the tax payer.
— We will seek to actively engage the public in the decision-making process so that flood risk management measures implemented receive the backing of the communities which they aim to protect.
— We will ensure that the CaBP objectives are at the core of the Framework Charter.
— We will play an active role in the Employer's Forum to identify, develop, use and retain good people with well-developed skills.
— We will each take forward any company specific actions, through our Supplier Development Plans, which contribute to achieving the CaBP objectives
— We will communicate our activities, successes and lessons learnt through a framework newsletter.
|
Halcrow Group Ltd
December 2005
| |
|
