Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee - GOV UK · (EFCC 19/06) Aaron Dixey 17 10:45...

Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee

Friday 19 July 2019 at 09.30am

Finchingfield Village Hall, Finchingfield, Essex

We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment and make it a better place for people and wildlife.

We operate at the place where environmental change has its greatest impact on people’s lives. We reduce the risks to people and properties from flooding; make sure there is enough water for people and wildlife; protect and improve air, land and water quality and apply the environmental standards within which industry can operate.

Acting to reduce climate change and helping people and wildlife adapt to its consequences are at the heart of all that we do.

We cannot do this alone. We work closely with a wide range of partners including government, business, local authorities, other agencies, civil society groups and the communities we serve.

Published by:

Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way, Orton Goldhay, Peterborough PE2 5ZR

Tel: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected] www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency

© Environment Agency 2011

All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency.

Mareth Bassett 0203 02 58443 [email protected]

Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (RFCC)

Friday 19 July 2019 Venue: Finchingfield Village Hall, Finchingfield, Essex Time: 09:30 to 13:00 (lunch provided)

Agenda Lead Page Timing

1. Apologies for absence and greetings to visitorsPaul

Hayden - 09:30

2. Declarations of members’ interests All -

3. Chairman’s announcementsPaul

Hayden - 09:35

4. Environment Agency announcementsSimon

Hawkins - 09:45

5. Approval of minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2019 All 1 09:55

6. Matters arising from previous meeting All 15 10:00

7. Members’ slot All - 10:10

Main Items

8. Feedback from the Engagement group including outputs from the 3 Engagement Events in June

Carol Mayston - 10:20

9. FCERM capital and revenue programme refresh – National Paper (EFCC 19/06)

Aaron Dixey 17

10:45

10. Approach to 2nd cycle flood risk management plans and demonstration of the new digital flood plan explorer tool – National Paper (EFCC 19/07)

Mark Johnson 41 10:55

Tea and Coffee 11:05

11. Conservation lead update Richard Powell - 11:15

12. Update from Essex County Council Lucy Shepherd - 11:25

13. Update from Southend and Thurrock Councils Navtej

Tung / Matt Phipps

- 11:45

14. Update on Natural Flood Management in East Anglian RFCC area Helen George - 11:55

15. Update on the NFM projects in Finchingfield, including the Beavers Matt

Butcher - 12:15

General Business

16. Forward look (EFCC 19/08) – Agree 2020 meeting dates All 45 12:30

17. Key Items from Information Papers All 47 12:40

18. Any other business All - 12:50

Lunch followed by site visit to see local NFM measures and Beaver enclosure 13:00

Date of Next Meeting

Friday 18 October 2019, Norfolk County Council - Cranworth Room, County Hall, Norwich

Information Papers (for noting only)

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF19/12)

Delivering Professional Asset Management for the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC - Programme 2019/20 (INF19/13)

Developing and Delivering the Thames 2100 and TE2100 Programme (INF19/14)

FCERM Program Update 2019/20 Quarter 1 – Current in-year position (INF19/15)

Incident Response (INF19/16)

National paper – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Update, June 2019 (INF19/17)

Attendees

Members: Paul Hayden Chairman Cllr Simon Walsh Essex County Council Cllr Mark Platt Essex County Council Cllr John Aldridge Essex County Council Cllr Mike Steptoe Essex County Council Cllr Gerard Rice Thurrock Council Cllr John Lamb Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Cllr Richard Rout Suffolk County Council Cllr Keith Patience Suffolk County Council Cllr Andy Grant Norfolk County Council Cllr Judy Oliver Norfolk County Council Jane Burch Environment Agency Appointee Richard Powell Environment Agency Appointee (Conservation) Tim Beach Environment Agency Appointee Andy Smith Environment Agency Appointee (Coastal) Graham Underwood Environment Agency Appointee Rob Wise Environment Agency Appointee June Clare Environment Agency Appointee Kelly Whittington Environment Agency Appointee

In attendance

Environment Agency: Simon Hawkins Area Manager Peta Denham Area Flood Risk Manager Mark Johnson Area Coastal Manager Graham Verrier Operations Manager (Norfolk & Suffolk) Dave Knagg Operations Manager (Essex) Aaron Dixey Programme Team Leader Mareth Bassett Eastern RFCC Secretariat Carol Mayston Eastern RFCC Engagement Officer Helen George PSO Advisor Matt Butcher Environment Programme East Senior Officer

LLFAs and Coastal Authorities: Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council John Meehan Essex County Council Matt Hullis Suffolk County Council Mark Ogden Norfolk County Council Neil Hoskins Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Justin Styles Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Navtej Tung Thurrock Council Rob Goodliffe EACG, North Norfolk District Council and CPE. Paul Mackie Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Council

If you are experiencing difficulties in getting to the meeting on the day or have to give last minute apologies, please call 07775 008305 and leave a message which will be passed on to the Chairman.



Minutes of the Anglian Eastern RFCC Meeting held on Friday 12 April 2019 at Suffolk County Council, Conference Room, Landmark House, Ipswich

Present:Paul Hayden ChairmanCllr Simon Walsh Essex County Council Cllr Mark Platt Essex County Council Cllr John Aldridge Essex County Council Cllr Mike Steptoe Essex County Council Cllr Gerard Rice Thurrock Council Cllr Mick Castle Norfolk County Council Cllr Brian Illes Norfolk County Council Graham Underwood Environment Agency Appointee Rob Wise Environment Agency Appointee Angie Fitch-Tillett Environment Agency Appointee Tim Beach Environment Agency Appointee Richard Powell Environment Agency Appointee (Conservation) Andy Smith Environment Agency Appointee (Coastal)

In attendance

Environment Agency: Charles Beardall (CB) Area Manager Peta Denham (PD) Area Flood Risk Manager Aaron Dixey (AD) Programme Team Leader Mareth Bassett (MB) Eastern RFCC Secretariat

LLFAs and Coastal Authorities: Lucy Shepherd (LS) Essex County Council John Meehan Essex County Council Matt Hullis Suffolk County Council Mark Ogden Norfolk County Council Navtej Tung Thurrock Council Matthew Phipps Southend Borough Council Bill Parker Coast Partnership East

Observers: Adam Willis Environment Agency Chris Smith Environment Agency Becky Stanley Environment Agency Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Robert Davidson Observer June Clare ObserverNatalie Le Brun RSPB

1

1. Apologies for absence and greetings to visitors

1.1 The Chairman opened the meeting and welcomed all the visitors and presenters for theday.

1.2 The Committee received apologies from Mr Rob Goodliffe, Mr Mark Johnson, Cllr JohnLamb, Cllr Richard Rout and Cllr Keith Patience.

2. Declarations of Members’ Interests

2.1 All the declarations of interest forms have now been received.

2.2 Mrs Angie Fitch-Tillett and Mr Andy Smith declared an interest for this meeting. Theyinformed the Committee that they would not be voting on Item 8 of the agenda as theyboth were members of IDBs.

3. Chairman’s announcements

3.1 The Chairman opened this section of the meeting by mentioning that this would be thelast meeting for Mrs Fitch-Tillett, Dr Beardall and Mr Parker.

3.2 The Chairman went on to talk about the Flood and Coast Conference in Telford. Heexpressed his concern about the cost of attending the event. The Committee had beenoffered a ticket for the full three days, but the Chairman felt uncomfortable about thecost of associated travel and accommodation and asked for the views of theCommittee members. He added that this is picked up in the members’ expenses andhistorically had cost between £400 and £500 per person.

3.3 Mr Parker added that the local government Special Interest Group (SIG) waspresenting on the 19 June. As members of the SIG were planning to attend on that dayhe extended an offer of a discounted ticket, £75, for 19 May only, to the Committeemembers.

Action3.4 All to contact Mr Parker if they were interested in his discounted ticket offer.

3.5 Mr Wise mentioned that while he sat on the Committee in a personal capacity heworked for the National Farmers Union (NFU). The NFU has sent some people to theconference in the past however, they could not afford for many people to go. He wasinterested in attending the event and agreed to pay for his own accommodation if theCommittee was happy for him to use the RFCC ticket.

3.6 Mr Beach had never attended the conference and did not have a sense of what we getout of the event and asked others who had been, what they thought.

3.7 The Chairman answered that there was always something of interest and he hadlearned a lot from networking opportunities as well as formal event sessions

3.8 Professor Underwood asked if many members had been previously and suggested thatthose who did attend could report back to the rest of the Committee.

3.9 Cllr Walsh agreed that this was an expensive event but had found some parts of itbeneficial. Mr Smith added that he had found the event useful and was pleased that thecoast had been mentioned more over the years.

2

3.10 The Chairman concluded this section by inviting those members who were interested to go along to the conference. He agreed that the three day ticket could be split to allow for more than one person to attend.

Action 3.11 Committee members should contact Mrs Bassett and let her know if they would

like to attend the Flood and Coast Conference.

4. Environment Agency announcements

4.1 Dr Beardall opened this section of the meeting by talking about the official launch of theIpswich Barrier. This had been an excellent event with good attendance and reallypositive media coverage. The Minister Therese Coffey attended and was interviewedby the media.

4.2 He went on to talk about Great Yarmouth, and was pleased to announce that theadditional £1m had been confirmed so that Phase two of the scheme could now goahead. He gave thanks to Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Norfolk CountyCouncil for their contributions, which made this possible. He also mentioned thatBacton was now going ahead.

4.3 Sir James Bevan had recently visited the area and Dr Beardall had taken him to SpainsHall to see the Natural Flood Management (NFM) interventions, which included theintroduction of Beavers. He hoped that these measures would help to reduce the risk offlooding to Finchingfield.

4.4 John Curtin was visiting the area on the day of the RFCC meeting. He would be visitingthe Ipswich Barrier. He was then going to Shotley to look at and discuss uneconomicseawalls with local EA staff.

4.5 Dr Beardall mentioned his retirement and informed the Committee that the new AreaDirector would be Mr Simon Hawkins. Mr Hawkins was an ex-policeman and had beenworking at the Environment Agency (EA) for 2 years in Herts and North London. Hewould be at the July meeting and was looking forward to meeting everyone.

4.6 Dr Beardall continued by talking about the previous financial year and was pleased toreport that we met our forecast revenue spend within 1% of our multi million poundbudget. He was also pleased that we exceeded our outcome measures for the year.

4.7 He concluded that there were two years left in the current Comprehensive SpendingReview (CSR) period. He was pleased to report that we are on course to meet thetarget set by the Government. The Tilbury Dual Function Lock Gate will make a bigcontribution towards that target. He understood that the project would be completed bythe end of the CSR period. He gave thanks to all the Risk Management Authorities(RMAs) and everyone in all the authorities for all the hard work they had put intocontributing to the national target of better protecting 300,000 houses.

4.8 Cllr Rice welcomed the news regarding Tilbury and asked how much money the porthad agreed to contribute to the scheme. He also asked when the work was due to start.Dr Beardall answered that the scheme design was still being worked up and had beenmodified but the port had agreed to contribute between £3-4m. Ms Denham added thatthe EA was working with engineering consultants and hoped to start in 2019/20 forcompletion before March 2021; the end of the CSR period.

3

5. Approval of minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2019

5.1 The Chairman asked if any amendments had been received prior to the meeting andinvited members to make any amendments. No amendments were received and theminutes were approved.

Resolution5.2 The minutes of 16 January 2019 were approved as a correct record.

6. Matters arising from previous meeting

6.1 All actions from the previous meeting were completed except the following as listed.

6.2 The action from local choices in September 2018 for RMAs to make the most of any in-year opportunities will be kept ongoing as a reminder.

6.3 Mrs Bassett gave an update on the July meeting and site visit to Finchingfield. CllrWalsh took this opportunity to mention the amount of work that had been completed.He also reassured the members that the introduced Beavers were from English stock.The members asked about parking and transport. Mrs Bassett had looked into publictransport to the village. She informed Committee members that there was a regulartrain service from Norwich to Braintree and lifts from the station to the village could beorganised. Transport on site had been organised for the Committee to be taken aroundthe various NFM projects. Mrs Bassett was asked to send a map and directions to theCommittee members.

Action6.4 Mrs Bassett to confirm parking arrangements and send map with directions to

Committee members.

6.5 The relative merits of electronic versus hard copies of the RFCC papers werediscussed again given that it had not been possible for the EA to provide printed copiesfor this meeting due to the pressures on EA staff posed by BREXIT preparations. Thistemporary problem is not expected to disrupt the proper production of papers for thenext meeting. Prior to publication Mrs Basset agreed to provide an electronic copy ofpapers to members so that any that did not wish to receive hard copy papers could lether know.

6.6 The Committee had a discussion about the climate change workshop and a suitabledate to hold it. It was agreed that this would be immediately after the October RFCCmeeting and Mrs Bassett was asked to extend the appointment and room booking to3pm.

Action6.7 Mrs Bassett to organise the meeting extension at Norfolk County Council and

amend the appointment to reflect the change.

6.8 Cllr Aldridge asked if the workshop could be more focussed and if the RFCC shouldhave a policy on how to take action. The Chairman answered that the intention was tohave range of experts give information to the RFCC so that that they could develop aCommittee point of view on this subject.

6.9 Mr Smith mentioned the speech that Sir James Bevan had given about climate changeand that a video of it was free to view on line here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=636EK_XrOvE. He thought that would be a good

4

thing to watch on the day of the workshop. Mr Powell endorsed watching Sir James’ video as the speech was excellent.

7. Members Slot

7.1 The Chairman invited members to update the Committee on any important meetings orother activities that may be of interest to the other Committee members.

7.2 Mr Smith reported that the Coastal Concordat had been launched but not used yet. Hehad been to two meetings where they had discussed the update of the Concordat andhe informed the Committee that it was going to be reviewed and there would be aconsultation in June. This had come out of the Government’s 25yr Environment Plan.

7.3 Mr Smith had spoken at an event of the Association of Mechanical Engineers aboutsea level rise. There was a speaker called John Englander who predicted that wewould need to account for 7m sea level rise over the next 100 yrs.

7.4 Mr Parker reported that and EFRA Committee meeting he had attended had called forevidence regarding climate change and coastal flooding by the end of April 2019. Heconfirmed that he would be sending a response as it was a good opportunity to raisetheir concerns with government. He encouraged the Committee members to sendresponses.

7.5 Mrs Fitch-Tillett took this opportunity to thank the Committee members for integratingher into the Committee. She had found her time as a member of the RFCC invaluablefor her day job. She had learned a lot and had a better overview of our coastline whichwas useful. She had been involved in some big schemes during her tenure andthanked the Committee for the Levy funding. She especially thanked them for fundingKelly Fisher’s post. Kelly had done some good work on the North Norfolk Coast andadaptation.

7.6 Professor Underwood reported that the University of Essex had made a bid to NERCfor the Highlight topic call for a project on legacy waste in coastal zones. There arevarious academic institutions involved and we would find out if this bid had beensuccessful in the autumn. The project will look at the risks associated with the wastebeing washed into the sea. There are many questions about this subject with a lot ofwaste sites constructed in low lying land near the sea.

7.7 Professor Underwood went on to speak about the work he had been doing with theDefra pioneer project in Suffolk focussing on the Deben Estuary. They have beencalculating the amount of carbon stored in saltmarsh in the Deben and how sea bassmake use of the saltmarshes as nurseries. The Suffolk Coastal Group and SuffolkSaltmarsh Group are working with an economist to find the true monetary value of thesaltmarsh, with a view to finding additional ways to raise money to fund coastaldefences.

7.8 Mr Beach informed the Committee that since the January meeting he had met with theEngagement Subgroup. He would have a full report ready to give at the July meetingthe three RFCC Review workshops. He gave thanks to Mrs Mayston, Ms Tina Starlingand Mrs Bassett for all the work they had put into the Engagement Subgroup.

7.9 He was pleased to report that all of the RMAs had provided information about theirengagement work which Mrs Mayston had put into a template.

7.10 He was in the process of organising a meeting with the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Cranfield to talk about the RFCC portal and the Marine Knowledge Exchange Network (MKEN) to see how these may be better used. There may be potential for the

5

two universities to work together and pool resource and information on the websites. He would have more information on this for the July meeting.

7.11 Mr Beach went on to give more details about the RFCC Review workshops in June and asked all the Committee members to sign up for one of the dates. There was one event planned in each county and they were trying to get community members along. The Chairman echoed Mr Beach’s plea and added that when Cumbria flooded it was agreed that they needed to better engage with the public. While he would have liked these events earlier in the year, this timing meant that people would be able to have a say on the Local Choices and input into the Levy setting discussions.

7.12 Cllr Castle apologised for not being able to attend the January meeting. He added that he was pleased that Dr Beardall had confirmed the financial gap for the Great Yarmouth project had been filled. This was a major project and would provide better flood protection for up to 2,000 homes.

7.13 Mr Wise informed the Committee that he had attended a site visit and conference at Ingoldisthorpe. The conference had looked at the constructed wetland on the River Ingol and had been chaired by Mr Powell. He had originally visited the site when it was first completed. One year later the site looked much different and was taking water from the water treatment works. From an RFCC perspective there were multiple benefits from these sites. For example they had re-profiled the River Ingol as part of the project to a more natural meandering line which enhanced the habitat for wildlife and slowed the flow of the river. The cells themselves have the potential to take surface water run-off and both would help to reduce the risk of flooding to the downstream village. The works had been completed using a private contract overseen by the Norfolk Rivers Trust. This reminded him of the small and large scale projects the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) carry out to meet the Water Framework Directive, which trap silt to improve water quality and play a part in reducing flood risk.

7.14 He mentioned that the NFU had been involved with the Broads Authority test and trials for designing the New Environmental Land Management Scheme or NELMS. This project was designed to support farmers to maintain wetter lowland grazing which would benefit biodiversity. It would also benefit water level management. This was one of a hundred trials being carried out.

7.15 Mr Powell spoke briefly about the Wetland conference he had chaired. He felt that Mr Wise had covered this well in his slot. He wanted to add that this was a good example of working with a landowner.

7.16 He mentioned that he had been to the RFCC conservation leads meeting and they had spoken about NFM and there is a lot happening at the moment. He was going to give a talk to water companies about landscape recreation including climate change and water resources.

7.17 Mr Powell had recently visited Wallasea with one of the landfill operators that has helped to fund some work there to help mitigate climate change.

7.18 Finally he had been working on the emergency review of European funding looking at where this money would be spent over the next few years. This had already been secured but if the UK did leave the EU then the way this is delivered to communities would need to be worked out.

7.19 Cllr Walsh informed the Committee that Essex County Council is developing green infrastructure and water capture policies. They had agreed the final year’s funding for projects and thanked the RFCC for the finance. He mentioned that they had been

6

tidying up the process for applicants regarding SUDS. This would mean less failure rates for planning applications and ensure SUDS were adopted into mains sewers in the future.

8. Internal Drainage Board (IDB) request for Levy funded posts (EFCC 19/05)

8.1 The Committee received a presentation from Ms Karen Thomas from the WaterManagement Alliance (WMA). Ms Thomas was asking for Levy funding in the amountof £330k over three years for two Partnership Funding officers. The posts would helpthe WMA to get more shovel ready schemes to go into the next six year programme.The ultimate plan was that after three years the IDB would be able to recruit them aspermanent employees and they would be self-funding. Karen’s presentation wasshared with the Committee members after the meeting.

8.2 The Chairman thanked Ms Thomas for her presentation and mentioned that he had twoquestions to ask before he opened up the discussion to the rest of the Committee. Firsthe asked whether the IDB already included staff costs, business case production andpartnership funding activities, within funding bids for individual projects; if so would thisbe required in the future. Ms Thomas answered yes this was currently carried out bytwo members of the WMA staff; herself and Ms Emma Dixon. She went on to explainthat as an example they had asked for £20k for the Benacre project for this work. Sheconfirmed that they would expect less funding per project for this work in the future ifthey were successful in obtaining direct levy funding for posts.

8.3 The Chairman then asked what the EA was doing already to support the IDBs. MsDenham answered that there is an officer who acts as a single point of contact, JamesFullam, for IDB matters and liaises with them on financial matters related to grantapplications, Precepts and Highland Water Claims; she added that James does nothelp with business case development. James is funded by GiA and all his work is withthe IDBs, however many members of staff from a variety of EA teams also work insupport of IDBs, so it was not easy to quantify exactly everything the EA did to supportthem.

8.4 Mr Parker spoke about how it was difficult to obtain partnership funding and urged theRFCC not to underestimate how much work was involved. He continued that he fullysupported the investment in these posts as he felt that this was an investment andwould help to get more money for other areas of water management. He felt that thiswould demonstrate a commitment to sharing knowledge and skills across the RMAs.

8.5 Mr Smith asked what the size of the WMA is currently, this was to give Committeemembers an idea of the scale of the request. Ms Thomas answered that the WMA has40 members of staff, including back office people and six people working on planningapplications. She added that attracting partnership funding was not simple as you haveto go out to meet people, negotiate a way forward and enter collaborative discussions,which was a lot of work.

8.6 Mr Powell stated that fundraising was an art and he used to have five people workingwith him on this. He supported this request and thought that we needed to take a longterm view as it was important to understand the needs of the funders. He added thatthe next 10 years would be difficult and they would need to integrate with funders in theSuffolk and Essex County Councils.

8.7 Cllr Walsh expressed concern over the length of time for the posts and the strain thatwould be put on the Levy. He asked if there was another way to do this and whetherthree years was too long.

7

8.8 The Chairman answered that we have Levy principles in place which means that the Levy spend has to remain balanced across the 3 upper tier authorities’ areas. If this was agreed then there may be a need to pull back on other Levy spend in Norfolk and Suffolk to create an equitable distribution of funding in Essex, which doesn’t have any IDBs.

8.9 The Chairman added that they have had requests from the EA for other Levy funded posts which he had to refuse. He mentioned that there were currently two and a half posts in Norfolk and Suffolk and asked if they had the capacity to help the IDB with this work.

8.10 Ms Denham answered that the Levy funded officers who work with the LLFAs did valuable work and had received good feedback. She knew that they were busy and it might be a stretch but would ask if they were able to offer any support. Ms Denham offered to look at the current officers’ workloads and see if they had any capacity to take on further work.

8.11 Professor Underwood stated that Ms Thomas had presented a well-argued case however, he did not have a sense of how much impact the requested amount of £330k would have on the Levy as a whole. He understood the need for three years of funding as it took time to get traction and funding in place. He asked if these posts could be funded another way and how much of the total Levy this amount represented.

8.12 Mr Dixey answered that this was about three percent of the annual income. The Chairman added that this may look like a small amount of the budget but reminded the Committee that if they agreed to fund these posts it may take away from other pots of money, like the emergency fund. Mr Dixey added that the Levy was fully committed and that this would be seen as an over programme, and cuts would have to be made elsewhere in the Levy programme to accommodate staff posts.

8.13 Professor Underwood asked what the impact would be if the Committee only agreed to fund one post. Ms Thomas answered that this may mean the IDB bringing less projects to the Committee.

8.14 Mr Beach stated that he had worked with Ms Thomas for many years and supported Mr Parker’s statements about the IDB. He said he was impressed with the IDB’s engagement work to earn the trust of local communities. He agreed that there was an issue as the money would be in Norfolk and Suffolk but not Essex and he was not sure how we would get over that.

8.15 Cllr Aldridge suggested that the IDB has one post as he did not feel that the case was strong enough for two people. He added that three years seemed like a sensible length of time and that the person appointed may even be able to acquire funding to support further posts in the future.

8.16 Mr Wise indicated that longevity was needed for continuity and cited the examples in the papers. He pointed out that some of the projects had taken several years to come to fruition and trusted that the IDBs would continue to work with partners. He went on to say that a lot of the IDB work is outside of the IDB areas. Mr St Joseph stated he had been to visit the IDB and see the work they were doing in Norfolk and Suffolk to help inform work he was doing in Essex.

8.17 The Chairman reminded the Committee that the current Levy principles meant that there must be a balance of where the money is spent. The money needs to be spent in the Communities where it is needed most and that the Committee would have some

8

difficult decisions to make; which may mean stopping some smaller schemes in Norfolk and Suffolk to balance out the Levy spend.

8.18 Mr Wise added that the IDB had a good track record of bringing in external funding for projects. The Chairman replied that he did not disagree with the benefits however it was his job to make sure the members were aware of the impacts of their decision.

8.19 Mr Parker thought this could be seen as ‘pump priming’ projects to get ready to go into the programme. He highlighted obtaining external funding was not in the remit of the current Levy funded people. He understood the challenges and the pressure on the budgets and wondered if funding could be found for two years, with a conversation at the end to see if it could be extended. He concluded that there needed to be good people in post to help deliver projects and that information should be shared across all the RMA’s.

8.20 Mr Phipps stated that he worked in National Capital Programme Management Service (NCPMS) and had schemes delayed from 12 to 18 months due to partnership funding gaps. He recognised that obtaining funding was not a skill everyone had and could delay projects and therefore the programme of work.

8.21 Professor Underwood agreed that three years would be better from a funding perspective however, he was concerned that if the Levy was already committed elsewhere, how would funding be found for these posts?

8.22 Cllr Walsh added his concerns that there was no ‘headroom’ in the Levy and asked for some financial modelling in a fresh paper which would outline how the money could be found. The Chairman agreed that it might be better to discuss this later when the Committee had more financial information.

8.23 Mr Wise stated he was aware that we over programme every year and asked how this looked. Mr Dixey answered that we have not tended to spend all the money allocated each year, for example, money set aside to support revenue maintenance if needed because of storms or another allocation for low cost unplanned works such as project initiation. We also try to over programme by around 10%. The Chairman added that the Levy principles set out that 10% of the funds were not to be committed over the year to allow for unplanned work. He asked the Committee members if they needed more information to make a better decision.

8.24 Mr Smith answered that it was an attractive proposition for someone, maybe not two people for two years. He stated that an attractive post should be created for applicants and he felt that the Committee needed a significant paper to see where this is.

8.25 Professor Underwood confirmed that he felt happy to support one person for three years and added that they would need further financial information to make a better decision.

8.26 Mr Powell disagreed with the idea that it may be better to delay the decision until later. He supported employing one person for three years, with a review after 12 months to see how the work was progressing.

8.27 Mr Beach was concerned as he felt this decision was time critical but understood the Committee members concerns.

8.28 Ms Thomas added that this was an idea from the previous year but asked if the Committee would like the IDB to return with a more adaptable approach.

9

8.29 The Chairman stated that following the discussion he felt there were three options for the Committee to make a decision on:

i. Support the IDB request for two Levy funded posts for three years;ii. Support one Levy funded post for three years; oriii. Delay making a decision until the Committee had further financial information.

The Committee voted on the above and agreed option ii.

Resolution 8.30 The Committee agreed that Levy funding would be made available for three years

for one post which would support the Norfolk and Suffolk IDBs to develop partnership funding opportunities.

8.31 Professor Underwood mentioned at this point that MMO Licensing was a pinch point. A scheme could be approved with finance and partners all in place but it could then get stalled while waiting for the MMO. He asked Dr Beardall if this was something which could be left with his successor to work on in the future as a request for a high level discussion. Dr Beardall agreed and advised the Committee that this had been raised as an issue with the MMO in previous discussions and said that he would ensure his successor, Mr Simon Hawkins, kept the discussions alive with the MMO.

8.32 Mr Smith mentioned that this was something he had raised before and felt that the MMO needed to have more local offices and with local licencing officers. The Chair recognised Mr St Joseph who added that he felt this was vital and the bureaucracy around this made it difficult for private landowners to work with the EA who must operate within the law.

9. FCERM Programme Update

9.1 Mr Dixey gave a presentation to the Committee on the end of year financial position for2018/19 compared to the start of year, and a forward look for 2019/20. Thepresentation was shared with members after the meeting. He mentioned that we werestarting to plan for the 2020/21 programme refresh, which would be carried out by allRMAs over the next two months. He added that it was important that we have a robustprogramme and referred the members to pages 40 and 41 of the paper pack.

9.2 Professor Underwood asked about non EA funding shown in slide one of thepresentation and asked where it had gone. Mr Dixey replied that project delays meantthis would be spent in future years e.g. Bacton and Lowestoft projects had moved tothe next financial year.

9.3 The Chairman thanked Mr Dixey for the information and his presentation.

10. TE2100 - future funding for large schemes

10.1 The Chairman gave a verbal update following a meeting he had attended. He informed the Committee that the TE2100 project had enormous funding gaps which need to be filled with partnership funding. He explained that places like Southend had been disproportionately impacted by the amount of partnership funding contributions that are needed. Whereas, areas like Canary Wharf do not require the same contributions due to its location and the number of properties protected. There was a plan to make a change in the rules so costs could be spread across the whole of the TE2100 project area to make it more equitable. He wanted to highlight this to the Committee, because the principle is relevant to funding other projects in the future, in areas like Broadland.

10

11. Anglian Coastal Monitoring – Geomatics team

11.1 The Chairman introduced Mr Chris Smith and Ms Becky Stanley who gave a presentation to the Committee on the work of the EA Coastal Monitoring team. The presentation was shared after the meeting.

11.2 The Chairman thanked them for the valuable information and asked if the link to their website could be circulated to the members.

Action 11.3 Mrs Bassett to share link to the website with the Committee members.

11.4 Professor Underwood asked where their data was held and was it freely available. Ms Stanley answered that all the data was freely available online including all the raw datasets.

11.5 Dr Beardall mentioned that when we are in the eye of a storm the wave data is useful and asked if there were plans to install more buoys. Mr Smith answered that there were no plans currently due to cost and that there were six at the moment, with Felixstowe being the newest.

12. Update from Coastal Partnership East (CPE)

12.1 The Chairman welcomed Mr Parker, who gave a presentation about CPE which was shared after the meeting.

12.2 Mr Wise informed the Committee that he had first met Mr Parker 10 years previously and wanted to acknowledge the huge personal contribution he had made over the years. Mr Smith agreed with this and congratulated Mr Parker for the work he had done to help drive policy forward.

12.3 Mrs Fitch-Tillett added that when CPE had started they found it difficult to get people to apply for jobs, this had all changed for the better.

12.4 The Chairman echoed these sentiments and thanked Mr Parker on behalf of the RFCC.

13. Update from Suffolk County Council

13.1 The Chairman handed over to Mr Hullis who gave a presentation highlighting some of the current work being carried out at the council, the presentation was shared after the meeting.

13.2 The Chairman congratulated the Council and added that he would be interested in taking Mr Hullis up on his offer for a site visit to see the outcomes from the Holistic Water Management initiative.

14. Forward look (EFCC 18/09)

14.1 The Committee members noted the current information on the forward look on page 25 of the paper packs.

14.2 Mr Powell was planning to give an update at the July meeting and Mrs Bassett informed the Committee that she had been approached by Helen George who wanted to come and speak at the July meeting and provide an update on the NFM projects she’s been involved in. meeting.

11

15. Key Items from information papers

15.1 The Committee noted the content of the information papers.

16. Any other business

16.1 The Chairman asked if there was any other business.

16.2 Mr Powell mentioned that he was uncomfortable with the Bacton situation, following the netting of the sand dunes. He felt that there was a need to review what had happened with and lessons learned. The Chairman agreed but as this was still a live issue at that time it would be better discussed in more detail at a future meeting.

16.3 Mr Parker suggested that the Bacton project group come to either the October or January meeting as this project would be completed by then and any lessons learned and feedback would be shared.

Action 16.4 Mrs Bassett to add this to the forward look to be discussed at either the October

or January meeting.

16.5 The Chairman closed the meeting by thanking Dr Beardall for everything he had done over the years. He stated that they had been lucky to have been helped by Dr Beardall and asked if he had anything he wanted to say.

16.6 Dr Beardall said there were a couple of things he wanted to mention. He had first come across the RFCCs 25 years ago when he was appointed by MAFF to one of the previous Flood Defence Committees as an advisor. He commented that the Committees had changed since then. They felt much more co-operative now. He thanked the Committee and said that it have been a privilege to work with them over the years.

16.7 He spoke about other changes with warning and informing, which was a big part of the EA role. In 1952 we had no warning system and lives had been lost in the tidal event however with the new modelling we can now predict flooding events within minutes of when they will happen. He mentioned the massive coastal surges over the last 10-12 years where no lives had been lost and of our 6,000 assets there had been very few breaches. He gave thanks to the teams who maintained those assets so that they performed during those events.

16.8 He was proud to be a part of all the work we do, not just the big projects like Ipswich Barrier or Great Yarmouth, but the partnership work we have now. He was especially pleased that the RFCC meetings felt more collaborative with people having well informed discussions to achieve a common aim.

16.9 He explained that he felt he was jumping off at a time when we were facing some of our most difficult challenges, like climate change. He acknowledged that the Committee had some big and difficult decisions to make for the future of the coast and sustainability. He also mentioned that because of climate change there would be less rainfall over all, there was an increased risk of summer storms and all the rain falling at one time which then increased the risk of surface water flooding. He did not know how things would look in 25 years’ time.

16.10 He concluded by thanking Mr Parker for his hard work and he thanked all the Committee members for their support, partnership and friendship over the years.

12

Date of next meeting: Friday 19 July 2019, Finchingfield Village Hall, Finchingfield, Essex. Includes afternoon site visit to view NFM measures around Spain’s Hall

13

BLANK PAGE

14

ANGLIAN (EASTERN) RFCC ACTIONS from 12 April 2019 20 September 2018 RFCC Local Choices meeting

Action Required Who by? Ongoing or Completed Further information

Discussion in the meeting regarding making the most of any in year opportunities.

The Environment Agency to work with the RMAs to develop a list of projects which are shovel ready so that we are able to capitalise on any in year opportunities as they arise.

All RMA Officers Ongoing This will be developed with the RMAs over time.

19 October 2018 RFCC Meeting


16.1 Any other business – Mrs Bassett to organise a site visit to the site at Spains Hall in 2019.

Mrs Bassett to organise a site visit to Spains Hall.

Mrs Bassett Complete All information sent to Committee with the papers for the July meeting. Action complete.

16 January 2019 RFCC Meeting


4.9 Environment Agency Announcements - Mr Hayden and Dr Beardall to organise a workshop to talk about Climate Change

Mrs Bassett and Mr Hayden

Ongoing

This will be after the October RFCC meeting in Norfolk. Mrs Bassett has spoken to Norfolk CC and the room booking has been extended to 4pm. Mrs Bassett will work with the Chairman to organise the workshop. This item will be complete at the October meeting.

12 April 2019 RFCC Meeting


3.3 Chairman’s Announcements – Mr Parker offered Committee members a discounted price on tickets for one day of the Flood and Coast conference on the 19 June.

Members to contact Mr Parkerdirect to take advantage of the offer

All Complete Event finished, action complete

3.10 Chairman’s Announcements – The RFCC had been offered a complementary ticket for each day of the Flood and Coast Conference for Committee members.

Members to contact Mrs Bassett and let her know if they would like to take advantage of the tickets.

All Complete Event finished, action Complete. Mr Smith and Mr Wise represented the Committee at the event.

15

11.3 Anglian Coastal Monitoring – The Geomatics team have a website, the Chairman asked if the link could be shared after the meeting.

Mrs Bassett to send the link out to members.

Mrs Bassett Complete The link to the website is http://www.channelcoast.org/anglia/. Action complete.

16.3 Any other business – Mr Powell requested that the Committee review what had happened at Bacton following the netting of the sand dunes.

Mr Parker suggested that the project group come to either the October or January meeting to discuss and share lessons learned with the Committee. Mrs Bassett to add to the forward look.

Mrs Bassett Complete Added to forward look. Action complete

16

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY EAST ANGLIA AREA

Item No: 9 Report No: EFCC19/06

Meeting:

ANGLIAN (EASTERN) REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE (RFCC)

Subject: FCERM CAPITAL AND REVENUE PROGRAMME REFRESH

Date: 19 July 2019 Officer Responsible:

Ken Allison (Director of FCRM Allocation and Asset Management)

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to: A. Support the annual refresh of the Capital and Revenue Programmes. B. Support delivery of the 300,000 homes target during the final 21 months of the

programme, through both in-year budget management and the refresh. C. Note the preparations for the next long term funding settlement through Spending

Review 2019. D. Note the announcement of the Next Generation Supplier Arrangements.

1. Headline Messages 1.1 This year’s refresh is the final one of the current 6 year capital programme and is key

to ensuring we achieve the 300,000 homes better protected target. The refresh is also important in identifying the future pipeline of schemes to inform the next programme.

1.2 Significant work is currently taking place in collaboration with Defra to prepare for

Spending Review 2019 which will set our future allocation. 1.3 We need to maximise our outcomes and exceed our 300,000 homes better protected

target. All programme changes which cannot be managed within current budgets, or any identified new schemes, must be escalated to the national Portfolio Management Office to ensure we get the best outcome across the country.

1.4 The Environment Agency’s Next Generation Supplier Arrangements are now live and

available for all Risk Management Authorities to use to deliver schemes. 1.5 An overview of the capital and revenue allocation process for the year is set out in

the April 2019 National Allocation paper, Appendix 2. This should be used as a reference document throughout the year, as required.

2. Background 2.1 This paper provides an update on the Capital and Revenue Refresh for 2020/21, the

final year of the current 6 year programme, and confirms arrangements for in-year budget management to maximise outcomes.

2.2 An overview of the annual capital and revenue allocation process and what

Committee members can expect at each meeting is set out in Appendix 3 (as was provided in the April 2019 paper). This should be referred to throughout the year as required.

17

3. Latest Position 3.1 Over the first 4 years of the programme, both the Environment Agency and other

Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have better protected over 193,000 homes. This was against a target of 185,000 homes at this point in the programme, and is a significant achievement by all those involved. We would like to thank the RFCC Committees for their role in achieving this.

3.2 We remain on track to achieve our 300,000 homes better protected target but cannot

be complacent as risks remain in achieving this. Across the country we are working together to manage capital programme delivery and putting in place various interventions to ensure a successful outcome.

3.3 In terms of our revenue maintenance programme, at the end of financial year

2018/19 we were at 97.9% for our asset condition target, against an end of year target of 97.5%. Our overall target is 98% of high consequence assets being at target condition by March 2020, when the current asset maintenance programme finishes. As with the capital programme, there are risks and challenges associated with achieving this target and we are working closely with Area teams to identify these risks and put in place suitable mitigation measures.

3.4 We welcome the RFCC Committees continued support and role in ensuring we

collectively meet all our capital settlement condition targets (300,000 homes better protected, 15% partnership funding contributions, and 10% efficiency target), our revenue maintenance targets, in shaping the outcomes of Spending Review 2019, and in developing our next long term capital and revenue programmes.

3.5 We are aware that the focus on the current 300,000 homes target could be

compromising efforts to develop a future programme and a pipeline of new schemes. To help mitigate against this we have set aside some funding to enable Areas teams to work with partners to ensure new projects are being identified and developed.

4. Spending Review 2019 4.1 Work is ongoing to influence, shape and secure a future funding settlement for

FCERM. We are working with all departments across the Environment Agency and with the RFCCs to develop a range of funding scenarios for consideration in Spending Review 2019 (SR19).

4.2 We are listening to feedback and working with Defra to seek changes to their

partnership funding rules and key outcomes for the future investment programme. We are putting more emphasis on the wider benefits that flood and coastal erosion schemes achieve for people, the environment, local economy and other infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, road and rail.

4.3 We are expecting the settlement to be announced in the Autumn Budget 2019. We

will keep RFCC committees updated as any announcements are made. 5. Annual Refresh of the 6 year Capital Investment Programme 5.1 The July Committee meeting is the opportunity for members to review any proposed

new projects or changes to the existing programme before it is submitted to the national team – the National Portfolio Management Office. This is a key step in the development of the programme. This is for projects seeking funding in the final year of the current 6 year programme, as well as building our pipeline and future programme beyond March 2021.

18

6. Capital Programme in-year Budget Management 2019/20 6.1 Overall we want to make sure we get the best outcomes across the country for the

money available for FCERM. 6.2 Financial year 2018/19 was a strong year for programme delivery. As in previous

years, we started the financial year with an over-allocation and Area teams were asked to over-programme. We do this to ensure we deliver on year-end targets and budgets. Whilst this strong performance was good, tough choices were needed to manage back to budget at year-end. Feedback, including that from the RFCC Chairs, was that earlier notice of year-end budget targets would make budget management easier. This is being addressed through our 2019/20 financial management.

6.3 The allocations for 2019/20, as set out in the April RFCC Committee paper, include a

degree of over-allocation that will need to be managed back during the year. In response to the feedback we have issued a revised affordable budget for 2019/20.

6.4 Due to the dynamic nature of the programme and inherent risks associated with

projects, we know from experience that some Areas may spend less than what has been allocated, and others may have the opportunity to spend more. As a result, we want to ensure there is enough flexibility to enable the best outcomes to be achieved.

6.5 All Area teams have been given revised homes targets and affordable budgets for

this year, along with guidelines to empower local management of agreed programmes. Where local programme pressures mean that change cannot be managed within current budgets, or new schemes are looking to come into the programme which will deliver homes within the 6 year programme, Area teams will need to escalate these to the National Portfolio Management Office to seek revisions to their targets and budgets.

6.6 The National Portfolio Management Office will accommodate these changes where

appropriate, based on overall affordability of the national programme and ability to meet the 300,000 homes targets and other priorities.

6.7 The RFCC Committees will be kept informed of any proposed changes to current

budget allocations and targets throughout the year. 7. Annual Refresh of the Revenue Maintenance Programme 7.1 As noted in the April Committee paper, the revenue maintenance allocation for

2020/21 is subject to the results of Spending Review 2019, which is not expected until the autumn. As a result, we will prepare a range of scenarios for the RFCC Committees to review at their October meetings.

8. Next Generation Supplier Arrangements announcement 8.1 The Environment Agency’s Next Generation Supplier Arrangements (NGSA) are now

live. The new frameworks can be used by all Risk Management Authorities to deliver their FCERM projects. The briefing in Appendix 1 highlights who our new delivery partners are and what each framework will deliver. Appendix 2 provides specific details for RMAs. Please contact your local Area team for any further information and how you can use these new arrangements.

8.2 These new arrangements and partnerships will help to deliver the final 21 months of

the capital programme, and deliver our future programme beyond March 2021, more efficiently as well as providing better value for money.

19

8.3 There still remains an important programme of work that will be delivered through the legacy WEM framework, and we will continue to work with our WEM partners to deliver this commitment.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to:

A. Support the annual refresh of the Capital and Revenue Programmes. B. Support delivery of the 300,000 homes target during the final 21 months of the

programme, through both in-year budget management and the refresh. C. Note the preparations for the next long term funding settlement through Spending

Review 2019. D. Note the announcement of the Next Generation Supplier Arrangements.

Author – JOHN RUSSON Deputy Director, Allocation and National Programme Management Sponsor – KEN ALLISON Director, Allocation and Asset Management 14 June 2019 Appendix 1 - The Environment Agency’s Next Generation Supplier Arrangements Appendix 2 - The Next Generation Supplier Arrangements in Flood and Coastal

Erosion Risk Management Appendix 3 - FCERM capital and revenue allocation process – a reference document

20

June 2019

The Environment Agency’s Next Generation Supplier Arrangements

Part of our Next Generation Supplier Arrangements (NGSA), we are pleased to announce our new Delivery Partners (see tables below) and confirm that the new frameworks are now live!

These arrangements and partnerships will help to deliver our £2.6 billion capital investment programme more efficiently, as well as providing better value for money.

The core changes include the replacement of our previous delivery frameworks. The Water and Environment Management (WEM) Framework is replaced by the Collaborative Delivery Framework (CDF). Other new National specialist frameworks include Marine & Coastal, Mapping & Modelling and Client Support.

We still have an important legacy of work that will be delivered through the WEM framework and will continue to work with our WEM partners to deliver this commitment.

The CDF runs until 2023 with the opportunity to extend to 2027. The National specialist frameworks run until 2023. They will help us mitigate climate change and reduce its impacts, whilst helping us to achieve 300,000 homes better protected from coastal erosion and flooding by 2021.

By implementing NGSA we are following the recommendations from the Government Construction Strategy. This sets out Government’s plan to develop its capability as a construction client and act as an exemplary client across the industry. It includes new ways of working which will better help protect communities and the environment whilst ensuring that sustainable development is at the very core of all projects.

The new arrangements will improve our response to the threats of climate change and extreme weather. It will also lead to better long term team working with our partners and new ways of engaging with local organisations and people. This will ensure that homes, communities and businesses are receiving the best possible flood and coastal management for the challenges facing their area. At the same time flood and coastal projects will promote economic growth, social wellbeing and will seek to enhance levels of natural capital within the local community, making sure that each project brings long-lasting benefits for future generations.

Toby Willison, Environment Agency Executive Director of Operations: “Our ambitious new arrangements will help us to continue to deliver our £2.6 billion flood and coastal defence programme in a way which ensures that sustainability, efficiency and value for money remain at the very heart of the work we do to protect people, homes and the environment.”

Tom Brown, Jacobs Client Account Manager: “Our 25 year partnership in delivering flood risk management is about to go to the next level. Working closely together to create a new way of working will allow us to harness the potential of all our people and organisations to be successful.”

Appendix 1

21

June 2019

Championing sustainability

Sustainability is at the heart of our new arrangements and capital delivery, which is a major drive for us as a whole. Our e:Mission plan sets out how we will continue to challenge ourselves and those involved in delivering our projects. This will not only reduce the direct negative impact on the environment but also look for opportunities to improve it.

A big part of this is reducing construction carbon and supply chain carbon. By working with our partners to look at the supply chain we can ensure it isn’t transferring problems elsewhere.

We’ve ensured this by embedding sustainability into the new ways of working. We will:

Develop whole-life low carbon solutions and work towards Government's commitment to reduce 80% of Carbon emissions by 2050.

Improve the management of benefits delivered to communities to meet our sustainability objectives expressed in our e:Mission plan and, in the future, the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Embed sustainability into how we design and deliver projects and benchmark this against industry best practice.

Use CEEQUAL, an industry recognised scheme for assessing, rating and recognising sustainability performance across the whole of our programme.

Andrew Pearson, Jacobs CDF Framework Manager: “The CDF provides an opportunity for all of us to make a step change in the way infrastructure programmes are delivered. Our teams will be driving sustainable solutions, embracing a digital way of working and maximising our partnerships to deliver a cost effective and truly innovative programme. Importantly we can create a CDF culture that makes these exciting programmes for people to work in; inclusive, safe, creative, with aligned objectives and focussed on the outcomes we want to achieve to allow people to develop and benefit the communities we serve.”

Will McBain, UKIMEA Flood Resilience Leader, Ove Arup said: “The CDF means a huge amount to the Ove Arup team. Many of us joined the firm to make a difference - to do our bit to help local communities and the environment. Close collaboration with those who will benefit from, interact with, maintain and operate new infrastructure over its lifetime is so important to getting things right. NGSA provides a great framework for the development of the long-term relationships required to do this. We are confident that NGSA will leave a legacy of which we can all be proud”.

22

June 2019

The commercial benefits

NGSA was developed building on our knowledge of the Flood and Coastal Risk Management sector as well as learning from other leading public and private infrastructure providers. The new arrangements promote new ways of collaborative working with delivery partners and local communities from the initial planning stages of a project right through to its completion.

Richard Neall, Jackson Framework Director: “the new approach is a hugely positive step, not just for flood and coastal risk management, but also for the construction industry as a whole. Working together with the EA and Ove ARUP as fully integrated, long-term delivery partners, we’ll be able to provide more sustainable construction solutions to better protect communities from flooding.”

NGSA, will allow for greater efficiency, innovation and standardisation and align benchmarked costs, and priorities such as sustainability, safety, health, environment and wellbeing and incident management capabilities. Being better integrated means a closer relationship with other risk management authorities (RMAs), as well as our partners who design and deliver programmes of work

Chris Allwork, Delivery Manager for the new Eastern Hub covering Thames and East Anglia: “I clearly remember the first time I visited people who had been flooded. It had been a large fluvial event and the devastation and heartbreak I witnessed stays with me even now. That was 38 years ago!! I have been very fortunate over the years working with the Environment Agency and its predecessors to have worked on projects that have significantly reduced flood risk to many thousands of people. The new collaborative delivery model will provide the building blocks for continuing this work well into the future. It offers a more joined up slicker way to make better, quicker decisions, making that difference we all strive for.”

This way of working will support integrated catchment decision making benefiting the whole catchment, and wider water resources. Core to this style of working is collaboration, increased open and honest communication and shared ambition and outcomes.

Whilst the new ways of working will be collaborative, the business relationship will continue to maintain the right level of commercial tension ensuring the best value for money. The new commercial model provides the perfect platform for the Environment Agency to meet its ambition to deliver flood and coastal risk management in an efficient and effective manner.

23

June 2019

Delivery partners

Our new frameworks are live and our new framework delivery partners are named in the tables below.

Figure 1: Environment Agency FCERM capital Delivery Hubs and CDF delivery partner geographies

North East Hub

Lot 1: Ove Arup &Partners Ltd

Lot 2: BAM Nuttall Ltd North West Hub

Lot 1: Jacobs UK Ltd Lot 2: VolkerStevin Ltd Midlands Hub

Lot 1: Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

Lot 2: Jackson Civil Engineering Group Ltd

Eastern Hub

Lot 1: Jacobs UK Ltd Lot 2: BAM Nuttall Ltd South West Hub

Lot 1: Atkins Ltd Lot 2: Kier Integrated

Services Ltd South East Hub

Lot 1: Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd

Lot 2: VolkerStevin Ltd

National specialist frameworks

Marine and Coastal Framework delivery partners

Lot 1 - Major Marine and Coastal Work projects with a total value of between £5 million and £50 million

Lot 2 - General Marine and Coastal Works will cover projects with a total value not exceeding £5 million

BAM New Wave Solutions Joint Venture BAM Nuttall Ltd

Van Oord Van Oord

VBA Joint Venture Limited VBA Joint Venture Limited

JBA Bentley Ltd

24

June 2019

Mapping and Modelling framework delivery partners

AECOM infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd. JBA Consulting Jacobs UK Ltd.

Client support framework delivery partners

Framework commencement expected June 2019 Delivery partners to be confirmed: June 2019

25

customer service line

incident hotline

03706 506 506

0800 80 70 60

floodline 03459 88 11 88

The Next Generation Supplier Arrangements in Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Our Next Generation Supplier Arrangements (NGSA) can be used by all Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) to deliver their Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) projects. Read on to find out more. Speak to your local Environment Agency contact to find out how you can deliver through these new arrangements.

What are the new frameworks? The majority of the capital programme will be delivered through the Collaborative Delivery Framework (CDF), across 6 Delivery Hubs (see Appendix A). These will consist of client, contractor and consultant staff, operating in an Integrated Delivery Team. Having one consultant and one contractor will give greater surety of programme to their teams, and will help ensure that they provide the right level of resource to meet our programme needs.

We will continue to use the locally based Operations FCRM frameworks (formerly minor works frameworks) for low risk low value work. For very large, complex projects we will look at all procurement options, including tendering to the open market (i.e. bespoke buying).

In addition we have three supporting national specialist frameworks; Client support, Marine and coastal, Mapping and modelling. See appendix A to find out more about these frameworks and the supporting delivery partners.

Why use the NGSA Suite of Frameworks? We have worked closely with a range of RMAs from across the country to evaluate the commercial tenders and shape our NGSA proposals. The benefits to RMAs include:

• No need to tender every project as the tendering process has happened at framework level.

• Access to all of our supporting performance and reporting systems. Increased efficiency and project viability by working with one supplier geographically.

• Access to Delivery Partner and Environment Agency resources to ensure resource is available to progress projects.

• Early engagement with Delivery Partners to help identify future projects and build a pipeline of future work.

• The terms and conditions have been reviewed by partner RMA's legal specialists and they are satisfied that they meet the appropriate standards and legal requirements.

Appendix 2

26


incident hotline

03706 506 506

0800 80 70 60

floodline 03459 88 11 88

Do the new arrangements meet procurement rules when there is a single supplier in each delivery hub?

Supported by our RMA working group and some of their procurement specialists, the working group is satisfied that the new arrangements are suitable for all RMAs.

• The procurement of the CDF has been undertaken using the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation process, as detailed in the Public Contracts Regulations (PCR) 2015.

• Suppliers identified to deliver the CDF have been selected through a staged competitive process and evaluated on Most Economical Advantageous Tender (MEAT) criteria.

• For an RMA to access the CDF, a User Agreement will be required to be signed between the commissioning authority and the Environment Agency which will enable the release of any sensitive commercial information and any other requirements between both parties. Significant changes have been made to the previous framework (Water and Environment Management framework) User Agreement in discussion with the RMA working group to make it accessible to more RMAs.

• RMAs will work with their local Delivery Hub team to develop the scope, method of delivery and costs of a project based on the Five Case Business Model, detailed in the Government’s Green Book.

How can I find out more? • We are running an initial ‘Introduction to NGSA’ WebEx on 3 July 2019, 13:00 - 14:00

where you can find out more about the suite of frameworks. These will be followed by a more detailed session on how to access the new arrangements for those who are interested. To register your interest in the above WebEx's please contact the NGSA project team.

27


incident hotline

03706 506 506

0800 80 70 60

floodline 03459 88 11 88

Appendix A: Collaborative Delivery Framework and supporting National Frameworks

Figure 1: Environment Agency FCERM capital Delivery Hubs and CDF delivery partner geographies

North East Hub

Lot 1: Ove Arup & Partners LtdLot 2: BAM Nuttall Ltd North West Hub

Lot 1: Jacobs UK Ltd Lot 2: VolkerStevin Ltd Midlands Hub

Lot 1: Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Lot 2: Jackson Civil Engineering Group Ltd Eastern Hub

Lot 1: Jacobs UK Ltd Lot 2: BAM Nuttall Ltd South West Hub

Lot 1: Atkins Ltd Lot 2: Kier Integrated Services Ltd South East Hub

Lot 1: Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Lot 2: VolkerStevin Ltd

National specialist commercial frameworks

Mapping and Modelling Framework (MMF)

MMF supports non-capital asset management and capital delivery related projects, i.e. forecasting and flood risk assessments. This includes all modelling, survey and mapping services, incident management and emergency planning and information management support.

Work may be directly awarded under £25k and competitively tendered above this value. The appropriate strategy for each project will be determined on a project or package- specific basis.

Mapping and Modelling framework delivery partners

AECOM infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd.

JBA Consulting

Jacobs UK Ltd.

28


incident hotline

03706 506 506

0800 80 70 60

floodline 03459 88 11 88

Marine and Coastal Framework (MCF)

The MCF supports projects

• requiring the use of specialist marine equipment, or

• where at least 80% of the works are below Mean High Water, or

• where there is the possibility of inundation from seawater

Our new MCF partners will deliver a range of services including: design and build solutions, information management, mapping, survey and Environmental Impact Assessments.

Delivery Partners

Lot 1 - Major Marine and Coastal Work projects with a total value of between £5 million and £50 million

Lot 2 - General Marine and Coastal Works will cover projects with a total value not exceeding £5 million

BAM New Wave Solutions Joint Venture

BAM Nuttall Ltd

Van Oord Van Oord

VBA Joint Venture Limited VBA Joint Venture Limited

JBA Bentley Ltd

Client Support Framework (CSF)

The CSF is the last remaining National specialist framework. It is due to complete the procurement process late June 2019. Once complete, we will update you with the names of successful CSF delivery partners.

The CSF will provide a range of services including: technical delivery support (e.g. project review, safety management support), bought in services (e.g. project and programme management and commercial advice) and contract, cost and carbon management support service. CSF is available to other RMAs and IDBs.

29

Appendix 3 FCERM capital and revenue allocation process – a reference document This section provides an overview of the annual capital and revenue Grant in Aid allocation process. It should be used as a reference document throughout the year. A glossary of key terms is provided in section 6. The RFCC Members Handbook should also be referred to for clarity on RFCC Committee roles and responsibilities. 1.0 FCERM capital and revenue funding allocation overview 1.1 RFCCs play a critical role in the allocation and approval of the Environment Agency’s

capital and revenue programmes for FCERM. These two separate programmes contain a number of projects which are led and delivered by Risk Management Authorities – the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards, and in some cases Water Companies and Highway Authorities, or in partnership with each other.

1.2 Within the capital programme, projects will be new schemes (eg new defences),

improvements to existing schemes (eg capital maintenance of existing defences), support schemes (eg mapping and modelling), or other activities (eg property level resilience). Revenue allocation projects will be maintenance works to existing assets to ensure they do not fall below their target condition, and Environment Agency day to day costs including, salaries, specialist resources, maintaining mapping, modelling and telemetry systems.

1.3 In simple terms, the capital programme focuses on the building of new assets or

reinstating failing assets, while the revenue programme supports day to day operational activities and the maintenance of existing assets.

1.4 RFCC Committees should scrutinise these programmes, hold the Environment

Agency, Local Authorities and others to account to ensure delivery, and consent all final capital and revenue programmes. RFCCs should ensure local priorities are addressed through local choices, and raise local levy which can be used to fund additional FCERM works in the local area. The RFCC Members Handbook sets out the statutory functions and roles of RFCCs.

1.5 RFCCs have a role to play in helping to ensure the targets associated with this funding

are achieved. The number of homes better protected and the percentage of Environment Agency owned assets in required condition are set out at the start of each financial year. These targets, otherwise known as Outcome Measures (OMs) or Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are set by Defra and their delivery is a requirement of the Environment Agency’s funding settlement.

2.0 Annual FCERM capital Grant-in-Aid allocation process for 2020/21 2.1 We are currently in the penultimate year of our 6 year capital programme with confirmed

funding up until March 2021. Work is currently underway to secure another long term funding settlement for FCERM, taking us beyond the 2020/21 financial year.

2.2 Before Government committed to a 6 year funding period, our programmes were

substantially revised and changed each year as part of the annual funding process. With the 6 year programme, we now largely expect all Risk Management Authorities to stick to the approved programme as far as possible, and we undertake an annual

30

refresh of the programme to allow projects to be removed or added where priorities or deliverability has changed.

2.3 This annual refresh of the programme and subsequent approval by RFCCs is a

constant cyclical process. The process for allocating Government Grand-in-Aid capital funding and refreshing the programme is summarised below. It sets out where RFCCs input and approve the programme as part of the annual cycle of Committee meetings. This is also set out in the table and diagram in section 5.

2.4 Quarter 1: The annual refresh process starts in March and April with the production and

publication of new and updated guidance to support the next cycle of the refresh. This is put together by the National Portfolio Office within the Environment Agency. During April and May we invite all Risk Management Authorities to submit any new projects and any changes required to existing projects in the programme. This year we will again be focusing on schemes beyond 2021 to strengthen the pipeline of projects and the future programme.

2.5 Following submission of these changes, local Area teams will put together a new and

‘refreshed’ local programme, which is shared with RFCC Committees prior to and at their July meetings for support and endorsement.

2.6 Quarter 2: Following the July RFCC Committee meetings, local Areas Teams, on behalf

of their RFCCs, will submit all project changes required to the national team (the National Portfolio Office). The National Portfolio Office will then collate all the changes and bids for additional or reduced funding for individual projects and nationally prioritise the required changes to ensure the programme remains affordable, on track to deliver its outcomes, and meet any wider national funding changes. They will then produce a revised investment allocation programme for the whole country for the next financial year. The national priorities for allocating funding are agreed with the RFCC Chairs.

2.7 The updated and refreshed programme, which is affordable within the current indicative

allocation and shows which projects are eligible for funding, is then returned to local Area Teams to share with RFCC Committees.

2.8 Not all requested changes made during the refresh process will be able to be

accommodated. These changes have to be balanced against other competing demands and priorities across the country and the programme must remain affordable.

2.9 Quarter 3: During September, where sub-groups exist, and in October for the main

Committee meetings, the ‘local choices’ meetings take place. These are where RFCCs can make choices about their allocation programme based on local priorities. If further contributions are identified, from third parties or local levy, RFCCs may be able to increase their programme and deliver more projects. Additional Partnership Funding contributions often mean more projects can go ahead, or become viable for Grant-in-Aid funding.

2.10 During November and December the national team will collate and review all

Committee returns. All local choices, as long as they meet the required criteria and are within budget, are approved and included in the production of the final draft allocation.

2.11 In January, the final allocation for capital Grant-in-Aid for the next financial year is

shared with RFCCs for their review and consent. 2.12 Quarter 4: Following consent by the RFCCs, the allocation programme is shared with

the Environment Agency Board for approval in February, and published on gov.uk in

31

March. Once this programme has been approved, the refresh process for the next financial year starts again.

3.0 FCERM revenue Grant-in-Aid allocation process for 2020/21 3.1 Funding for revenue maintenance runs out at the end of 2019/20, the current Spending

Review period. With no current funding settlement currently agreed for 2020/21 and beyond, this year’s allocation process will prepare a number of scenarios. This will ensure we are prepared for a funding announcement when it is made. If an emergency budget is put in place the timescales set out below may change. This will be communicated to the RFCCs as required.

3.2 The Asset Information Management System (AIMS) IT system is used to produce the

funding allocations for the revenue maintenance programme. The system was first used to produce the 2017/18 allocation and is an improvement on the previous approach as it enables more targeted allocation of maintenance funding to individual assets based on their flood risk benefits, using nationally consistent maintenance standards.

3.3 We are in the process of upgrading the AIMS IT system to a new Asset Management

System. To create capacity for the upgrade we intend to ask Area teams to provide data to allow for 2 years’ of allocation to be generated during this year’s refresh. This will allow us to run the 2021/22 allocation as normal without drawing on Area resources, should we need to, and create capacity for the system upgrade.

3.4 Quarter 1: During the first quarter guidance for the maintenance programme refresh

and update to the 5 year maintenance programme will be provided. 3.5 The ‘frequent’ maintenance programmes for each operational Area will be

automatically copied forward within the AIMS IT system. This will be generated at the start of April.

3.6 Throughout April, May and June local Area teams will be asked to review their baseline

programmes. Work that is no longer required will need to be removed and additional work can be identified within the AIMS system. This will include both ‘frequent’ activities (eg grass and weed cuts, operational checks) and more ‘intermittent’ activities (eg dredging, tree work, asset repairs).

3.7 It will be important that all maintenance needs are properly identified and this review

is complete by mid-July. 3.8 Quarter 2: Throughout August the national team (the National Portfolio Office), working

closely with local Area teams, will quality assure the identified needs programme. 3.9 By the end of August a nationally prioritised indicative maintenance allocation will be

produced within the AIMS system. Following a national review, the indicative maintenance programmes for each Environment Agency Area and RFCC will be provided to local Area teams in early September for use in their October RFCC papers.

3.10 Quarter 3: At the October RFCC meetings (and in September where sub-groups exist)

local Area teams will share indicative allocations with their RFCCs. For the next financial year (2020/21) local choices can be undertaken if there are additional funding opportunities available locally (for example local levy, general drainage charges, Internal Drainage Board precepts).

32

3.11 The RFCCs will also be shown the indicative 5 year maintenance programme at the October meeting.

3.12 Between September and November local Area teams will undertake a ‘programming’

task within the AIMS system. This will enable any locally funded work approved at the October meetings to be allocated funding, generate the work programmes within the system to enable efficient work allocation to delivery teams, and also produce the published programme information. This must be completed by the end of November.

3.13 In early December the ‘programmed’ reports are generated which will provide the final

indicative allocation at an Area and RFCC level. These will be made available to local Area teams for inclusion in their January RFCC papers.

3.14 Quarter 4: At the January meetings RFCCs will be asked to consent to the 2020/21

maintenance programme and endorse the 5 year maintenance programme. This will enable the Environment Agency Board to allocate the funding for the following financial year.

3.15 Throughout February and March the 2020/21 refreshed maintenance programme and

5 year maintenance programme will be prepared for publication in April. 4.0 Support programmes 4.1 We allocate funding to support the delivery of wider FCERM activities that are integral

to the delivery of our whole FCERM business. Our support schemes and programmes include reconditioning existing assets, strategies, flood resilience activities including telemetry, coastal monitoring, works on bridges that provide access to our assets, and flood modelling and forecasting.

4.2 The Environment Programme is one of the support programmes. We seek to integrate

environmental outcomes in to all our schemes where possible. Where this is not possible, this programme helps the Environment Agency to fulfil its environmental responsibilities to protect and enhance the water environment. It specifically helps meet legal requirements such as the Water Framework Directive.

4.3 In November 2016, the Secretary of State announced £15milion of funding for Natural

Flood Management (NFM) projects. This funding is spread over the remainder of the 6 year capital programme, and is intended to reduce FCERM risk, improve habitats and increase biodiversity and increase our overall learning and understanding of the contribution natural flood management can make to our work. This programme is separate to the Environment Programme and support programmes.

5.0 What RFCC Committees can expect and when 5.1 The following table summarises what the RFCC Committees can expect to receive at

each of the 4 Committee meetings and what they will need to do:

33

Committee Meeting

What to expect Actions required

April

Capital: Confirmation that the programme for the financial

year has been approved and published. Details of the outcome targets to be achieved for

the year – number of homes better protected. Outline of the refresh process for the next

financial year.

No formal action required – RFCCs to note targets to be achieved and support refresh.

Revenue: Confirmation that the programme for the financial

year has been approved and published. Details of outcome targets to be achieved for the

year – percentage number of high consequence assets at required condition.

Outline of the refresh process for the next financial year.

No formal actions required – RFCCs to note targets to be achieved and support refresh.

July

Capital: Copy of the refreshed programme for review,

following changes submitted by all Risk Management Authorities.

Review and endorse the draft refreshed programme.

October

Capital: Copy of the affordable indicative programme for

local choices.

Decide local choices based on local needs.

Revenue: Copy of the draft indicative allocation for 2020/21

for local choices. Copy of the draft indicative 5 year maintenance

programme.

Decide local choices based on local needs.

January

Capital: Copy of the final draft allocation for the next

financial year.

Consent final allocation.

Revenue: Copy of the final indicative maintenance

allocation for the next financial year. Copy of the final indicative 5 year maintenance

programme

Consent final allocation. Endorse final indicative high level future programme.

5.2 The following diagram also shows the activities throughout the year and at each of the

Committee meetings:

34

Jan/Feb – EA Board approves the final programme and allocation of

capital FCERM Grant‐in‐Aid

Annual process for allocating capital funding

April/May – timetable for annual refresh announced to RMAs and

associated guidance issued

May/June – EA Area teams and other RMAs review projects in the consented programme and advise

on any changes required

July – proposed project changes and the ‘refreshed’ programme is shared with RFCCs for endorsement

August/Sept – EA National team collate all changes and bids for additional/ reduced funding and, working within the budget available, prioritise projects

August/Sept – EA National team prepare an indicative programme for the whole country showing which projects are eligible for funding

Sept/Oct – indicative programme is shared with RFCCs for ‘local choices’ to ensure local priorities are addressed as far as possible within the

budgets available and national priorities. RFCCs may increase programmes with further contributions from third parties or local levy

Nov/Dec – EA National team collate and review all ‘local

choices’ returns and prepare final allocation programme

Jan – RFCCs review and consent their final allocation programmes of work for the

following year

March – Approved/ consented programme published on gov.uk, final preparations made to deliver

work in new financial year

April – planning for next financial year begins, agreed programmes and associated outcome targets shared with

RFCCs for reference

35

Jan/Feb – EA Board approves the final programme and allocation

Annual process for allocating revenue funding

April/May – refresh guidance issued

May‐July – baseline programme generated in AIMS, EA Area teams

review and add additional maintenance activities

August – national EA teams quality assure identified needs, nationally prioritised indicative allocation produced within

AIMS

Sept/Oct – indicative allocation is shared with RFCCs for ‘local choices’

Sept‐Nov – EA Area teams undertake programming task

within AIMS

Jan – RFCCs review and consent their final allocation programmes of work for the

following year

Feb/March – 2020/21 programme and 5 year programme prepared

for publication

April – planning for next financial year begins, agreed programmes and associated outcome targets shared with

RFCCs for reference

Dec – reports generated providing final indicative allocation

36

6.0 Glossary The following should be used as a reference guide to help explain some of the key terminology used when describing the capital and revenue programmes and the allocation process: AIMS System The Asset Information Management System (AIMS) is a computer based IT system used to produce the funding allocations for the revenue maintenance programme. It enables more targeted allocation of maintenance funding to individual assets based on their flood risk benefits, using nationally consistent maintenance standards.

Assets Within FCERM these are usually categorised as either structures (eg slucies, pumping stations, etc) or defences (eg channels, walls, embankments, etc). Capital In general, capital funding is money spent on the construction, creation, purchase and improvement or replacement of assets.

Consented programme The indicative allocation, or indicative programme, becomes the consented programme once the RFCCs give their consent in January and the Environment Agency Board approves in February. Only the programme for the next financial year is consented, future years within the 6 year programme (and longer term maintenance programme) remain indicative. Funding codes These are used in managing the programme to understand the type of works that the project is undertaking. Some of the more commonly used codes are:

BRG – works to bridges which enable FCERM activities, such as widening to increase flow rates.

CM – capital maintenance – works to reinstate an assets standard of service and preserve its design life.

DEF – works to change the current standard of service/protection of a defence or asset, or to create a new defence.

REC – recondition work – projects to maintain the standard of protection of existing assets as capital maintenance projects but are only corrective, infrequent and one-off activities which restore the standard of service of failing assets.

PLP – property level protection Grant-in-Aid (FCERM GiA) The Government, through Defra, provides the majority of funding for FCERM activities in England in the form of Grant-in-Aid administered by the Environment Agency. FCERM Grant-in-Aid is either capital or revenue funding.

Capital funding is generally used for new assets, or extending the life of existing assets, and is available to all Risk Management Authorities.

Revenue funding is generally used for ‘day-to-day’ Environment Agency activities and maintenance activities.

Indicative allocation The indicative allocation, or indicative programme, is the initial and draft financial allocation (both capital and revenue) for the forthcoming financial year following national prioritisation. It is presented at the October meeting for review and/or amendment, and at the January meeting for approval. The allocation remains indicative until it is approved and becomes the consented allocation or programme.

37

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) These are the Environment Agency’s corporate performance measures against which targets are set. They reflect our progress and demonstrate we are meeting our commitments to deliver. We report our position to the RFCCs on the 2 main indicators for FCERM – KPI 962 and KPI 965.

KPI 962 reports on the percentage of assets that are at or above their target asset condition. The Environment Agency reports on all FCERM assets on Main Rivers, regardless of who owns or manages them.

KPI 965 reports on the number of households that are at increased flood risk from assets that are not at their target flood defence condition (are failing assets).

Local choices Funding bids are prioritised and allocated initially by the Environment Agency’s National Portfolio Office according to agreed principles. Following this, RFCCs are invited to make adjustments to this programme within their allocated budgets and with any additional local funding they may have. This takes place during the October RFCC Committee meetings.

Local levy Levy raised by the Environment Agency from Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). LLFAs are unitary authorities for an area, or if there are no unitary authorities, the county council for the area. The level at which the local levy is set is voted on annually by LLFA members on the RFCC. Levy is used to fund FCERM activities within the RFCCs region and supplements FCERM Grant-in-Aid funding.

National Portfolio Office The Environment Agency’s national programme and allocation team is otherwise known as the National Portfolio Office. It is the hub for managing the capital and revenue programmes and overseeing changes.

Outcome measures Similar to KPIs, Outcome Measures (OMs) are a suite of performance measures for flood and coastal erosion risk management. Outcome Measures 1 to 4 are used to help prioritise projects within the programme, and are used as part of the Partnership Funding score to calculate the amount of FCERM Grant-in-Aid available to a project.

OM1 reports on the overall benefits of a scheme and Grant-in-Aid investment, taking

into account whole life costs and benefits. OM2 (also known as KPI 930) reports on the number of households benefiting from a

reduced risk of flooding from schemes which create new assets or reinstate an asset’s standard of protection.

OM3 (also known as KPI 933) reports on the number of households benefiting from a reduced risk of coastal erosion from schemes which create new assets or reinstate an asset’s standard of protection.

OM4 – is linked to the environment programme and reports on the hectares of habitat created and kilometres of protected rivers improved.

Project Application and Funding Service (PAFS) This is the new system for submitting proposals for new projects or project changes requiring Grant-in-Aid funding. This replaces the current project proposals process and the FCERM1 form. It requires all Risk Management Authorities to submit project proposals online. This service “submit a proposal for flood and coastal erosion risk management project funding” is accessible through gov.uk.

38

Partnership funding Defra’s current policy. It provides a system of funding which applies to all FCERM projects seeking Grant-in-Aid (GiA) funding. It is a way of increasing overall investment in FCERM by encouraging external contributions as a means to unlock GiA funding. GiA is capped based on the number of outcome measures a project will deliver, with each project having a Partnership Funding score as a means of prioritisation. RFCCs play a key role in working with partners and communities to maximise contributions, and to raise and allocate local levy which can be used as an external contribution.

Pipeline The ‘pipeline’ refers to those projects which are included in the 6 year capital programme with a partnership funding score below 100% and therefore require some external contributions before they can go ahead. It also refers to those projects which are planned for beyond 2020/21. As part of the annual refresh process, and in looking to develop a future long term investment programme, we look to strength our pipeline of projects.

Project Status This refers to the Gateway that a project has achieved so far. As part of good project management key milestones are identified within a projects lifecycle and progress is tracked. Key milestones or Gateways are:

Gateway 0 Gateway 1 – Business case and financial approval Gateway 2 – Detailed design Gateway 3 – Contract award Gateway 4 – Readiness for service Gateway 5 – Contract complete Gateway 6 – Project closure

Refresh This is the annual opportunity for all Risk Management Authorities to review their capital and revenue programmes and to update project information and add new projects into the programme.

Revenue funding In general, revenue funding is money spent by the Environment Agency on day to day activities. These include staff salary costs, revenue projects (eg inspections, maintaining hydrometric and telemetry systems), and revenue maintenance (eg preventing assets falling below target condition). Revenue funding also pays for the Environment Agency’s response to flooding. Risk Management Authorities The collective name for the following organisations: the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authorities, District Councils (where there are no unitary authorities), Internal Drainage Boards, Water Companies and Highway Authorities. Spending Review 2019 (SR19) This is our opportunity to build on the success of the current funding settlement and negotiate a long term programme that fits the needs of the future beyond 2020 (revenue) and 2021 (capital).

39

BLANK PAGE

40


Item No: 10 Report No: EFCC 19/07

Meeting:


Subject:

APPROACH TO 2ND CYCLE FRM PLANS & DEMONSTRATION OF THE NEW DIGITAL FLOOD PLAN EXPLORER TOOL


Catherine Wright (Director of Digital and Skills)

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to:

A. Note the timetable for reviewing and refreshing 1st cycle Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) and producing 2nd cycle FRMPs.

B. Discuss the approach to 2nd cycle FRMPs and strategic planning and the benefits of applying the digital tool – Flood Plan Explorer (FPE).

C. Encourage Risk Management Authorities and other partners to work together on strategic planning.

1. Introduction

1.1 The draft Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (FCERM Strategy) aims for a nation ready for, and resilient to, flood and coastal change, today, tomorrow and to the year 2100. We want our FRMPs to show a direct line of sight from the FCERM strategy, such that they show how our actions will help achieve: Climate resilient places. Today’s growth and infrastructure resilient in tomorrow’s climate. A nation of climate champions, able to adapt to flooding and coastal change

through innovation.

1.2 People in every place need to be able to identify the decisions for managing flooding and coastal change that need to be taken now and those which can be made in the future. We need to be agile and be able to respond to the latest climate science, growth projections, investment opportunities and other changes to our local environment.

1.3 It is not possible to separate the management of our natural environment from the way we manage flooding and coastal change. We should be looking for adaptive approaches that enhance the resilience of our environment to future flooding.

1.4 In the 1st cycle we worked in partnership with Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and Water and Sewerage Companies (WaSCs) to develop FRMPs using information from Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs), Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) and Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (LFRMS).

1.5 In the 2nd cycle we are aiming to improve our ways of working building on good practice in local areas like OxCam, so that 2nd cycle FRMPs are the product of better strategic planning. This will help us to look longer term, be more place-based and create better integration internally and externally in a way that supports the delivery of wider environmental and growth ambitions of society. The approach aligns well with the draft FCERM Strategy and will be an important step towards delivering the ambitions of the strategy as part of our revised suite of objectives and measures.

41

2. Strategic Planning

2.1 Our ambition is that FRMPs are used to show what is happening in FCERM across river basins, demonstrating a clear line of sight to the draft FCERM Strategy. The 2nd cycle FRMPs will be published in December 2021 while some of the new approaches in the draft FCERM Strategy are in development. However, FRMPs will play an important role in supporting the delivery of the strategy by developing the right ways of working, including the leadership and culture we need, backed up by measures that directly align with strategy ambitions.

2.2 Strategic planning brings partners together to set the strategic direction and identify common priorities based on a common understanding of the risks, now and in the future. Our FRMPs will: Be based on a set of common strategic objectives which have direct line of sight

to the draft FCERM National Strategy. Use the latest FCERM climate change guidance based on UKCP18 and

infographics which set out the projections at a river basin scale. Drive the investment of resources, time and funding to where it can deliver

optimised reductions in current and future flood risk in a joined up, collaborativeand evidence based way.

Build on the strategic planning that is already happening in many Areas (e.g.Medway, York, Calderdale and OxCam).

Encourage and facilitate collaboration with others, both internally and externally,to ensure all partners understand the shared challenges and opportunities ofmanaging flood risk and that the work of all organisations is complementary.

Integrate with other place-based plans to reduce flood risk and deliver ourambitions for places through sustainable growth (e.g. LFRMs, WaSC DrainageWastewater Management Plans, Surface Water Management Plans, NaturalCapital Plans and SMPs).

Include measures which contribute towards the delivery of the FCERM NationalStrategy such as developing adaptive approaches.

2.3 This work area is included in Area Integrated Service Levels. We recognise the need to ensure we have the right people with the right skills working on this so have identified a FRMP lead for each area ensuring a clear line of sight. We are working closely with this group of leads to provide support and to help share best practice.

3. 2nd Cycle Flood Risk Management Plans

3.1 The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (FRR) set out a statutory process for flood risk planning. We must review and update each element at intervals of no more than 6 years. The Environment Agency and LLFAs are required to: Assess risk from flooding for human health, the economy and environment

including cultural heritage. Decide where we consider risk to be significant, and identify these areas as flood

risk areas (FRAs). Prepare maps that show the flood hazard and flood risk in FRAs. Prepare FRMPs that set objectives and measures to reduce the risk in FRAs.

3.2 We have produced simple guidance and a template to support the production of the FRMPs. These have been developed with the Risk Management Authority (RMA) group of LLFAs, water companies and Internal Drainage Board (IDB) representatives. We will be inviting RMAs to work with us again to produce 2nd cycle FRMPs at a River Basin District (RBD) scale covering all sources of flooding.

42

3.3 We are working closely with our river basin management planning colleagues to ensure our area teams work together in their planning and engagement so that the updates to the plans are aligned. There will be a joint consultation on both plans in October 2020. We are also working with asset management colleagues to ensure FRMP measures and objectives are aligned with the asset management activities described in the proposed Catchment Asset Management Plans.

4. Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Risk and Hazard Maps

4.1 We published our preliminary Flood Risk Assessment Report for main rivers and the sea in England in December 2018, completing the first stage of the planning cycle.

4.2 The risk assessment covers past and potential future floods, describes how we assess flood risk and gives a high level overview of the risk. The report uses infographics to give a clear and simple description of flood management which is a helpful introduction to those new to flood risk.

4.3 Our next milestone is updating our Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps by December 2019. Having consulted some representative LLFAs, we will prepare all the necessary maps on behalf of LLFAs. This will provide consistency across the country and reduce the burden for LLFAs.

5. Flood Plan Explorer

5.1 We are developing an exciting new digital tool, Flood Plan Explorer, to support and facilitate the 2nd cycle FRMPs. The tool will be accessible to both the public and RMAs. It will allow users to look up the flood risk actions that are planned or underway in their area by simply 'clicking' on their location. RMAs will be able to create, store and edit new flood risk actions more simply, saving time and effort. The tool includes visualisation to enable RMAs and partners to identify opportunities for partnership working and align investment planning to improve the resilience of local places.

5.2 FPE uses a similar layout to the digital asset information and maintenance programme (AIMP) which displays information related to asset maintenance and the capital programme. We are working with Asset Management to find a roadmap to create a more integrated experience for users (e.g. links, common landing page or shared portal).

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to: A. Note the timetable for reviewing and refreshing 1st cycle Flood Risk Management

Plans (FRMPs) and producing 2nd cycle FRMPs. B. Discuss the approach to 2nd cycle FRMPs and strategic planning and the benefits

of applying the digital tool – Flood Plan Explorer (FPE). C. Encourage Risk Management Authorities and other partners to work together on

strategic planning.

Author – KYLIE RUSSELL Project Executive – Flood Risk Regulations & Improving Strategic Planning

Sponsor – CATHERINE WRIGHT Director of Digital and Skills

15 June 2019 Appendix 1: Strategic Planning Approach and Timetable

43

Appendix 1: Strategic Planning Approach and Timetable

Figure 1: How 2nd cycle FRMPs relate to Area Strategic Planning1

Figure 2: Timetable and how 2nd cycle FRMPs relate to Area Strategic Planning

Q4 18/19 FRMP2 Template•Strategic Overview team produce in consultation with T&F groups

Jun‐Aug 19 FRMP1 review, annual reporting + spatial data input for FPE•Area PSO lead review of FRMP content, objectivesand measures

Jun –Aug 19 CFMP Review•Area PSO lead review of CFMP content for inclusionin FRMP2

Sept – Dec 19 Draft strategic FCRM place‐based planning•Area PSO consult internally and externally to alignand integrate existing and developing plans, incRBMP/DWMP/SMP/SWMP/AIP etcD

Policy steer, direction of travel and high level objectives

Defra FCERM Policy Paper

FCERM National Strategy

25yr Environme

nt Plan

Strategic FCRM place‐based planningGovernance via Area FIS Board

Jan‐Mar 20 FRMP2 objectives and measures developed•These are a result of strategic planning and SEA applied as they are developed

Apr‐Jun 2020 Produce draft FRMP2•Approvals

Jun‐Sept 2020 Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) + Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) produced

Oct 20‐Mar 21 Formal Consultation•Carried out in alignment with RBMP consultation to provide holistic overview of long term strategic plan for area

Continuous engagement internallyData evidence and modellingFlood forecasting and warningAsset ManagementIS055000Capital investmentCommunity resilienceRBMP, EPE, FBG

Continuous engagement externallyRMAs, Highways England, catchment groups, flood partnerships and communities

Step

1Step

2

Step

3Step

4Step

5

1 Acronyms: FRMP – Flood Risk Management Plan, CFMP – Catchment Flood Management Plan, LFRMS – Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, DWMP – Drainage Wastewater Management Plans, RBMP – River Basin Management Plan, SWMP – Surface Water Management Plan, SMP – Shoreline Management Plan, RMA – Risk Management Authority, EPE – Environment Planning and Engagement, FBG – Fisheries, Biodiversity andGeomorphology.

44

Mareth Bassett 0203 02 58443

[email protected]


Forward look (EFCC19/08)

All meetings starting at 9.30am and finish at 1pm (unless otherwise agreed).

18 October 2019 at Norfolk County Council

January 2020 at Suffolk County Council

April 2020 at Essex County Council

Main Business Items Main Business Items Main Business Items Levy/GDC/IDB precept Setting and Vote

Review and seed consent to FCRM GiA final indicative allocation for revenue maintenance and capital programmes 2020/21.

Withdrawal of Maintenance update

Future Maintenance in Broadland options

Norfolk Broads Update Bacton – Discussion and lessons learned.

Coastal Update Update from Norfolk County Council – Mark Ogden

Update from Suffolk County Council – Matt Hullis

Update from Essex County Council – Lucy Shepherd

Information Items Information Items Information Items Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Delivering the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme



FCRM Programme – In Year Position



Incident Management Paper Incident Management Paper Incident Management Paper National Paper: FCRM Update paper

National Paper: FCRM Update paper

National Paper: FCRM Update paper

Other Meeting dates for 2019 / 2020

Monday 16 September 2019 – Local Choices, Environment Agency Office, Ipswich 2020 Meeting dates to be agreed

Friday 17 January 2020 – Suffolk County Council Friday 17 April 2020 – Essex County Council Friday 17 July 2020 – Norfolk County Council Friday 16 October 2020 – Suffolk County Council

Local Choices Friday 18 September 2020 – Iceni House, Ipswich

45

BLANK PAGE

46


List of Information Papers Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (RFCC) Friday 19 July 2019

Page No.

1. Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF19/12) 49

2. Delivering Professional Asset Management for the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC - Programme 2019/20 (INF19/13)

65

3. Developing and Delivering the Thames 2100 and TE2100 Programme (INF19/14)

83

4. FCERM Program Update 2019/20 Quarter 1 – Current in-year position (INF19/15)

105

5. Incident Response (INF19/16) 111

6. National paper – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Update, June 2019 (INF19/17)

115

47

BLANK PAGE

01733 464222

48

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Item No: 1 Report No: INF 19/12

Meeting: ANGLIAN (EASTERN) REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE (RFCC)

Subject: DEVELOPING THE ANGLIAN (EASTERN) RFCC PROGRAMME 2019/20


Peta Denham – FCERM Manager Mark Johnson – Coastal Manager

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to: A. Note and support the progress with the appraisal stages of FCERM projects B. Note and support the engagement work being done as part of developing the

programme. C. Share this information and promote the work we’re doing in the Anglian Eastern

RFCC area. 1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 This paper provides a progress update for projects in the consented programme which are

at the business case development stage.

1.2 It’s an update for the Committee on progress or change, to make Members aware of any new or emerging investment requirements.

1.3 During the last quarter we have been i) reviewing initial assessments to determine which

projects we will be progressing to a business case, ii) completing a refresh of the programme and iii) progressing the Natural Flood Management schemes which form part of the Defra NFM pilot, specifically mentioned in the draft FCERM strategy.

1.4 This next quarter (Q2) we will be focussing on the evidence and data that we hold and

improving our data sets.

49

2. Norfolk 2.1 The map below shows the projects in Norfolk.

Contact details

Email address Kate Lindsay – PSO Team Leader Norfolk & Suffolk

[email protected]

William Todd – Senior Advisor Norfolk & Suffolk [email protected] David Kemp – PSO Coastal Team Leader [email protected] Watson – Coastal Engineer [email protected] Mark Ogden – Norfolk County Council [email protected] Marie Coleman – Norfolk LLFA project advisor marie.coleman@environment-

agency.gov.uk James Fullam – IDB project advisor [email protected] Karen Thomas – Coastal Partnership East [email protected]

50

2.2 Projects or activities of note

DEFRA Natural Flood Management (NFM) Pilot – Norfolk schemes update

Four projects in Norfolk have now been completed as part of the DEFRA NFM pilot. Two projects were designed and constructed completely in-house by the Environment Agency (Weybourne and Marlingford) and 2 projects were delivered by partners (Norfolk Rivers IDB at Buxton and Norfolk Rivers Trust at Worthing). These projects have all taken place upstream of communities at risk of flooding. They will be monitored by the EA and partners to gather evidence about the effectiveness of NFM. We will report the results to DEFRA in March 2021.

Weybourne debris dam – normal conditions and following a rainfall event (EA)

Marlingford narrowing, scrape creation and bank lowering (EA)

Buxton storage following a rainfall event (NRIDB) Worthing floodplain reconnection (NRT)

51

Embedding Natural Flood Management (NFM) into the FCRM maintenance programme in Norfolk In order to help integrate NFM into the FCRM maintenance programme, Helen George has been working with colleagues to discuss where the use of NFM may lead to more sustainable future maintenance. So far the focus has been on identifying sites where siltation is an issue. We hope that installing low cost features like debris dams upstream of areas where silt collects will help capture silt and prevent it being transported down to where it becomes costly or inaccessible to manage. Following on from the success of the Weybourne Beck scheme as part of the DEFRA NFM pilot, we have identified a further three systems in Norfolk where FCRM trials with debris dams could be beneficial to main river, namely the upper Wendling Beck, the Mulbarton watercourse and Shotesham watercourse

PDU 4 Initial Assessments

The Programme Delivery Unit (PDU) has produced Initial Assessments for Mundesley, Beccles, Norwich, Corpusty & Saxthorpe, Horning, Potter Heigham and Aylsham.

As a result of updated hydraulic modelling and property threshold surveys, the number of residential properties at risk in these communities has decreased significantly. Therefore the only project that we can progress to business case development is Aylsham. For the other communities we will investigate the potential for Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures to be used for individual properties. In Norwich we are investigating the potential for New Mills Sluice to be decommissioned. New Mills Sluice does not provide a flood risk management Decommissioning it would not increase flood risk, but it would save on future inspection and maintenance costs.

52

2.3 Lead Local Flood Authorities, Internal Drainage Board and District Authorities Projects

Initial Assessments – Norfolk County Council

Norfolk County Council (NCC) is currently

progressing five Initial Assessments for Wymondham, Diss, Ormesby, Harleston and Caister through Jacobs. We have worked with the consultants to review flood risk data and provide an assessment for each settlement in terms of potential schemes. A number of technical notes have now been produced which are currently under review. These notes will inform the future approach to managing flood risk in each of the settlements and any future funding bids. Dereham Feasibility Study – Norfolk County Council A number of CCTV surveys are currently taking place in Dereham to inform the hydraulic modelling work as part of the study. The study has been delayed for a few months to align with a new surface water and sewer model from Anglian Water (AW). However this will not be available before 2020. The Feasibility Study is therefore going ahead using the existing AW model and outputs are expected in July 2019.

Interreg North Sea Region Flood Resilient Areas by Multi-layEred Safety (FRAMES) Project - Norfolk County Council The first phase of installation has been completed with 72 residents receiving either a leaky water butt or raised planter. Residents in this phase were given a wide choice of products to choose from to test their take up, ease of installation and storage capacity. The most popular choices were tall, narrow water butts and water butts with planting in them. These products will be used to promote the next phases of installation to more people. All installations will capture some water from extreme rainfall events, helping to prevent the overloading of the existing sewer network.

53

Interreg North Sea Region Water Sensitive Cities (CATCH) Project – Norfolk County Council Procurement for both the water storage features and Property Level Resilience (PLR) has been progressing well. The project is using the new EA PLR contract to arrange the surveys for selected homeowners in Norwich. We expect that PLR will be installed this financial year.

Flood Investigation Reports – Norfolk County Council Officers have been making the most of the relatively dry weather to complete and publish the back-log of Flood Investigation Reports. Since 2011, the Flood & Water Team has verified 650 reports of flooded properties. 424 of these reports have now been published on the NCC website. The remaining reports are in draft and out to consultation, with publication due before the end of June 2019.

54

3. Suffolk

3.1 The map below shows the projects in Suffolk County

Contact details

Email address Kate Lindsay – PSO Team Leader Norfolk & Suffolk

[email protected]

William Todd – Senior Advisor Norfolk & Suffolk

[email protected]

David Kemp – PSO Coastal Team Leader [email protected] Gary Watson – Coastal Engineer [email protected] James Fullam – IDB project advisor [email protected] Suffolk County Council [email protected] East Suffolk District Council [email protected] Nicki China – Suffolk LLFA Advisor [email protected]

55


DEFRA Natural Flood Management Pilot – Suffolk update The NFM scheme being delivered by East Suffolk IDB and Suffolk County Council was completed in December 2018. It will help manage flood risk to Debenham. Monitoring is taking place as a joint initiative between the EA and the IDB to help gather evidence about the effectiveness of NFM. Results will be reported to DEFRA in March 2021. To encourage other landowners within the Deben catchment to do something similar, we held an open day in February 2019, which attracted a good number of visitors. As a result we are working with interested landowners who expressed interest in developing additional storage features within the Deben catchment, which would bring added benefit to Debenham.

PDU 4 Initial Assessments

The PDU (Programme Delivery Unit) has produced Initial Assessments for Stowmarket, Halesworth, Wrentham and Bures.

As a result of updated hydraulic modelling and property threshold surveys, the number of residential properties at risk in these communities has decreased significantly. Therefore the only project that will be progressing to business case development is Wrentham. For the other communities we will investigate the potential for Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures for individual properties.

56

3.3 Lead Local Flood Authorities’, Internal Drainage Boards’ and District Authorities’ Projects

Benacre and Kessingland Flood Management Project – Waveney, Lower Yare & Lothingland IDB Professor Julian Orford from Queens University Belfast, a renowned expert in shingle ridges and coastal features, has produced a report for this project. It will help develop a sustainable coastal management solution for the area that also incorporates the river and freshwater flood risks. Consultants carried out soil testing and sub-soil investigations in June. These will help us understand if the ground conditions are suitable to take the weight of new defences and potential new pumping stations. On 22 May the technical officers group held a workshop to discuss how to incorporate wider benefits into this project to help maximise outputs and potential funding streams. Over 30 officers from a wide range of organisations attended.

Upper Alde and Ore Estuary Project – East Suffolk IDB East Suffolk IDB staff have been working with Jacobs, RPA and the EA to develop the outline business case for the upper estuary. The document will be submitted shortly. Jacobs carried out a Strategic Environmental Assessment which considered Habitats Regulations and Water Framework Directive effects of the proposals. The assessment will be scrutinised by statutory bodies which include the EA, NE and SCC, all of whom have been closely involved in this process.

57

Lowestoft Flood Risk Management Project East Suffolk District Council and Suffolk County Council

The outline business case has received full assurance for phase 1 (fluvial and pluvial) and technical assurance for phase 2 (tidal) from the Large Project Review Group. Financial approval for phase 1 is currently being obtained and due to start delivery summer 2019. For phase 1 over 140 residential properties at pluvial flood risk have been surveyed as part of the property flood resilience element of the project. Fluvial flood wall at Velda Close/Aldwyck Way is currently in detailed design and a planning application has been submitted.

Our Water – Suffolk County Council Our Water is a community based project to collect information about local ordinary watercourses and to increase understanding of local flood risk within a parish. The local community groups who volunteer to take part in the project are supported throughout the life of the project and with further projects to reduce their flood risk. To date Barrow, Halesworth, Hundon and Wissett have completed the project. The project is working in collaboration with Suffolk Highways and will continue to work with parishes across the County.

58

4. Essex 4.2 The map below shows the projects in Essex County.

Contact details

Email address James Mason – PSO Team Leader Essex [email protected] Mike Robinson – Senior Advisor Essex [email protected] David Kemp – PSO Coastal Team Leader [email protected] John Lindsay – Coastal Engineer [email protected] Orrin –LLFA project advisor for Essex, Thurrock and Southend

[email protected]

Essex County Council [email protected] Neil Hoskins – Southend Borough Council [email protected] Nav Tung – Thurrock Council [email protected]

59


Coggeshall, Feering and Kelvedon Flood Alleviation Scheme. We have been working on the final design for the dam and the flood alleviation scheme to make sure that it is properly engineered and also includes maximum ecological/environmental enhancements. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which will support the planning application, is being developed and reviewed by our National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS) and Fisheries, Biodiversity and Geomorphology (FBG) Teams. https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/east-anglia-c-e/coggeshall-flood-alleviation-information-page/

Representatives from our project team and our scheme partner, Blackwater Aggregates, met in March and April with the 3 Parishes Councils of Coggeshall, Feering and Kelvedon. We presented the current design and discussed issues and concerns they have highlighted following their review of the plans. In May we completed 2 public drop-ins at Coggeshall and Feering village halls. Both were well attended by the public, landowners and parish and district councillors. Over 150 people attended these events.

60

DEFRA Natural Flood Management Pilot – Essex update The NFM scheme being delivered by Essex Wildlife Trust (EWT) has now been completed as part of the DEFRA NFM pilot to help manage flood risk to the community of Roxwell. Five debris dams were installed in the Roxwell Brook upstream of Roxwell village to help slow the flow and hold water back during rainfall events. There are further plans to install dams and attenuation features further up on the Roxwell and Newland Brooks later in the year. The Roxwell Flood Prevention Group is fully supportive of the works and has been helping to engage other landowners to follow suit. The projects are being monitored as a joint initiative between the EA and EWT to help gather evidence about the effectiveness of NFM. Results will be reported to DEFRA in March 2021.

61

Embedding Natural Flood Management into the FCRM maintenance programme, Essex update

In order to help integrate NFM into the FCRM maintenance programme, Helen George has been working with colleagues to discuss where the use of NFM may lead to more sustainable future maintenance. So far the focus has been on identifying sites where siltation is an issue. We hope that installing low cost features like debris dams upstream of areas where silt collects will help capture silt and prevent it being transported down to where it becomes costly or inaccessible to manage.

Site visits have been planned in Essex to identify locations where the installation of debris dams may help the way we deal with silt more sustainably in future.

62

4.3 Lead Local Flood Authorities’ and District Authorities’ Projects

Essex Community, Property Level Resilience (PLR) – Essex County Council

In November 2018 we appointed new suppliers, Lakeside, to deliver our Property Level Resilience project around the Essex area. Highlights to date are, 49 pre installation surveys and 90 product surveys have been conducted and 25 installations have been completed. It is forecast that an additional 51 pre-installation surveys and 61 product surveys will have been carried out by August, along with 42 installations. We will soon develop an Outline Business Case to present to the Environment Agency for partnership funding towards the project. Pictured: Typical Property Level Resilience (PLR) products.

Tilbury Dual Function Lock Gate Project Following a disappointing and lengthy European tendering exercise which resulted in no compliant bids, the project is now being led by the EA through TEAM2100. This has resulted in a number of changes and costs have increased. We are currently in discussion with the Port of Tilbury to decide on the best way forward. The construction phase is delayed as a result of these changes and a new legal agreement is needed. We remain hopeful that the project can be delivered during the current 6 year spending review period.

3D model of proposed new lock gates

5. Recommendation 5.1 The Committee is asked to:

A. Note and support the progress with the appraisal stages of existing projects. B. Note and support the engagement work being undertaken in order to develop the

programme. C. Share this information and promote the work we’re doing in the Anglian Eastern RFCC

area. Peta Denham FCERM Manager

Mark Johnson Coastal Manager

63

BLANK PAGE

64




Subject: DELIVERING PROFESSIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR THE ANGLIAN (EASTERN) RFCC - PROGRAMME 2019/20


Graham Verrier Norfolk and Suffolk Operations Manager, Dave Knagg Essex Operations Manager

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to: A. Note the progress on the delivery of the Anglian (Eastern) programme of works.

1. Purpose of the report and introduction

1.1 This paper is to update the Committee on our progress delivering projects within the

Revenue and Capital programmes. The paper will focus on Revenue and Capital funded activities completed in each county. This quarter (Q1), from April to June, we have focussed on the following work:

1.2 AIMS: Planning We have submitted a bid for a six year maintenance programme on AIMS: Planning. This consists of a bid for two years routine maintenance works and a further four years’ worth of intermittent maintenance. By doing this the aim is to free up time and resource for the transition to the AIMS: Planning replacement which is planned in 2020. Maintenance obligations have been flagged on the system which will prioritise those bids. Essex

1.3 During Quarter 1 Essex Operations have delivered six projects throughout the operations catchment and have started the main programme of vegetation management on the seawalls. We have also dealt with significant fish kill incidents due to low oxygen levels resulting from the hot weather. Operational checks, routine maintenance and asset inspections have continued throughout as usual.

1.4 In addition the Asset Performance teams within Essex Operations have been working up projects for delivery, gaining the necessary permissions and designing solutions to keep our asset in the required condition grades.

1.5 A number of new starters have joined the teams during the quarter to increase capacity to deliver intermittent and frequent maintenance works in future. Suffolk

1.6 Throughout Quarter 1 we have undertaken embankment maintenance works in the Deben and Southwold areas and have completed our first cuts of both the Gipping and Rattlesden Reservoirs. We have also carried out hatch painting works at Whisstocks in Woodbridge and are about to start concrete revetment refurbishment works at Felixstowe Ferry.

65

1.7 Our inspection and maintenance works on the outfall flaps along the river Gipping are due to commence imminently and all of our operation checks programmed for Quarter 1 have now been completed.

1.8 CCTV inspections that carried over from the 18/19 were completed in May by Breheny, one of our Framework Contractors. Norfolk

1.9 We have completed a number of weed cuts across the Rivers Bure, Yare, Wensum and Glaven. Given the ongoing dry weather, we continually monitored dissolved oxygen levels to make sure they were safely maintained. This ensured that no work was unnecessarily stopped or delayed.

1.10 We have progressed schemes at several locations on the North Norfolk Coast to improve safe public access along footpaths on our tidal defences. Key locations include Cley and Sea Palling. We have continued to focus on maintaining our public safety measures across all sites, with particular attention to those used by the public in peak summer months.

1.11 In Broadland, Broadland Environmental Services Limited (BESL) have been continuing with their annual maintenance activities. This includes flood embankment maintenance across the project area and removal of redundant piles close to the mouth of the River Chet. Re-piling works are planned for this winter, south of Ludham Bridge and preparation for that work is underway. Also at Ludham Bridge, two large willow trees which were in a poor condition have been cut down. Public Safety Risk Assessments continue to be carried out, most recently in the upper Thurne area and the required works are being completed. The annual ‘cut and clear’ programme for the minor watercourses in the project area is well underway. Hellington and Carleton Becks have been completed and work is currently underway on Haddiscoe Landspring. Next quarter (Q2), from July to September, we will be focussing on the following work: Essex

1.12 Next quarter (Q2) we will be completing the majority of vegetation maintenance along the seawalls. We plan to complete the initial stages of river weed cutting towards the end of the quarter, dependent on weather and catchment conditions.

1.13 Other projects due to start in Q2 include: Improvements to the toe drains along the seawall at Point Clear. Improvements to the Eel Pas at East Mill in Colchester to ensure ongoing

compliance with the Eel Regulations Tree works at Meldham Washland in Haverhill. Replacing the drive control unit for Pump 2 at Croppenburg Pumping Station on

Canvey Island. Suffolk

1.14 Next quarter we will be completing several grass cuts across the Blyth, Alde and Deben catchments and additional weed cuts by machine and boat, primarily in the Waveney area. Operational checks will continue as normal.

1.15 We will be starting 8 projects in Quarter 2 including: CCTV inspections at 12 sites Kirton embankment repair works Debenham channel board replacement works Tide flex installation at Spring Farm South Peasenhall channel repair works Gipping reservoir repair works (hydro-seeding & erosion protection) Invasive species works

66

1.16 During Quarter 2 we will largely complete 2018-19’s embankment maintenance, and the majority of the weed cutting programme. Intermittent projects are due to start at eight locations around the coast where seawall or outfall repairs are required.

Norfolk

1.17 Embankment maintenance is scheduled for the North Norfolk coastal banks and we will be completing our weed cutting programme, focusing on the Waveney. We will start construction on the Natural Flood Management (NFM) scheme at Marlingford Mill as part of the National DEFRA NFM pilot project. These works should take about 6 weeks to complete.

1.18 In Broadland, BESL will be starting their programme of cut and clear works on the fluvial watercourses in the project area. A length of redundant flood defence piling has recently failed near to the mouth of the River Chet and plans are in hand to remove it and re-grade the river bank in October. Other pile replacement works have also been planned for the winter period. Summary

1.19 In this quarter (Q1) across Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk we have completed approximately:

2,011 asset inspections 193km of flood embankment maintenance 111km of watercourse maintenance

For further information about specific projects please contact the appropriate catchment lead (details are on the county page) or a team leader from the following table: Colne and Stour Asset Performance

Graham Brown – [email protected]

Blackwater Asset Performance Andrew Calcutt – [email protected]

Thameside Asset Performance Thomas Peck – [email protected]

Norfolk Asset Performance Rachael Storr - [email protected]

Suffolk Asset Performance David White - [email protected]

Broadland Asset Performance Louise Taylor - [email protected]

67

Essex 2.1 The map below shows the catchments contained in Essex County and the works completed

here this quarter (Q1): Catchment Leads

Name Catchment Contact Details

Kerry Bentley Stour (Tidal) [email protected]

Gbemi Akin-Oriola Stour (Fluvial) [email protected]

Natasha King Colne [email protected]

Laurence Ralph Blackwater [email protected]

Tim Butt Thameside [email protected]

68


69


Braintree Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme - Essex County Council

This project provides surface water flood risk reduction to residents of the Bradford Street area, particularly along Williams Dive and Friars Lane. The scheme involved re-landscaping an area of public open space to create an earth bund and attenuation area. It includes a weir within an existing channel and inlet spillway so that high flows from the adjacent ordinary watercourse can spill into the attenuation area. We also undertook drainage improvement works to the adjacent footpaths and a ditch that was causing localised flooding issues to fully reduce flood risk in the area. £60,000 of Local Levy and £158,450 of FDGiA have been contributed towards the Capital costs of this scheme from the Environment Agency. The fully completed scheme now protects 39 properties from surface water flooding up to a 1.33% AEP event.

Site area (in red) with RoFfSW mapping. Flows are from East to West.

New attenuation area, bund, outlet and paths looking south from the north of the site.

Scheme and inlet channel looking from west to east.

New adjustable weir.

70

Witham Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme – Essex County Council

This project involved the creation of a below ground attenuation area in public open space to capture, store and slowly release surface water flows back into the adjacent Anglian Water Surface Water sewer. There is a low bund along the southern end of the scheme so that in the event the attenuation area overtops, flows are diverted away from properties. £100,000 of Local Levy and £20,000 of FDGiA have been contributed towards the Capital costs of this scheme from the Environment Agency. The scheme protects 12 properties from surface water flooding from up to a 5% AEP event. This scheme is now complete with the exception of a few finishing ancillary items such as fencing.

Left top: Site area (in red) with RoFfSW mapping. Flows are north to south. Right top: The attenuation area from the northern end looking south. Left bottom: The new bund to direct any overtopping flows away from the properties.

71

Localised Desilt of Parkeston Pumping Station - Harwich

We carried out a debris and silt removal operation upstream of Parkeston Pumping Station to facilitate with the replacement of the weed screen, and to protect the pumps from possible damage. The work around the pumps was carried out by divers operating a pump to move the silt into special bags for dewatering. The main channel was desilted using a long reach excavator. All works were carried out in consultation with our Fisheries & Environmental Management Teams to minimise environmental impacts. Excavator desilting river channel Debris removed from river

72

3. Suffolk 3.1 The map below shows the catchments contained in Suffolk County and the works

completed here this quarter (Q1).

Catchment Leads


Jonny Ackroyd Gipping [email protected]

Emmett Klipalo Deben [email protected]

Stephen Quinn Alde & Ore [email protected]

Emmett Klipalo Blyth [email protected]

Louise Brown Waveney [email protected]

Tom Mann Suffolk County [email protected]

73


East Lane, Bawdsey - sea wall repair Emergency repair works were undertaken at East Lane, Bawdsey to stop further erosion along a 30m section of the embankment. A new rock armour revetment including the concrete bags and heavy duty geo-textile constructed to reinstate the eroded sections of the defence.

Before After

Navigation Marker replacement - Southwold

A new navigation marker was installed at Easton Bavents, Southwold.

74

Invasive Non-Native Species treatment

Giant Hogweed treatment works with herbicide (Roundup Pro Biactive) were undertaken around 5 EA structures.

CCTV culvert inspection & clearance works

CCTV culvert inspection & clearance works were undertaken at 12 EA structures.

75


Felixstowe Property Flood Resistance Installation of Property Flood Resistance (PFR) measures commenced in June, and are scheduled to complete by end July to early August 2019. 17 properties at significant surface water flood risk have agreed to progress to installation. Products being installed include:

Flood doors Non-return vales Air brick covers Silicone sealant Puddle sucker pumps

76

4 Norfolk 4.1 The map below shows the catchments contained in Norfolk County and the works

completed here this quarter (Q1).

Catchment Leads


Hannah Borrett North Norfolk Coast [email protected]

Mark Frary Happisburgh to Winterton & Great Yarmouth

[email protected]

Ben Rushmer Wensum & Bure [email protected]

Rich Caplin Yare, Mun and Dilham Canal [email protected]

77


Great Yarmouth Flood Defence Project Following on from the first phase of works completed in 2017, the second phase began in February with the £40.3 million project being awarded to JBA-Bentley. Preparatory works completed to date include ground investigation, detailed topographical and conditions surveys on the 40 assets being considered. Works will start in the autumn 2019 and are scheduled for completion in May 2021. Additional information can be found on www.greatyarmouthflooddefence.co.uk

Ground investigation works taking place at the Ice House and boat survey on the River Yare.

Broadland Flood Alleviation Project. The project is now in its final two years. The project team is working with the new Broadland AP team to determine how the Broadland flood defences will be managed after 2021. Broadland Environmental Services Ltd (BESL) continue their maintenance activities, including embankment maintenance and topping-up flood banks where settlement has occurred. They have also been replacing piles in poor condition which has resolved a public safety issue south of Ludham Bridge. A short section of recently failed piles on the River Yare at Langley have also been replaced. Other public safety hazards have been dealt with at Geldeston, Surlingham and Potter Heigham. The Institute of Collaborative Working has recognised the benefits of the Broadland project’s working arrangements and its achievements, and has given the project their Environmental Enhancement Collaboration award for 2018.

78

Wells East Bank Outfall refurbishment

At Wells East Bank Sluice the broken weed screen has been replaced.

Alongside this work, two areas of hardstanding have been laid for excavator work. These will aid the process of removing vegetation from the weed boom and also provide a resting base from which aquatic life can safely leave the removed vegetation and re-enter the water.

The slope has been re-profiled and a new set of steps installed. Our CCTV camera has been moved to a more suitable location for viewing the structure.

Work to repair the bank crest has recently started on Wells East Bank itself. A carrstone path will be laid on the top of the coastal bank, leading from Wells East Bank Sluice to the eastern end of the bank. This work will bring the bank crest up to an acceptable standard and also improve the footpath for public users.

Before After

Bowthorpe Natural Flood Management Following on from a successful Water Environment Improvement Fund (WEIF) bid, works took place on the River Yare at Bowthorpe in March to help improve 1km of physical habitat. PSO, FBG, Norfolk AP and the South Norfolk Field team worked together to deliver the scheme, whilst also working closely with our partners at the Norwich Fringe Project, by whom the publically accessible green space is managed. Works involved raising the river bed level in three locations using large reject stone and lowering sections of bank in two places, to allow the river to spill out more readily into the floodplain. These works will help contribute to achieving good ecological potential in line with Water Framework Directive objectives. They will provide temporary wetland wildlife habitat during peak levels, as well as helping to restore natural processes. More information can be found here: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019-05-22/improvements-to-a-norfolk-river-will-encourage-more-lifeforms-to-flourish/

79


Halvergate Marshes WLMP Phase 2 – Broads IDB The final 250m of embankment works are complete, bringing the total to approximately 8km. This leaves three water control structures to be installed before the HLC is fully functional.

A launch event is planned for 14 June 2019, with keynote speaker Tony Juniper CBE, the new Chair of Natural England.

Halvergate Marshes taken by Evelyn Simak: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

Martham culvert repair – Broads IDB

Mitigation has been completed in advance of the drain works and the dykes will be maintained as unsuitable for water voles until the works commence later in the year. Reptile survey and mitigation work is ongoing due to the presence of Common Lizards in the proposed work area. Construction is programmed for July to November 2019 and the project will be delivered by a combination of IDB operatives and specialist sub-contractors. Total forecast project cost is £760K. A £200K contribution towards the design and mitigation was made by DEFRA in the financial year 2018/19, with the remaining funding allocated from Environment Agency and DEFRA 2019/20 capital over programme.

80

Muckfleet bank improvements – Broads IDB

Due to concerns about flood bank stability and health and safety of workers, mitigation methods were modified in consultation with Natural England. Two sections of the north bank dykes, each under 150m length, have been mitigated under the IDB class licence. Three sections of dyke will be mitigated in autumn 2019. Flood bank earthworks commenced in May 2019, starting at the upstream end to complete the work started last year. A section of timber crest boards will be installed at the upstream end of the flood bank in order to minimise disruption and land loss to the landowner.


A. Note the progress on the delivery of the Anglian (Eastern) program of works.

Graham Verrier Norfolk and Suffolk Operations Manager

Dave Knagg Essex Operations Manager

81

BLANK PAGE

82




Subject: DEVELOPING AND DELIVERING THE THAMES ESTUARY 2100 PLAN & TEAM2100 PROGRAMME 2019/20


Peta Denham – FCERM Manager Mark Johnson – Coastal Manager Dave Knagg – Operations Manager

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to: A. Note and support the progress with the appraisal and delivery stages of existing

projects B. Note and support the engagement work being undertaken in order to develop the

programme. C. Share this information and promote the work we are doing in the Anglian Eastern

RFCC area.

1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 This paper provides a progress on the delivery of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan in the

Anglian Eastern RFCC area. The paper also provides an update for projects within the TEAM2100 Programme line of the consented programme which are at the business case development stage as well as the delivery stage.

1.2 It’s an update for the Committee on progress or change, to make Members aware of any new or emerging investment requirements.

1.3 So far within 2019 we have worked with partners to secure resolutions to the outstanding

challenges around safeguarding land for a future Thames Barrier, we have received feedback from local councils on delivery of their Thames Estuary 2100 Plan implementation objectives. We have also delivered replacement flap valves on the gravity system and 1x non-return valve on the pumped system at Worlds End Pumping Station and Sluice This next quarter we will be focussing on:

Meeting remaining councils in the Anglian Eastern area with implementation objectives from the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan to increase awareness, understanding and ensure delivery

Providing flood risk advice in line with the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan to influence major planning applications within the Thames Estuary.

1.4 This next quarter the TEAM2100 programme will focus on: Completing the project appraisals and progressing design work for Canvey Island

Southern Shoreline, Worlds End Pumping Station and Canvey Island Flood Barriers schemes

Inspection of critical components of the existing Tilbury barrier

83

Contacts

Work Theme Contact

Thames Estuary 2100 Plan Delivery

Kat Dedman – [email protected]

TEAM2100 Asset Performance

Tom Wallace - [email protected]

TEAM2100 Funding & Engagement

Philip Spearman - [email protected]

2. Thames Estuary 2100 Plan Delivery

2.1 Strategic work with partners

Implementation Plan - 2018/19

17 of the 25 Councils contacted completed or partially completed a reporting survey on their 2018/19 Implementation Plan objectives. This is a marked improvement on previous years so we are grateful to councils for their response. This has given us a better understanding of progress against the objectives as well as barriers to delivery. This will help us plan our engagement for 2019/20 by prioritising engagement with councils that did not respond and focusing our efforts on the barriers to delivery. We have produced an infographic summarising the main results which has been shared with council officers and is attached as Appendix 1. All of the Essex-based riverside councils responded to the survey, but all failed to reply in both their Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority/Emergency Planning capacities.

Council LPA

Response

LLFA/EP

Response

Basildon District EP

Essex County

Castle Point District EP

Southend‐on‐Sea UA

Thurrock UA

Implementation Plan- 2019/20

Council officers within planning departments received their 2019/20 Implementation Plan Objectives in June, and we are also looking to share these at council director level via Area Managers for a pronged approach. We have drafted the wording of objectives in line with feedback received from our focus group of councils, and feedback received through the 18/19 reporting survey. We are seeking to meet with council planning officers to go through their objectives and the reporting which will be required at the end of the financial year. We are prioritising those Councils we didn’t visit in 2018/19.

84

Council briefings We shared the new tailored Thames Estuary 2100 Council Briefings in June, along with the Implementation Plan Objectives. This was via our council contacts through the Thames Estuary 2100 Knowledge Hub Group. The briefings summarise key information from the Plan, enabling council officers to understand what the Plan means for their local area, including land and defence raising requirements. We have attached an example of this briefing as Appendix 2.

The riverside strategy approach

The riverside strategy approach was introduced in the plan as a way for those involved in planning for the future of the riverside to ensure future changes to the riverside take place in a co-ordinated and integrated way. This will maximise the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits, and avoid the risks associated with raising the flood defences with no forward planning for the wider riverside environment sitting behind them. We envisage this to be delivered primarily through local planning authorities putting plans in place outlining how the improvements to the flood defence works will be incorporated into the wider riverside environment to ensure the opportunities provided by the plan are seized in full. There are currently a number of opportunities to develop such a strategy, which we are working with our relevant partners to take forward. This includes a ‘Joint Strategic Plan’ currently being developed by seven councils in south Essex to provide an overarching spatial strategy for long term growth in the sub-region. We have had discussions with the Kent and Essex Developer Groups (part of the Local Enterprise Partnership) who are keen to support the riverside strategy approach and will be working with Essex County Council to explore setting up a group of the local planning authorities to deliver this. We are also working with the City of London Corporation who are also looking into what a riverside strategy may look like for their borough. To support this work we have developed a riverside strategy approach guidance note, for those involved in planning for the future of the Thames riverside. It sets out our aspiration for the riverside strategy approach and what this means for you as our partner. Please contact [email protected] if you would like more information on this.

85

2.2 Influencing spatial planning

Safeguarding land for a future Thames Barrier

We are pleased to have reached agreement with Thurrock Council (as Landowner) and the Developer PCRL on how a future Thames Barrier could be accommodated as part of the proposed regeneration of Purfleet. The planning application was approved at the planning committee meeting in April. Flood risk from storm surges is the most significant flood risk to communities and businesses in the Thames Estuary. This will increase in the future with climate change and sea level rise. The agreement with the developers in Purfleet is just one step, albeit a significant step, towards implementing the recommendations of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, which sets out how we can continue to protect the Thames Estuary from tidal flooding until 2100. However, we still have a long way to go to ensure that the 1000’s of other flood walls, gates, pumps and other infrastructure that work with the Thames Barrier to form the complex network of defences protecting the Thames Estuary can be maintained and improved over the next 80 years. We hope we can work in partnership with other risk management authorities and developers in a similar vein as we have with Thurrock and PCRL, to protect communities and businesses across the estuary.

Tilbury Port 2

The decision to grant the Development Consent Order was made in February 2019. We have now begun post-examination work which includes meetings / comments in regards to the proposed works on the Tilbury flood defences – which we are satisfied with.

Thames Enterprise Park

This site is currently in an outline stage and proposed the phased remediation and redevelopment of 167ha of the former Coryton Oil Refinery to provide up to 480,000m2 of commercial development. This falls in the TE2100 Plan’s Shellhaven & Fobbing Marshes policy unit. We are currently working with the applicant to resolve our current holding objection surrounding the flood risk assessment, concerned with the assessment of breaching of the defences. We are also working to ensure that the applicant considers safeguarding of land for future aspirational improvements to the tidal defences as well as consideration of funding mechanisms for the future.

86

Local Plans

We have recently commented on Thurrock Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council local plans regarding the future aspirations of the TE2100 Plan and funding considerations for the corresponding policy units.

87

3. Thames Estuary Asset Management (TEAM) 2100 Programme Development 3.1 Programme Development & Delivery

Tilbury Cruise Terminal

We have worked with our legal team to develop a statement of intent letter to outline the concepts of a contribution-in-kind (CiK) from the Port of Tilbury. This CiK is temporary land to enable construction access as well as a new permanent realignment of the defence. This letter has now been sent to the Port of Tilbury and we met with them in June to progress discussions about designs and to seek agreement to sign the letter. We will also be engaging with Historic England as the Cruise Terminal Building is a Grade 2* listed structure.

World’s End Pumping Station

Works were completed in March 2019 to replace the four gravity system flap valves and one of the two pumped system non-return valves. These high priority works have reduced the risk of tidal defence component failure in the short term whilst the replacement pumping station project is developed. We are currently progressing preliminary design parameters of the replacement pumping station through a series of internal workshops. We have also engaged externally with Thurrock Council in their LLFA and local planning authority roles as well as Anglian Water and the Port of Tilbury. We have agreed a letter of Statement of Intent outlining the Port’s support for the scheme and contribution-in-kind principles. This is pending their internal sign-off. We will continue to consult with stakeholders as design work continues over the coming months.

Tilbury Fort to former Power Station

We have recently engaged with key stakeholders, including Historic England, English Heritage and Thurrock Council on the long term solutions for these defences. We are finalising the appraisal report for Tilbury Fort to former Power Station and further site investigations into the condition of elements of the defences are helping to inform the residual life of the defences including any short to medium term repair options. This work is scheduled for completion in October 2019.

88

Canvey Island Southern Shoreline

This project is appraising options to replace the existing revetment along the defences of southern amenity shoreline on Canvey Island. We have recently met with Castle Point Borough Council officers and the chair of the Castle Point Regeneration Partnership to continue refinement of the preferred revetment option. Further design work will continue over the coming months including workshops with local stakeholders.

Canvey Island Flood Barriers

The appraisal for Benfleet, Fobbing and Easthaven barriers is in the process of being finalised. This will include a review of the reliability of various barrier components including diesel engines, backup generators, heating, ventilation, hydraulic and electrical systems, and site security. This will help to inform future maintenance and improvement works.

Tilbury Barrier Maintenance

In addition to the replacement of the existing Tilbury barrier haulage and winch ropes completed in October 2018, we will be carrying out inspection of the spare hydraulic motors and barrier rollers in the coming months. This work will ensure continued reliability of the existing barrier until the new Tilbury Dual Function Lock Gate project is complete, at which time the existing barrier can be decommissioned.

89

3.2 Programme Funding

We are looking to work in partnership with beneficiaries throughout the Thames Estuary, to explore potential contribution options to deliver the TEAM2100 programme. The following updates relate to key beneficiaries met within 2019 to-date within the Anglian Eastern RFCC area.

South East Local Enterprise Partnership We met the Essex Developer’s Group (EDG) in early December 2018. We presented the TEAM2100 Programme along with the wider TE2100 Plan. The EDG works with the Government, housing minister, Homes England and South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) to accelerate housing delivery and affordable homes. Our presentation was well-received and led to a joint teleconference with EDG and also Kent Developer Group representatives to discuss the merits of, and next steps towards, a document which gives developers visibility of provisional costs for future defence raising as well as minimum requirements for site appraisal. Next steps are for support for the document to be gained via presentation to the planning officer group representatives in the SELEP area of the outer estuary. It is considered that SELEP itself is less likely to be a direct cash contributor to the TEAM2100 programme, but a longer-term strategic partner to the delivery of the TE2100 Plan.

Network Rail

We met with the Interim Director for Route Asset Management Anglia on 4 March 2019. Our presentation of the TE2100 Plan and the TEAM2100 programme was well received. An appetite was shown by Network Rail for a follow-up meeting specific to Thames Estuary and to better understand longer-term impacts upon rail infrastructure, such as the stretch of line crossing Hadleigh Marsh which serves Southend. We are working with Network Rail to schedule the next meeting. In-kind contributions towards the TEAM2100 Plan appear to be the most likely form of contribution, such as provision of delayed service payment data and waiving Asset Protection Agreement fees – pending further National leads work. We also have an opportunity to influence Weather Resilience & Climate Change Adaptation Plans for the Anglia Route. They are an unlikely cash contributor to the TEAM2100 programme given their Control Period 5 has just commenced up to 2024 with funds already committed outside the Thames Estuary.

90

Anglian Water Services Ltd We have now received a letter of intent from Anglian Water’s Partnership Funding lead to support for our TEAM2100 business case submissions. The letter outlines that Anglian Water are working in partnership with us to understand the benefits of the TEAM2100 programme to their business. This will enable Anglian Water to proceed with their governance process to authorise proportionate contributions to within their AMP7 programme (2020-25).

Local Councils

A series of meetings have been held with numerous representatives from Thurrock Council to discuss TEAM2100 planned works in the patch in further detail. Conversations have covered possible contribution in-kind aspects of council services, such as land access and access to expertise within the planning department for example.

3.3 Wider Engagement

Essex Coastal Forum We look forward to updating the Essex Coastal Forum on the latest progress on delivering actions in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (the Plan) and the TEAM2100 Programme. We will be making a short presentation before facilitating three site visits (including Worlds End pumping station and Tilbury Fort) following the Forum’s July meeting held in Thurrock. The aim of the session will give a chance for attendees to understand the role of their organisation in delivering the aspirations of the Plan and some of the challenges the implementation and delivery programme teams are facing.


A. Note and support the progress with the appraisal and delivery stages of existing

projects B. Note and support the engagement work being undertaken in order to develop the

programme. C. Share this information and promote the work we are doing in the Anglian Eastern

RFCC area.

Peta Denham FCERM Manager

Mark Johnson Coastal Manager

Dave Knagg Operations Manager

91

Thames Estuary 2100 - 2018/19 Implementation Plan council reporting headlines

Which department were respondees from?

Lead Local Flood Authority Local Planning Authority

More clarity on what is

required for delivery

Insufficient resource/skills

to progress objective

Believe another

organisation should be

responsible

Key factors affecting councils’ confidence in delivering their objectives

*the 27 councils includes Kent County Council, Essex County Council and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation which are not shown on map, with the latter two responding

17 of 27 councils sent a response to the survey*

92

MBASSETT

Text Box

Appendix 1

MBASSETT

Text Box

Thames Estuary 2100 - 2018/19 Implementation Plan council reporting headlines

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. Reliance onexistingplanningpolicies

2. Nodevelopmentproposed in

tidalareas/along

Thames

3. Countycouncil/GLA

could be betterplaced to

create a morestrategicriversidestrategy

4. Individuallocal planning

authoritiesbetter placed

to createriverside

strategies

5. Signpostingto other

organisation'sstrategies

6. Awaitingfurther

guidance

7. Not astatutory

requirement

8. Difficult toprioritise staff

time andresources

9. Unlikely toproduce an

extra planningdocument for

this assufficient

material inplace to

ensure highquality

development

Barriers identified by councils in delivering the riverside strategy approach

Councils with a programme of works in place to address local flood risk

Yes

No

Defences can be raised to the required height

Land needed for flood defencesidentified and available when

required

Development is not encroaching into the river or

floodplain

Intertidal habitat created where appropriate

The riverside provides increased natural capital

Council confidence in achieving outcomes from riverside

developments

Councils who could confidently state that all new development granted planning permission at risk

of tidal flooding had an approved emergency flood plan in place

Yes No

93

Implementing the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan in Thurrock Council

June 2019

This document sets out the recommendations for Thurrock Council contained in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (the Plan), and is aimed at the different council teams likely to be involved in delivery. These include, but should not be restricted to, those involved in strategic planning, development management, housing delivery, economic growth, regeneration, infrastructure delivery, managing local flood risk and emergency planning. There are specific actions outlined in this document for your Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority teams. There are also key messages for all teams, managers and councillors to use when engaging about Thames Estuary 2100 with partners and stakeholders.

Contents What is the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan? ................................................................................................ 1

What does the Plan mean for Thurrock Council? .................................................................................... 2

Key messages ...................................................................................................................................... 2

What is the flood risk policy for Thurrock Council? .............................................................................. 2

Key facts ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Roles and responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 4

Map of land use requirements ............................................................................................................. 6

Delivering the Plan ................................................................................................................................... 7

Planning Authority role ......................................................................................................................... 7

Lead Local Flood Authority role ........................................................................................................... 9

Environment Agency contacts ................................................................................................................. 9

Further sources of information ............................................................................................................... 10

What is the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan? The Plan sets out how the Environment Agency and our partners can work together to manage tidal flood risk, from now until the end of the century. It covers the Thames Estuary from Teddington in the west, to the mouth of the estuary at Shoeburyness (north bank) and Sheerness (south bank). It is an adaptive plan, ensuring current standards of flood protection provided by the existing tidal defence system are maintained or improved taking into account climate change effects e.g. sea level rise. The Plan has 3 phases of activity:

Until 2035 – maintain and improve current defences, safeguard areas required for future improvements, and monitor climate change indicators.

2035-2050 – raise existing walls, defences & smaller barriers whilst reshaping the riverside environment.

2050-2100 – determine and implement an option for the future of the Thames Barrier, and adapt other defences as required to work alongside this to protect the estuary.

Appendix 2

94

What does the Plan mean for Thurrock Council?

Key messages The requirements for flood risk management in your area include raising of defences (in certain

areas) together with the routine activities of inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of defences as required. You have a responsibility to maintain any defences you own and raise them as needed, as well as influencing raising of privately owned defences through development.

Raising the defences on the existing ‘footprint’ would achieve the flood risk management objectives of the Plan but would not provide any wider landscape or environmental benefits and could introduce a barrier to viewing the river from the landward side. There is an opportunity to improve the riverside both when defences are raised and repaired/replaced, with the potential to improve public spaces, access, and to create new habitats. This is referred to in the Plan as the riverside strategy approach, which encourages partners to work together to implement improvements to the riverside in an integrated way.

Thames Estuary Asset Management 2100 (TEAM2100) is a programme of works to maintain and improve existing flood defences, one of the first steps to deliver the Plan. A significant proportion of the programme will be funded by central government. However, we are required to secure contributions from those who benefit from protection in the estuary. We can share further information on specific projects and funding gaps, and seek support in finding contributions as the programme develops.

We have developed an Implementation Plan which breaks down the Plan into objectives, some of which you are responsible for. It’s important that you understand your role in delivery, so please contact us if you require any further training/information. This document contains a summary of your objectives, and we will work with you to report on them each year.

We urge you to act as an advocate of the Plan so that it is understood throughout your Council and with your external partners, and to ensure your objectives are reflected in key documents and plans.

What is the flood risk policy for Thurrock Council? The Plan divides the estuary into 23 policy units which are each assigned a flood risk management policy depending on the acceptable level of flood risk based upon what is being defended. Policies dictate the programme of flood defence maintenance and improvement activities.

The Thurrock Council area contains a small part of the Rainham Marshes policy unit and the Purfleet Grays and Tilbury policy unit which have a P4 policy. This means we need to take further action to keep pace with climate change. This will be achieved by improvements to the defences including embankments, walls and flood barriers.

The Thurrock Council area also contains the southern part of the Shell Haven and Fobbing Marshes policy unit and the East Tilbury & Mucking Marshes policy unit which have a P3 policy. This means we need to maintain flood defences at their current level accepting that the likelihood and/or consequences of a flood will increase because of climate change. The Shell Haven and Fobbing Marshes policy unit is, however, supplemented with proposed defence raising on the southern frontage on the River Thames.

95

Please see the map of land use requirements for the range of policies and those assigned in the Thurrock Council area, along with the specific measures that are currently planned.

Key facts

Our recommended works up to 2050 will protect people and properties at risk from tidal flooding in the Thames Estuary. Within the Rainham Marshes policy unit (which is not necessarily limited to just within your Council’s boundaries), this could see:

Within the Purfleet, Grays & Tilbury policy unit (which is not necessarily limited to just within your Council’s boundaries), this could see:

Within the Shellhaven and Fobbing policy unit (which is not necessarily limited to just within your Council’s boundaries), this could see:

£1.2 billion of economic benefits

721 homes better protected

£3.2 billion of economic benefits

9,295 homes better protected

£1 billion of economic benefits


18,439 properties

… at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in theThurrock Council area (23% of all properties). This is under the present day extreme flood event without defences in place. With the impacts of climate change,this risk is expected to increase.

96

Within the East Tilbury & Mucking Marshes policy unit (which is not necessarily limited to just within your Council’s boundaries), this could see:

The tidal flood defences in the Thurrock Council area consist of both ‘hard defences’ (generally concrete or steel sheet pile walls) and embankments as follows:

Hard defences: most of the Purfleet, Grays & Tilbury policy unit; the Shellhaven and Fobbing Marshes policy unit south of the Fobbing Horse Barrier; some of the East Tilbury policy unit;

Embankment defences: Rainham policy unit; some of the East Tilbury policy unit; the Shellhaven and Fobbing Marshes policy unit north of the Fobbing Horse Barrier.

The map of land use requirements shows the requirements for these defences under the Plan.

Roles and responsibilities

Partner Role in delivery

Environment Agency

Developed the Plan in partnership with key stakeholders, now act as custodians and work with partners to ensure delivery.

Lead role in delivery through our responsibilities as the operational authority for coastal/tidal flooding. This includes regulating permits for works to flood defences, inspecting defences, and as a statutory advisor to councils in the planning process. We also have permissive powers to enable us to deliver works on the ground on behalf of the landowner where required.

Developed an Implementation Plan to break down individual actions that need to be taken by different organisations to successfully implement the Plan.

TEAM2100 project team (integrated delivery team consisting of Environment Agency and partners)

Deliver TEAM2100 programme, a 10 year programme (2015-2025) to refurbish and replace existing tidal flood defences, one of the key first steps in delivering the Plan.

Work in partnership with beneficiaries in the Thames Estuary to explore opportunities to work together and secure funding required to improve defences.

Consult relevant officers at Thurrock Council as projects progress within your boundary.

£210 million of economic benefits


97

Thurrock Council Through your role as a Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority, deliver recommendations as set out in the Implementation Plan objectives (see Delivering the Plan section for further information).

Take local ownership of the Plan, ensuring recognition by all levels of the council from officers to councillors, and providing sufficient resources for delivery.

Support the required flood defence projects through raising of external contributions and ensuring stakeholder buy-in.

98

Map of land use requirements

Specific maps were provided to the council

This page is blank

99

Delivering the Plan

Planning Authority role Your role as a Planning Authority is crucial in delivering the Plan’s recommendations. The planning system provides opportunities to implement the necessary improvements to the tidal flood defences (including raising of defences) and ensure that the ability to deliver flood risk management requirements are not compromised through unsuitable development proposals. As the decision maker, you need to ensure individual planning application decisions and strategic planning documents align with the Plan’s requirements in your Council area. We will support you in this in our role as a statutory consultee in the planning process.

Implementation Plan objectives The annual objectives in the Implementation Plan that Thurrock Council are responsible for leading on as a Planning Authority are outlined below. We will look to work with you at the beginning of each financial year to agree the actions that need to be delivered, and the reporting mechanisms for providing us with updates on progress made.

Objective number

Action

SMART 11 Tidal riverside developments, both residential and commercial, incorporate opportunities to improve flood defences and to enhance the riverside environment, including creating better access to the river. This should be in line with the principles of the riverside strategy approach developed or considered in SMART_73.

SMART 38 Ensure all new developments at risk of tidal flooding have an approved emergency flood plan in place.

SMART 73 Incorporate the riverside strategy approach into strategic planning for areas which cover the riverside. This will provide policy/guidance for new development on the riverside.

SMART 109 Create, adopt and apply policies to ensure developments and redevelopments do not increase local flood risk (e.g. through the use of SuDS) and take into account the impact of climate change including increased tide locking as a result of sea level rise.

SMART 122 Safeguard land required to site a future Thames Barrier at the Long Reach location as described in the supporting information (see your Implementation Plan).

SMART 123 Support contingency planning to allow for the construction of a barrier at Tilbury/Gravesend within the area described in the supporting information, should a high end climate change scenario be realised.

Key Considerations

Strategic planning documents

Within your strategic plans you should include a specific commitment to work with your partners, including us, to ensure development proposals implement the recommendations of the Plan. This will keep communities safe from flooding in a changing climate and improve the local environment, through ensuring new developments reduce flood risk now and in the future.

We advise all strategic plans and policies should include specific requirements to:

100

Maintain, enhance or replace flood defence walls, banks and flood control structures to provide adequate protection for the lifetime of the development, including ensuring adequate provision of space for this in regeneration or local plan allocation areas;

Seek opportunities to raise existing tidal flood defences to the required levels in preparation for future climate change impacts, or demonstrate how defences can be raised to the required levels in the future through submission of plans and cross-sections of the proposed raising;

Demonstrate the provision of improved access to existing defences, or where opportunities exist to realign or set back defences;

Provide landscape, amenity and habitat improvements, where appropriate, in line with the riverside strategy approach (see Taking a riverside strategy approach section);

Safeguard land for future defence raising (see Land requirements section);

Secure financial contributions from partners in order to enable flood defence works.

Land requirements

It is important to consider the requirements for safeguarding land. Areas where land is required alongside defences for maintenance or improvement in the Thurrock Council area is shown on the map of land use of requirements.

Land is required for continued maintenance of the flood defences. Corridors of land along the existing defence lines should be safeguarded for this reason. This should include space for vehicle access for maintenance and repair of the defences.

When the defences are raised, space will be needed for the defence engineering works. We suggest that the width of land that should be safeguarded for future flood risk management interventions on the Thames could be of the order of 20 metres. More space may be required especially if wider improvements are to be achieved. This will also depend on the particular site, the defence type and proposed riverside improvements, and should be discussed and agreed with us using the Environment Agency contacts below.

You as the Planning Authority should ensure that when considering planning applications that fall within the potential locations for siting a new future Barrier, they should take into account the likely need to construct a new Thames Barrier. Specially you should ensure all planning applications that are submitted not compromise the ability to construct and operate a barrier at these locations and allow for barrier construction from 2050 onwards. This could include approving suitable interim uses for the land. Local Plans should also safeguard the land that could be required for a future Thames Barrier.

Whilst we have identified Long Reach as the preferred zone for a new Thames Barrier based on current climate change projections, there is a possibility, under higher sea level rise scenarios, the Tilbury reach of the river could be a preferred location for the future barrier.

Taking a riverside strategy approach

We encourage you to adopt a riverside strategy approach in your local plans, strategies and guidance documents. This concept was introduced in the Plan as a way for local planning authorities to ensure that future changes to the riverside take place in a planned and integrated way which maximise the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits. We encourage you to work with your partners to ensure improvements to the riverside align with other relevant plans and strategies.

101

9

There is the opportunity to improve the riverside both when defences are raised and when they are repaired or replaced. Raising the defences on the existing ‘footprint’ would achieve the flood risk management objectives of the Plan but would not provide any wider landscape or environmental benefits and could introduce a barrier to viewing the river from the landward side. If planned for, there is the potential to achieve significant improvements when undertaking flood defence works, at modest cost. This includes improved public spaces, access, and potential creation of new habitats.

We have produced a separate guidance document which sets out our aspirations for the riverside strategy approach and what this means for you as our partner. We can also provide examples for improving the riverside. See Further sources of information section.

Funding

The defence improvement works could be included in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 123 lists, with funding through CIL used to contribute to the costs of flood defence works. Similarly, Section106 should be used to secure funding for works where possible. You should consider making applications for Housing Infrastructure Fund to support viability of developments where flood defence infrastructure is required.

For more information relating to land requirements or projects that require funding, please contact us via the details provided in the Environment Agency contacts section.

Lead Local Flood Authority role Your role as a Lead Local Flood Authority plays an important part in delivering the recommendations of the Plan. Where delivering your local flood risk management works, there should be an alignment with the required works as set out in the Plan. In particular, there should be consideration of the interaction between tidal flood risk and the other sources of flooding, e.g. surface water. It is therefore necessary for you to have a strong awareness of what the Thames Estuary 2100 requirements are in your local area, including any improvements that will likely be required to drainage outfalls as sea levels rise and storm rainfall increases.

Implementation Plan objectives The annual objectives in the Implementation Plan that Thurrock Council are responsible for leading on as a Lead Local Flood Authority are outlined below. We will look to work with you at the beginning of each financial year to agree the actions that need to be delivered, and the reporting mechanisms for providing us with updates on progress made.

Objective number

Action

SMART 58 Develop (or update) and implement programmes of works which address local flood risk where the flood risk is caused, exacerbated or interacts with tidal flood risks (i.e. tide locking).

Environment Agency contacts

Contact for Name Contact details

Planning enquiries Pat Abbott, Sustainable Places

[email protected] or [email protected]

102

10

Implementation Plan enquiries

Kat Dedman, Thames Estuary 2100

[email protected] or [email protected]

Further sources of information

The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames- estuary-2100-te2100.

We have created a ‘Thames Estuary 2100 Plan council group’ on Knowledge Hub. Please sign up at www.khub.net, searching for the group using this name. Along with other helpful documents, including a copy of this briefing, it contains the guidance note on the riverside strategy approach.

Flood risk activity permit information- Under the terms of the Environmental Permitting Regulations, a Flood Risk Activity Permit is required from the Environment Agency for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 16 metres of a tidal flood defence asset, and in, under, over, or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of a watercourse designated a ‘main river’. Details of lower risk activities that may be excluded or exempt from the Permitting Regulations can be found on the gov.uk website. A permit is separate to and in addition to any planning permission granted. The consent form and accompanying guidance can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities- environmental-permits.

Owning a watercourse- This is an Environment Agency guide that explains responsibilities and rules to follow for watercourses on or near your property, and permissions needed to do work around them. It can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/riverside-ownership-rights-and- responsibilities.

103

BLANK PAGE

104

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ANGLIAN REGION



Subject: FCERM Programme Update 2019/20 Quarter 1 – Current in-year position


Aaron Dixey, FCERM Programme Senior Team Leader

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee is asked to note:

A. The Quarter 1 2019/20 capital and revenue programming and budget position B. The RFCC contribution to the overall national targets and programme performance to

date

1. Managing the programme 1.1 To ensure we are able to manage the programme effectively it is recommended that

at each meeting RFCCs will:

Note the programme, including the projects consented within the programme Confirm the programme remains deliverable and there is confidence in achieving

the outcomes Consider requests made for local funding

1.2 This paper assists the committee in the above by providing the last in-year update and

capital and revenue programme position for financial year 2019/20. It contains the information as presented to the Environment Agency East Anglia Area, Delivery Portfolio Board on 24 May 2019.

1.3 Please refer to the ‘Glossary of terms used in FCRM programming and financial management’

that is included in the members handbook. 2. Summary of 2019/20 (1 April 2019– 17 May 2019)

Element Report Section Current Position Mitigation

Level of Concern (LMH)

Grant-in-Aid Position

3 The current GiA capital forecast (all RMAs) is £38.8m, against a budget allocation of £36.4m.

N/A – at this point in the year it is usual to forecast above the budget i.e. an over programme.

Local Funding Position

4 GDC and IDBP is expected to be fully used. Local Levy is not expected to be needed to support the revenue maintenance programme during 2019/20.

N/A

Changes to project forecasts

5 Forecast of GiA has increased by £2.4m since the start of year allocation.

N/A

Efficiency Savings

6(a) Efficiency submissions for Q1 total are £0.25m

All RMAs need to remember to submit efficiency claims.

L

L

M

L

105

Financial Risk

6(b) There is approximately £4.8m risk

of overspend in the programme if risks (e.g. bad weather) materialise. Projects holding the largest risks are Tilbury Dual function Lock Gate and Great Yarmouth Epoch 2.

N/A - This is not unusual.

New projects 7 There have been no brand new projects with approval to spend this financial year (up to 17th May 2019).

New projects to be introduced are agreed nationally each month and introduced if budget is available and outcomes are likely to be achieved.

Partnership contributions

8 The non GiA contributions to the 2019/20 capital programme, including local levy, is currently forecast for is £25.4m. The largest non GiA spend is for Bacton Gas Terminal to Ostend Coastal Management Scheme.

Although the partnership funding risk is low for the current year, identification of contributions for use in future years remains of paramount importance for the success of the programme. Considerable thought and training of officers is taking place to identify beneficiaries and understand how to gain partnership funding.

Outcome Measures

9 The outcome measure forecast for 2019/20 is 1361 (OM2 + 3), which is 101 higher than the start of year target of 1260.

We continue to review projects to ensure that every outcome that can be claimed, is being claimed. Opportunity projects are being introduced into the programme as soon as we have good confidence that delivery will take place this financial year (see section 7 above).

KPI 962 (% of assets at required condition)

10 KPI 962 (assets at target condition) forecast is currently 98.2% against a target of 98.2%.

We are mindful that the current good performance could easily be undermined by a flood event, as failure rates remain particularly high in this part of the country.

3. Grant-in-Aid Position 3.1 In Anglian Eastern RFCC the capital GiA budget across all RMAs is £36.4m. The

latest forecast reported on 17 May 2019 shows an increase of £2.4m. 3.2 The largest component of the GiA budget reported in 3.1 above is for EA projects. For

EA GiA the current budget is £28.4m against which the latest Environment Agency forecast for spending is £30.5m. This represents a forecast of £1.9m above the start of year allocation.

3.3 For EA GiA revenue maintenance the budget is £8.7m. The May 2019 forecast for

revenue maintenance activities matches this budget - see figure 3.1 below.

Please note that revenue maintenance expenditure undertaken by RMAs other than the EA is not reported on in this paper.

L

L

L

L

L

106

Figure 3.1: 2019/20 Environment Agency expenditure position

3.4 The IDB and LA capital programmes for Anglian (Eastern) RFCC are represented

below in Figure 3.2.

3.5 The IDB capital programme is forecasting £1.5m which matches the start of year budget. The LA capital programme is forecasting £6.4m which is £0.5m greater than the start of year budget.

Figure 3.2: 2019/20 Other Risk Management Authorities capital expenditure position

4. Local Funding Position 4.1 Local Levy for 2019/20 is made up of the start of year balance transferred from

2019/20 plus the income expected for 2019/20, which together gave a budget of £8.7m.

4.2 The RFCC has agreed to retain flexibility around the use of Local Levy for revenue

maintenance activities and set aside £450k per year for use on revenue maintenance, if needed – this has not been needed for financial year 2019/20.

4.3 Forecast for Local Levy expenditure for 2019/20 is £4.9m of capital expenditure - this

represents a reduction in forecast of £2.1m since the start of year. The remaining Local

107

Levy balance is earmarked for projects in accordance with the list provided to the Committee in January 2019.

4.4 GDC and IDB budgets are forecast to be fully used during 2019/20. 5. Changes to project forecasts 8.1 Project forecasts vary throughout the year as opportunities and risks materialise. The

table below lists the largest project variances when compared to the start of year allocation. Please note these are total values across all funding sources.

Figure 5.1: Key Project variances since 1 April 2019

6. Efficiencies and Risks

6.1 DRAFT submissions for Q1 2019/20 total £0.25m. Our aim is to achieve efficiencies equating to 10% of the GiA spend each year and to hit this target we would need another £3.63m of accepted submissions during the year.

6.2 A project risk can be defined as an event which could negatively affect the scheme’s

delivery. Some risks have the potential to affect the spend and/or the benefits of the scheme. Risk in the programme is managed throughout the year and, where realised, reported each quarter as significant change to project forecast (known as a programme variance) – see section 5.

6.3 Risk of underspend or overspend is monitored closely throughout the year – the ‘risk’

allowance for each project is expected to reduce throughout the year as confidence is gained around what can be achieved before year end.

6.4 The current forecast for financial risk (17 May) is for around £4.9m overspend, should

the risks materialise. 7. Additional Projects within the Programme and other expenditure opportunities 7.1 There have been no brand new projects with approval to spend this financial year (as

of 17th May 2019).

108

8. Partnership funding

8.1 One of the 6 year capital programme settlement conditions was to secure more than

15% of partnership funding contributions between 2015 and 2021. The non GiA contributions forecast for projects during 2019/20 are listed in table 8.1 below.

Figure 8.1: Partnership contributions spent on projects during 2019/20

9. RFCC contribution to national Outcome Measure delivery 9.1 The suite of Outcome Measures defined in the ‘Glossary of terms used in FCRM

programming and financial management’ is included in the members’ handbook. Outcomes are used to highlight the benefits achieved by carrying out capital projects. Nationally, the commitment to government is that we reduce flood risk (OM2), or risk

109

from coastal erosion (OM3), to 300,000 households between April 2015 and 2021. This Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) period is the key target for all Risk Management Authorities and - to provide confidence in achieving this target - figures are split down into individual years and RFCCs.

9.2 Figure 9.1 shows the outcome measures expected to be delivered in 2019/20.

Current forecast is for achievement of 1361 OM 2+3, which is 101 greater than our target of 1260.

Figure 9.1: Outcome Measures forecast for delivery in 2019/20

10. Asset Condition Performance 10.1 The revenue maintenance programme helps to prevent assets from falling below

their target condition; whilst our capital recondition programme restores assets to their target condition. This is measured as KPI 962 (see Glossary of Terms used in FCRM programming and financial management).

10.2 KPI delivery remains challenging due to failure rates and staff resources. However,

the forecast for KPI 962 is currently 98.2% against a target of 98.2%. 11. Recommendations 11.1 The Committee is asked to note:

The Q1 2019/20 capital and revenue programming and budget position; and The RFCC contribution to the overall national targets and programme

performance to date. Aaron Dixey FCRM Programme Senior Team Leader

110

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – ESSEX NORFOLK SUFFOLK AREA



Subject: INCIDENT RESPONSE

Date 19 July 2019 Officer Responsible:

Peta Denham (Area Flood Risk Manager) Graham Verrier (Norfolk & Suffolk Operations Manager) David Knagg (Essex Operations Manager)

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to : A. Note and support the ongoing work of the local officers with our multi-agency

partners across Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk B. Note and support the community engagement work we undertake to improve

community resilience C. Note and support ongoing efforts to technically improve the warning service and

make it more effective and accessible for the public and partners

1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 This paper is to make the Committee aware of the ongoing work of local teams to build

relationships with our partner organisations, to ensure efficient and effective multi-agency responses to flooding; improve awareness and resilience in our communities at risk and to maintain and improve the technical capabilities of the flood warning service in Essex Norfolk and Suffolk.

1.2 Incident Management contacts

David Young – Incident Manager

[email protected]

James Williams – Flood Resilience Team Leader

[email protected]

Charlie Fisher [email protected]

Alex Kerr [email protected]

Tina Starling [email protected]

Carol Mayston – RFCC Engagement Specialist

[email protected]

111

2. Incident Response

Mutual Aid to Lincolnshire

Following the heavy rain during the early part of June a number of our staff volunteered to help colleagues dealing with the major incident at Wainfleet in Lincolnshire. This provides people with invaluable experience in incident response and helps them learn first-hand how to respond to major incidents, which thankfully rarely happen. Mutual aid also strengthens our ties with other areas of the Environment Agency, building strong working relationships that help us respond to any future incidents

Graham Verrier’s view from the Lincolnshire Incident room at 0430 in the morning and flood alerts and warnings on the 12th June.

3. Community Engagement Activity

The beginning of the summer means the start of the show season and we started our summer community engagement in Southend at the get ready for summer event organised with all our professional partners in Essex. It was a blustery day during the spring half term but we were well setup using the new Incident Command Unit that is kept at our National Depot in Ely. The Incident Command Unit will be an invaluable resource in incidents. It allows us to setup a mobile incident room with access to the internet and power for our staff in the field as well as many other useful features.

112

We also visited Northgate Primary School in Great Yarmouth. The day gave us the opportunity to continue to educate children who live in a high risk flood area having met many of them before at crucial crew. The day allowed us to have longer discussions with the children about flood risk and the things they can do to prepare and what to do in the event of a flood. We ran a number of activities which children enjoy like the model of a flooded home and they also started to create a flood plan. This is so that the children take this home with them and discuss the need to be prepared for flooding with their parents.

4. Training and exercising The Summer of 2018 was unexpectedly dry for a prolonged period of time. With limited rainfall, we saw a sharp increase in the number of incidents involving low levels of dissolved oxygen in the rivers, which resulted in fish deaths throughout Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. Learning from the lessons of last year, we took the opportunity to improve the way we work across the business to respond to this type of incident.

Norfolk and Suffolk field teams deploying aerators working with EM duty staff and Suffolk Community

Information officers.

Throughout April and May of this year, we have been conducting weekly responses to simulated incidents throughout Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. The exercises were based on the responses of 2018, and were structured to simulate a live response as closely as possible. Our staff participated by employing their duty role responsibilities for the duration of the training scenario, using new procedures and partnerships that have been developed following 2018. As an area we have since moved from “Prolonged Dry Weather” status, to “Drought”. Which means that we are likely to be responding to numerous low dissolved oxygen level incidents this summer. However, because of the number of training scenarios we ran in anticipation of this, over 100 individual duty staff have experienced what it’s like to respond to an incident of this nature. Most importantly they are more confident in using the kit and rapid deployment to a river anywhere in our area.

113

5. EU Exit As EU exit has been extended until the 31 October we expect that this will start to dominate our incident response planning activities again. We will keep the RFCC informed as time progresses. It may be that we have to stop, slow and reset other activities that would be routine for us, in order to make room for the escalation of EU Exit activities.

6. RECOMMENDATION 6.1 The Committee is asked to:

A. Note and support the ongoing work of the local officers with our multi-agency partners across Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk.

B. Note and support the community engagement work we undertake to improve community resilience

C. Note and support ongoing efforts to technically improve the warning service and make it more effective and accessible for the public and partners

Peta Denham (Area Flood Risk Manager)

Graham Verrier (Norfolk & Suffolk Operations Manager)

David Knagg (Essex Operations Manager)

114



Meeting:


Subject:

FLOOD AND COASTAL EROSION RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE, JUNE 2019


Julie Foley (Director of Flood Risk Strategy & National Adaptation)

RECOMMENDATION

The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to: A. Note the June 2019 Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management News and

Updates.

1. Planning for the Future

Wainfleet Flooding 1.1 Our teams have been working around the clock to respond to major flooding in

Lincolnshire. Around 130mm of rain fell in two days, which is more than twice the monthly average for the area. 188 properties flooded across Lincolnshire, 54 from rivers and 133 from other sources. The rainfall caused a breach in the bank of the relief channel north of Wainfleet due to pressure from the water.

1.2 A multi-agency response saw an RAF Chinook helicopter brought in to reinforce the

bank with more than 340 tonnes of bagged sand after residents in the village of Wainfleet were evacuated from their homes. We brought in ultra-high volume pumps to help the flood water drain away.

1.3 In her opening remarks for this week’s Prime Minister's Questions, Theresa May

praised the work of the Environment Agency in dealing with the flooding. She said: “In recent days and weeks we have seen flooding across the country. This has been particularly severe in Lincolnshire. I pay tribute to the work of the emergency services, our military, the Environment Agency and all those working on the ground to help those affected.”

Flood and Coast 2019 1.4 The Environment Agency convened the fourth Flood and Coast Conference from 18 -

20 June 2019 in collaboration with conference organisers Trio. The Advisory Committee did an excellent job inviting presentations and papers which shaped the conference programme.

1.5 This year’s event supported the development and implementation of the new

National FCERM Strategy and built on renewed energy in the public debate around climate change. Each day was focused on one of the themes from the strategy: Day 1: A climate resilient nation: a shared vision to 2100. Day 2: Todays infrastructure resilient in tomorrow’s climate. Day 3: Digital, skills and the work we need to do together to build a nation of

climate champions. 1.6 There were many great presentations, discussions and debates over the 3 days of

the conference. Emma Greenwood, Youth MP for Bury, brilliantly illustrated what we need from a nation of climate champions. Emma challenged us all to talk about the

115

decisions and actions we must take, make them real, show that everyone can make a difference and make it now. Her challenge to us to act on behalf of young people was inspirational.

Draft FCERM Strategy 2100 Consultation – have you had your say! 1.7 On 9 May we launched the start of our consultation on the draft national flood and

coastal erosion risk (FCERM) management strategy for England. The draft strategy marked the culmination of engagement with over 90 organisations. In his climate change speech last year, the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, recognised that we need to “explore new philosophies around flood and coast management”. We called on people, businesses and partners to play their part by letting us have their views.

1.8 The draft strategy sets out a national ambition for England. Every place is different

and there is no one size fits all solution to flood and coastal resilience. We need to put people and local communities at the heart of decision making. The strategy is a key commitment in the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan) and sets out how together we can reduce the risk of harm to people, the environment, and the economy from flooding and coastal change.

1.9 The draft strategy sets out a vision for “a nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding

and coastal change – today, tomorrow and to the year 2100”. It has three ambitions: Climate resilient places. Today’s growth and infrastructure to be resilient in tomorrow’s climate. A nation of climate champions, able to adapt to flooding and coastal change

through innovation. 1.10 The public consultation closed on the 4 July and we hope that you were able to

respond so that your views can be heard. https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/fcrm/national-strategy-public

Long Term Investment Scenarios (LTIS) 2019 1.11 LTIS brings together our understanding of long-term investment scenarios for flood

and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM). It uses new climate change, population and mapping data to set out potential future scenarios, assessing the costs and benefits of long-term investment to meet these challenges.

1.12 LTIS is evidence which government and others will use to consider future policy and

investment choices. LTIS 2019 has already been used as part of the evidence base for the FCERM 2100 Strategy.

116

1.13 We have published the LTIS 2019 key findings on gov.uk

(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-risk-management-in-england-long-term-investment/long-term-investment-scenarios-ltis-2019) . We have also developed an interactive web-based visualization tool (http://ltis.jacobscloud.com/) that draws on the 8,000 scenario outputs from some of the national LTIS outputs. The LTIS Visualizer allows users to see the effects of national investment choices for different FCERM options, and find the mix of national investments that gives the best value for money.

1.14 Contact: Mike Steel - [email protected] Spending Review 2019 1.15 We are working with all departments across the Environment Agency and the

Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) to develop a range of funding scenarios for consideration in Spending Review 2019 (SR19). We are listening to feedback and seeking to make changes to the partnership funding rules and key outcomes of the future investment programme. We are putting more emphasis on the wider benefits that flood and coastal erosion schemes achieve for people, the environment, local economy and other infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, road and rail. We expect the settlement to be announced in the 2019 Autumn Budget.

1.16 Contact: Thomasin Meadley - [email protected] Apprenticeships 1.17 We have recently led the development of a new Level 3 Water Environment Worker

Apprenticeship Standard. We are also in the process of confirming national training provisions and plan to start enrolling apprentices in September 2019.

1.18 The Level 3 Water Environment Worker Apprenticeship Standard was created with

partners from across the sector. We should see a range of public and private sector employers start to enrol their own apprentices onto this standard later in the year. The standard is designed to support the training and development needs of a range of occupations involved in the management of the water environment. The apprentices will focus on creating a safe environment where people can enjoy our water environments and the surrounding land and buildings, whilst protecting the environment, and creating habitats for species to thrive.

1.19 In 2020, the government is introducing T Levels, which are two-year programmes

equivalent to A Levels and to Level 3 Apprenticeships. We are looking at what role we could play in supporting T Levels and how they could attract and develop the next generation of climate change champions.

1.20 Contact: Paul Cross - [email protected] 2. Working with others The 6 year Capital Investment Programme 2.1 We are in to the final 2 years of our 6 year capital investment programme and we

remain on track to deliver our target of 300,000 homes better protected from flooding and coastal erosion by March 2021. Over the first 4 years of the programme, the Environment Agency and other Risk Management Authorities have better protected over 193,000 homes, against a target of 185,000 at this point in the programme. This is a significant achievement by all those involved.

117

2.2 We have also secured a total of £486m partnership funding contributions to date

within the current 6 year programme. We are confident we will secure the remaining partnership funding contributions required, and meet our settlement condition of 10% capital efficiencies over the life of the programme. We remain confident we will reach our target of better protecting 300,000 homes by 2021. However, we will continue to work with our partners across the country to manage capital programme delivery and put in place interventions to ensure a successful outcome.

2.3 Earlier this year, we published our updated capital investment programme on gov.uk

(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/programme-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management-schemes) setting out the planned programme of works for the final 2 years. This is a live programme and is updated each year. We are about to commence our final refresh of this current 6 year programme.

2.4 Contact: Andrew Oram - [email protected] Natural Flood Management update 2.5 Natural Flood Management (NFM) provides the opportunity to manage flood and

coastal erosion risk by protecting, restoring and emulating the natural processes of catchments, rivers, floodplains and coasts. In the 2016 Autumn Statement the government allocated £15m to 60 projects across England, creating the NFM programme, in order to learn more about these interventions.

2.6 As of May 2019, 50 projects have started work on the ground: 22 Catchment Projects

and 28 Community Projects. Three of these have completed their works and are in their monitoring phase.

2.7 The photos below are of the “Upper Dane Slow the Flow Project”, a Community

Project led by Cheshire Wildlife Trust. They show the site before and after the installation of the leaky structures. The measures have already been put to the test following heavy rain in Oakenclough, where they slowed water flow and the scrape filled up.

2.8 We recently published the monitoring guide summary. This will support project teams

to select the appropriate monitoring to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the NFM measures. The guide will be supplemented with a series of workshops around the country and a webinar to help project teams get the best from it.

2.9 Contact: Margarita Papadopoulou - margarita.papadopoulou@environment-

agency.gov.uk Asset Management Open Data 2.10 Asset Management is now sharing its inventory, capital and maintenance

programmes as open Linked Data via data.gov (https://environment.data.gov.uk/asset-management/index.html). This service allows members of the public to view the work we do in an open and transparent way and

118

check what we are doing in their local area. Customers can also access the data in the correct format to integrate the data seamlessly into their data services. The site has been popular, with over 41,000 data requests in a single week. This has reduced the requirement for our staff to supply the data manually, and making us a more digitally-enabled organisation.

2.11 Contact: Dave Hornby - [email protected] HS2 update 2.12 We are supporting Lead Local Flood Authorities with their regulatory function with

work relating to High Speed Rail. This stems from Schedule 33 of the High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Act 2017 where we have inherited an enhanced strategic overview role.

2.13 Schedule 33, Part 5 sets out that the Local Drainage Authority must have regard to

conditions issued by the Environment Agency or must consult the Environment Agency in respect of their own conditions. Full wording can be found here (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/7/schedule/33/enacted).

2.14 The practicalities of how we work are still being established, but we are planning

workshops with a selection of Lead Local Flood Authorities to agree standards to which HS2 Contractors will adhere. This will cover their role in respect of ordinary watercourse consenting but also surface water drainage.

2.15 Contact: Johnathan Austin - [email protected] Property Flood Resilience (PFR) Pathfinder - Boosting action to make homes

and buildings more resilient to floods 2.16 We are encouraging collaborative working with Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs)

on PFR through the Invitation for the Expression of Interest to secure funding. 2.17 Grant funding of up to £700,000 will be available to each of the three PFR Pathfinder

projects nationally, starting this year and running to April 2021. The LLFAs will be required to establish a self-financing professional Hub for the longer-term which will lead on local innovation to help enhance the future take-up of flood resilience techniques in properties. The funding will be provided to LLFAs in three selected locations to support the creation of the Hubs and the delivery of measurable behaviour change, demonstrator property, and enduring technical and professional resources.

2.18 The Invitation for the Expression of Interest was live

from 20 May - 28 June for LLFAs to bid for funding. The project will fund three individual Pathfinder Projects, which must be led by LLFAs. We have encouraged bids from a consortia of LLFAs located within the same Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) area. Ideally the services the Hubs provide should cover the entire geographical RFCC area in which they are located or a clearly identified sub-region of that RFCC area.

2.19 Assessments will be made nationally and the three successful project locations will

be announced by Therese Coffey MP in July 2019. It is expected that work will begin immediately following this announcement.

2.20 Contact: Rob Alexander - [email protected] or Josie

Bateman - [email protected]

119

Coastal Practitioners Conference 2019 2.21 This year, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire Area hosted the 2019 coastal

practitioners’ conference. Coastal group Chairs and coastal experts from the Environment Agency met in Skegness to hear from partners about flood risk and coastal change, emergency planning and beach management along the Lincolnshire coast, enabling growth in seaside towns and work on the Wrangle Wash Banks. We also launched the new FCERM strategy with a video message from Emma Howard Boyd. The programme included visits to Gibraltar Point Nature Reserve, sea defences at Ingoldmells and the Boston Barrier. This annual event is a great opportunity to share knowledge and good practice and celebrate the work we do together for communities in iconic coastal locations.

2.22 Contact: Rachel Hill - [email protected] and Mark Adams –

[email protected] Next Generation Supplier Arrangements 2.23 Our new Collaborative Delivery Framework, and specialist Marine and Coastal and

Modelling and Forecasting frameworks, have now been awarded and are available for use by Risk Management Authorities. An online workshop session was held on Wednesday 3 July where you could learn more about these frameworks. If you have not already received the briefing, please contact your local Environment Agency Area team, or send an email to the NGSA email address.

2.24 Contact: [email protected] De-maining Update 2.25 The Environment Agency wants to strengthen local decision making around flood risk

management by ensuring the right bodies are managing the right watercourses. We have been working with Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), Lead Local Flood authorities (LLFAs) and District Councils to pilot re-designating sections of watercourse in a number of locations across England, from main river to ordinary watercourse, known as de-maining.

2.26 The South Forty Foot Catchment pilot in South Lincolnshire is now complete and the

watercourses and assets have been successfully transferred to the Black Sluice IDB. This was the first pilot to complete the main river variation process.

2.27 We have decided to de-main the watercourses in Stour Marshes, Kent and the Isle of

Axholme, North Lincolnshire. Assuming we don’t receive any appeals in the next few weeks, we hope to have transferred the watercourses and associated assets to the relevant IDBs by the end of July.

2.28 As de-maining represents a change in who does what, it is important we work with

local partners to ensure that the right arrangements are in place to manage watercourses in the right way. We have agreed with local partners to pause de-maining in Norfolk and Suffolk so that more time can be spent reviewing these arrangements. We will revisit this decision later in the year.

2.29 We have undertaken lessons learned workshops and are writing a report evaluating

the pilots. We aim to report to the evaluation of the pilots to the Minister by the end of June 2019. As de-maining is only part of an overall landscape of options for management of low risk watercourses including decommissioning, PSCAs and withdrawing from maintenance, we will now review the role of de-maining in the context of our overall Flood and Coastal Risk Management Strategy.

2.30 Contact: Lucy Roberts - [email protected] or Rachael Hill

[email protected]

120

3. Research and Publications Reservoir Safety 3.1 We recently published our Biennial Report on Reservoir Safety 2017-18, which can

be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reservoir-safety-biennial-report

3.2 In summary:

The Reservoirs Act 1975 is used to minimise the risk of uncontrolled releases of water that could result in loss of life.

The Environment Agency is the Enforcement Authority in England. Over the last two years we have seen improvements in the level of compliance

with the Reservoirs Act 1975. Non-compliance in 2017 and 2018 has been maintained at its lowest ever

recorded levels across England due to a mixture of advisory and regulatory action taken by the Environment Agency.

All Environment Agency reservoirs were compliant during 2017 and 2018. Our regulatory effort continues to be focused on those sites posing the highest

risk to life. We have issued more formal notices when compared to the last biennial report. In two non-compliant cases we used our emergency powers to make those

reservoirs safe. There were 23 reported incidents during 2017 and 2018. It was one of these

incidents that required us to intervene to empty the reservoir. However, most incidents are limited in scale, are well managed by the reservoir owners and do not result in a complete failure of the dam or reservoir.

3.3 Contact: Tony Deakin - [email protected] Research News - Latest edition published 3.4 Issue 30 of Research News, the annual newsletter publication from the Joint

Research and Development Programme, has recently been published. The newsletter highlights some of our completed and ongoing research projects, as well as guest articles from some of our partners. This issue includes articles on the future of flood hydrology, implications of climate change, defence failures around transitions, coastal squeeze and compensatory habitat and the mental health consequences of flooding. Hardcopies of the newsletter were available at the Flood and Coast 2019 conference and you can sign up to receive future editions (as well as our research outputs) via our website (http://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/en/Default/FCRM.aspx).

3.5 Newsletter: http://evidence.environment-

agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Documents/Issue_30_-_March_2019.sflb.ashx

3.6 Contact: Andy Moores - [email protected] Social inequalities for flooding still exist but progress has been made 3.7 We have recently re-examined the social distribution of the likelihood of flooding. The

analysis examines if flood risk exposure is concentrated among more socially deprived communities.

3.8 Statistical analysis was used to update a study published by the Environment Agency

in 2006 which found evidence in support of the presence of flood risk inequalities in England. We will use the findings to update the evidence base on the social distribution of flood risk and the associated decision-making rules for investment.

121

3.9 In summary:

There is an inequality in terms of social deprivation and flood risk exposure from all sources of flooding. This means that people from areas that are classed as more deprived disproportionately face more flood risk than those in less deprived areas. This is the case when taking into account nearby flood defences.

Deprived coastal communities still experience significant inequalities for high and medium likelihood of flooding. These inequalities within coastal communities are more pronounced than those in inland ones.

The inequalities found within rural areas are greater than those in urban areas. The size of the inequality is smaller than the 2006 study. This is primarily

because the National Flood Risk Assessment now takes into account the risk reducing capability of nearby flood defences and thousands of schemes have been put in place over the past decade.

3.10 The findings from this analysis suggest that recent investment has been relatively

successful in addressing social deprivation and flood risk exposure inequality for the 20% most deprived areas in England. There are, however, still significant inequalities in rural and coastal areas in England.

3.11 Contact: Michael Hall - [email protected] or Peter Bailey -

[email protected]

4. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to:

A. Note the June 2019 Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management News and Updates.

JULIE FOLEY Director of Flood Risk Strategy & National Adaptation

122

Amy Inman 01733 464389

[email protected] 01733 464222

Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (RFCC) Friday 19 July 2019

Venue: Finchingfield Village Hall, Finchingfield, Essex

Agenda Lead Page Timing

1. Apologies for absence and greetings to visitors PH - 09:30

2. Declarations of members’ interests All -

3. Chairman’s announcements PH - 09:35

4. Environment Agency announcements CB - 09:45

5. Approval of minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2019 All 1 09:55

6. Matters arising from previous meeting All 15 10:00

7. Members’ slot All - 10:10

Main Items

8.Feedback from the Engagement group including outputs from the 3 Engagement Events in June

Carol Mayston

- 10:20

9.FCERM capital and revenue programme refresh – National Paper (EFCC 19/06)

Aaron Dixey

17 10:45

10.Approach to 2nd cycle flood risk management plans and demonstration of the new digital flood plan explorer tool – National Paper (EFCC 19/07)

Mark Johnson

41 10:55

Tea and Coffee 11:05

11. Conservation lead update Richard Powell

- 11:15

12. Update from Essex County Council Lucy

Shepherd - 11:25

13. Update from Southend and Thurrock Councils

Navtej Tung / Matt

Phipps

- 11:45

14. Update on Natural Flood Management in East Anglian RFCC area Helen

George - 11:55

15. Update on the NFM projects in Finchingfield, including the Beavers Matt

Butcher - 12:15

General Business

16. Forward look (EFCC 19/08) – Agree 2020 meeting dates All 45 12:30

17. Key Items from Information Papers All 47 12:40

18. Any other business All - 12:50

Lunch followed by site visit to see local NFM measures and Beaver enclosure 13:00

Date of Next Meeting

Friday 18 October 2019, Norfolk County Council - Cranworth Room, County Hall, Norwich

Information Papers (for noting only)

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF19/12)

Delivering the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF19/13)

Developing and Delivering the Thames 2100 and TE2100 Programme (INF19/14)

FCERM Program Update 2019/20 Quarter 1 – Current in-year position (INF19/15)

Incident Response (INF19/16)

National paper – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Update, June 2019 (INF19/17)

BLANK PAGE

Glossary of Acronyms - 1 -

ABCs Area Base ControllersABD Areas that Benefit from DefencesABI Association of British InsurersADA Association of Drainage Authorities AFFS Anglian Flood Forecasting System AIP Asset, Investment and PlanningASM Asset Systems ManagementASP Asset Safety ProcessBAG Biodiversity Action GroupBAP Biodiversity Action PlanCFMPs Catchment Flood Management PlansCGiA Capital Grant in AidCHaMP Coastal Habitat Management PlanCIL Community Infrastructure LevyCLG (Department for) Communities and Local GovernmentCOBR Cabinet Office Briefing RoomCRFCC Central Regional Flood & Coastal CommitteeCSR Comprehensive Spending ReviewDEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsEA Environment AgencyEELGA East of England Local Government AssociationERFCC Eastern Regional Flood & Coastal CommitteeEFRA Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committeeEMF Elected Members ForumERYC East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilFAS Flood Alleviation SchemeFCERM Flood Risk and Coastal Erosion Risk ManagementFCRM Flood and Coastal Risk ManagementFCRPF Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership FundingFDGiA Flood Defence Grant in AidFIDO Flood Incident Duty OfficerFIM Flood Incident ManagementFRM Flood Risk ManagementFRMS Flood Risk Management StrategyFRM&DM Flood Risk Mapping and Data ManagementFWD Floodline Warnings DirectFWIP Flood Warning Improvements ProgrammeFWMA Flood and Water Management ActGDC General Drainage ChargeGIA Grant in AidHCA Homes and Communities AgencyHECAG Humber Estuary Coastal Authorities Group HIRP High Impact Refurbishment Programme IDBs Internal Drainage BoardsIDDs Internal Drainage Districts

Glossary of Acronyms - 2 -IFCA Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest KPI Key Performance IndicatorLA Local Authority (County, Borough or District Council)LDF Local Development Framework LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging LLFA Lead Local Flood Authorities LNP Local Nature PartnershipLPA Local Planning AuthorityLRF Local Resilience ForumLTIS Long Term Investment Strategy LTP Long Term PlanMAFPs Multi-Agency Flood PlansMEICA Mechanical and Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation MMO Marine Management OrganisationMORI Market and Opinion Research Institute MTP Medium Team PlanNAFRA National Flood Risk Assessment NAO National Audit OfficeNCPMS National Capital Programme Management Service NFCC National Flood and Coastal CommitteeNFCDD National Flood and Coastal Defence Database NFU National Farmers UnionNIA Nature Improvement Area NORA Nar Ouse Regeneration Area NRE National Resilience ExtranetNRFCC Northern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee NRG National Review GroupOM Outcome Measure OPUS Operation Public Safety PAB Project Approval BoardPAR Project Appraisal ReportPF Partnership FundingPFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment PL Planning LiaisonPPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25 - development and flood risk RBD River Basin DistrictREPAC Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee RFCC Regional Flood and Coastal CommitteeRFERAC Regional Fisheries, Ecology & Recreation Advisory Committee RMA Risk Management AuthoritiesRSS Regional Spatial StrategiesSAB SUDS Approving BodySAC Special Area of Conservation SAMP System Asset Management Plan SCAR Suffolk Coast Against Retreat SCG Strategic Coordinating Group

Glossary of Acronyms - 3 -SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFW Severe Flood WarningSFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SMP Shoreline Management Plan SPA Special Protection AreasSR Spending Review (eg SR10 = Spending Review 2010) SRO Surface water Run OffSSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest STP Short Term PlanSUDS Sustainable Drainage Systems SWMP Surface Water Management Plan TCG Tactical Control GroupTES Training and Exercise System UA Unitary AuthorityWAG Welsh Assembly Government WFD Water Framework Directive WLMP Water Level Management Plan

Glossary of terms used in FCRMprogramming and financial management

This glossary is intended as reference tool for Members to be used in conjunction with the papers onthe RFCC programme.

It is a living document and will be updated periodically. If you have any feedback on it or would likeadditional clarification to support your role or learning & development then please [email protected]

A

AccrualWork done or a service received which has not been invoiced or paid for by the end of the accountingperiod. You allow for it to show a true figure of your financial position.

AllocationThe funding aligned to projects and programmes prior to Budgets being set; see Indicative Allocationand Final Allocation. It should be noted that receiving a funding allocation does not obviate the needto gain Approval.

AppraisalThe process of; defining the problem; setting objectives; examining options, assessing outcomebenefit (inc benefit:cost ratio); weighing up costs, impacts (positive and negative) risks anduncertainties in order to make a decision. This is the period between Gateways 0 and 1. Theappraisal follows a short Initial Assessment and culminates in a Business Case. The appraisal phaseprovides greatest scope for RFCC Members to get involved and support project development, eg aspart of the associated community engagement.

ApprovalThis refers to a project’s Financial Scheme of Delegation (FSoD) approval following Technical Reviewor the Environment Agency Board approval to the programme.

Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager (AFCRM)Our Area Flood & (or) Coastal Risk Managers (AFCRMs) lead the delivery of the National FCERMstrategy and our strategic overview role locally. A key part of our strategic overview role is thebringing together of evidence and working with communities, potential funders and partners,especially other Risk Management Authorities, to develop complementary approaches to managingflood and coastal erosion risk.

AFCRMs promote candidates and once they are in the programme they sponsor Environment Agencyled capital projects through the scheme appraisal stage to the approval of the Business Case. Thisincludes associated engagement, partnership funding activity and the programming relationship withother Risk Management Authorities. It is at this stage of project development that the committee havethe greatest opportunity to help shape the delivery of measures within their area.

They also have a role to work with regards to in-year monitoring of projects being delivered by otherRisk Management Authorities; this includes signing-off project Business Justification and BusinessCase documentation prior to submission for Technical Review.

The majority of their programme accountabilities are delivered through their Partnerships & StrategicOverview (PSO) teams.

AssetWithin flood risk these are usually categorised as either structures (eg sluices, pumping stations etc)or defences (eg channels, walls, embankments etc), but equally the term applies to data, models andother tangible products.

Asset Performance (AP) teamSee Operations Manager

Asset SystemsAn asset system is a collection of individual assets that work together to provide flood risk protectionto properties in a geographical area. They are defined for Environment Agency systems (main riverand sea defence) and have a System Consequence rating associated with them. They do not relateto Coastal Erosion assets as these are not the responsibilities of the Environment Agency.

B

Baselining

In January the RFCC issue their consent to the programme. The financial allocation to deliver thatprogramme is based on forecast project costs at a snap shot in time. As forecasts vary month onmonth, baselining is the process for making final budget adjustments before the start of the financialyear.

BenefitsThe positive quantifiable and unquantifiable changes that a project is expected to produce.

BudgetThis is the amount of money given to a project or available to a programme within the accountingsystem. Project and programme budgets are set based on needs identified at a snap-shot in time andare reviewed and re-set at appropriate milestones in the financial year (see Baselining).

Business CaseFollowing approval for a project’s Business Justification, a project’s business case summarises andpresents the project appraisal for Technical Review and FSoD approval. For most projects thebusiness case is presented within a Project Appraisal Report (PAR), completed proportionately to anational template for consistency; for low risk/cost projects the business case can be presented withina Form A.

Business JustificationA project’s business justification is reviewed following Initial Assessment to determine whether thereis a case to progress to full project appraisal; this includes the development and presentation of theproject’s Business Case. The justification is presented for Technical Review and FSoD approvalthrough a Form A template for Environment Agency projects or FCERM7 for other Risk ManagementAuthorities.

C

CandidateA candidate is a problem or need that has been identified and a Risk Management Authority believesthere is a requirement for financial investment. It is in effect a potential project that is most oftenidentified and submitted as part of the annual Investment Needs round. A candidate is identified in aProject Mandate form. A Pre-Gateway 0 analysis is undertaken to determine if the need is valid andsuitable for submission for funding. Once funding has been allocated the Project Mandate isauthorised and the candidate becomes a project.

Capital fundingCapital funding is the money spent on the construction, creation, purchase and improvement orreplacement of assets.

Capital ProgrammeThe list of projects from all Risk Management Authorities, which are funded by FCRM GiA and orLocal Levy along with third party contributions where applicable. The programme is prioritised byPartnership Funding Score, and delivery of statutory requirements, and is allocated through theInvestment Needs process. This is usually spent on building new assets, or extending the life ofexisting assets (Capital Reconditioning).

Capital Reconditioning (REC)A sub-set of the capital programme, the purpose is to repair/recondition or refurbish assets that arebelow their Target Condition (or forecast to fall below within a reasonable timeframe) to sustain theassets’ standard of service. In Anglian Region we package these works together for more efficientapproval, procurement and delivery (called Reconditioning or RECON package). Works aresometimes also referred to as Capital Maintenance.

Before After

Catchment EngineerSee Operations Manager. The Catchment Engineer also has a role to sign-off project Business Caseson behalf of the Senior User prior to their submission for Technical Review.

Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR)The Spending Review is a Treasury-led process to allocate resources across all governmentdepartments, according to the Government's priorities. These allocations span across a number ofyears with the current spending review period running from April 2011 to March 2015 (called CSR10).

ConsentThe Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (section 23) requires the Environment Agency to:

obtain the RFCC’s consent before the EA can implement its regional programme for theCommittee’s region (s23(2)).obtain the consent of the RFCC before the Agency can issue a levy under Section 17 of theAct (s23(3)).obtain the consent of the Committee to the spending of revenue under Section 118 of theWater Resources Act in the region where the revenue is raised (s23(4)).

Consent is sought in January as part of presentation of the Final Allocation. Approval by theEnvironment Agency Board follows RFCC consent in February. The RFCC are asked to consent tothe projects, activities and outcomes of the proposed programmes.

ContributionsThis is funding from sources other than FCRM GiA as part of Partnership Funding projects.

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)This measures the costs and benefits of a project in a common currency (preferably £s) over itslifespan, and assesses the balance between the two. Costs and benefits that cannot be monetisedshould still be considered. Whilst any project with a >1:1 ratio is viable, we should be looking for agreater return (1:5 as a minimum and 1:8 is quoted as the average return for FCRM investments).

Current MagazineThis is produced by our Framework partners and gives some great examples of programme andproject delivery across the Environment Agency. Well worth a read.

Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/119269.aspx

D

DeliveryScheme delivery follows Gateway 1 and concludes with Gateway 6.

Do minimum optionThis option is where the minimum amount of action necessary is taken to manage an asset egmaintenance.

Do nothing optionThis option is used in appraisal to act as a baseline against which all other options are tested. Itassumes no action whatsoever is taken. In the case of existing works, it assumes for the purpose ofappraisal that operating authorities cease all maintenance, repairs and other activities immediately.In the case of new works, it assumes that there is no intervention, and natural and other externalprocesses are allowed to take their course.

Do something optionAny option other than do-nothing.

E

Efficiency targets

The Cabinet Office, via the Government’s construction strategy, require government departments toachieve capital efficiency savings. As part of Defra’s business plan, the Environment Agencynationally has a corporate target to achieve savings of 15% of the FCRM GiA allocation to theEnvironment Agency delivered elements of the capital programme by the end of this CSR period(2014/15). The aim is to deliver better outcomes and increase the number of properties protectedthrough the reinvestment of efficiency savings.

To achieve this, the annual targets increase year on year and the national target has been split andallocated to each Environment Agency region. Targets have not been allocated or split down to RFCCor Environment Agency Area level.2011/12 provides the baseline by which efficiencies are measured. Effectively there are twocategories of efficiency.

- At Programme level; we build efficiencies into our GiA submission (ie ask for less budgetupfront), this means there is more GiA available to allocate elsewhere at the start of the year.

- In-year project level: cash released by efficiencies made on projects after we have received abudget that can be reinvested

ExceptionIf a measurable element of a project changes (eg financial forecast or benefit delivery) beyond acertain limit then we call this an exception. Tolerances for such limits can be set at both an individualproject, programme or corporate level. Exceptions are then escalated to the appropriate governancebody. This may include the RFCC depending upon if, and what tolerances, have been agreed.

F

Final AllocationThe proposed final amount of capital and revenue funding allocated for the forthcoming financial yearfrom the Investment Needs submission and following review of the Indicative Allocation. It is usuallymade in late November/December for RFCC review and consent in January. It is then signed off bythe Environment Agency Board in February prior to Ministerial announcement. The word ‘proposed’ isused as the allocation is not confirmed until the Board have agreed it.

Financial Mandate (FM)The Financial Mandate (FM) set by Defra contains the rules on Financial, Resource and CorporateStrategy and Performance matters through which Defra as lead sponsor administers control over theEnvironment Agency. These rules include limits on authority for expenditure and details where priorapproval from Defra is required.

Financial Scheme of Delegation (FSoD)The FSoD, as approved by the Environment Agency Board, prescribes the limits to the powers andduties that have been delegated to the Management and Officers of the Environment Agency withinthe terms of the Financial Mandate. Authority is delegated downwards from HM Treasury to ourGovernment sponsors (Defra/WG) and then throughout the Environment Agency to the Board; ChiefExecutive (CE) and Directors; Regional Directors (RD) and other grades and specific posts.Capital project expenditure requires FSoD approval at Business Justification and Business Casestage (along with any Supplementary Expenditure) following Technical Review.

It should be noted that even if a project has received a funding allocation there are separate ruleswithin the FSoD that govern and approve how that funding is spent; ie Allocation does notautomatically mean Approval to spend.

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Appraisal Guidance (FCERM-AG)The FCERM-AG has been produced by the Environment Agency. It provides best practiceimplementation guidance on appraisal and supports the Defra Policy Statement on Appraisal (June2009). The previous Defra Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance (FCDPAG) waspublished between 1999 and 2001. Since that time, the approach has changed from one focused onflood defences and coast protection to the management of risk.

The guidance was launched in June 2010 and its use is a requirement for all publicly funded Floodand Coastal Erosion Risk Management strategies and projects developed by Risk ManagementAuthorities. The guidance aims to help users undertake efficient appraisals and encouragesexperience and knowledge to be applied at all stages. It has been designed based on key principlesto reduce flood risk, enhance the environment, promote partnership working and to be proportional tothe project being appraised.

Flood & Coastal Risk Management Grant-in-Aid (FCRM GiA)The Government, through Defra, provides the majority of funding for flood and coastal erosion riskmanagement activities for England in the form of Grant in Aid (GiA) administered by the EnvironmentAgency. It is often still known and referred to as Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid (FDGiA). FCRM GiA iseither Capital or Revenue. Capital is used for new assets, or extending the life, and is available to allRisk Management Authorities. Revenue is used for ‘day to day’ Environment Agency activities andmaintenance activities.

Flood Risk CategoriesThere are four flood risk categories associated with Outcome Measures, they are:

Low - 0.5% (200 to 1) chance of flooding each year or less.Moderate - Between 0.5% (200 to 1) and 1.3% (75 to 1) chance of flooding each year.Significant - 1.3% (75 to 1) chance of flooding each year or greaterVery Significant – 5% (1 in 20) chance of flooding each year or greater

ForecastThis is an assessment by the project team of the most likely outcome of the project, including financialforecast, risk forecasts and outcome (benefit) forecasts. They are reviewed and updated on a monthly basis for the year end position, and also look at the total project forecast (ie when it iscomplete potentially on a future financial year). Project forecasts then inform a Programme levelforecast position.

Form A/FCERM7A template used for presentation of a project’s Business Justification. A Form A is used forEnvironment Agency projects and a FCERM7 is the form for other Risk Management Authorities(RMAs) and can cover the whole business case for studies. A Form A can also be used forpresentation of a Business Case for low risk projects.

Form G/ FCERM4The form (G for Environment Agency and FCERM4 for other RMAs) used when the forecast projectcosts exceeds the project’s FSoD approval, or there is a change to the scope of the project work. Itpresents the case for Supplementary Expenditure.

FrameworkAn approved list of external suppliers including contractors and consultants experienced in delivery offlood and coastal risk schemes. The frameworks are tendered for and allocated on a five year basis.The new framework WEM (Water and Environment Management) is due to begin in April 2013 andwill be available for use by all Risk Management Authorities.

Frequent MaintenanceRevenue activities within the Revenue Maintenance programme carried out by the EnvironmentAgency which prevents deterioration of an asset below Target Condition. This is an annual orrecurring planned activity undertaken every 5 years or less, to keep assets at their Standard ofService. eg 2-yearly channel de-silting, bushing, grass cutting etc.

G

GatewaysThe Office of Government Commerce promoted gateways as best practice. They are points during the project lifetime, when reviews are undertaken. They provide an opportunity for independent reviewof project progress and ensure we review business justification regularly. This enables us to stopprojects that are not viable, or will not deliver the required outcome, as soon as possible.Applying the gateway review process provides:

Consistency and streamlining;A clear audit trail;Opportunities for effective risk management and forward planning;A framework for supporting performance management and sharing knowledge;Ultimately, better value for money.

Pre Gateway 0The desk top analysis of a Candidate to assess them to ensure they have the potential to be a viableproject. This includes the production of a Project Mandate to set out the background and need for theproject, and an analysis of the potential benefits of the project.

Gateway 0Is the review and authorisation of a Project Mandate by the Programme Manager on behalf of theProgramme Board. It authorises inclusion within the programme and once funding is confirmed it canprogress as a project to Gateway 1 first via an Initial Assessment.

Gateway 1This is when a project’s Business Case received FSoD approval.

Gateway 2This gateway checks that the project design has been carried out in accordance with the approvedbusiness case

Gateway 3This gateway checks that everything necessary is in place to ensure that the organisation will receivevalue for money, and we can award the construction contract.

Gateway 4At this gateway construction work has been completed to our satisfaction, the contract projectmanager has prepared a completion certificate, and it is ready to be issued. Outcome Measures canbe claimed at this point.

Gateway 5At this gateway the contractor has corrected all the defects listed in the defects schedule and we haveissued the defects correction certificate.

Gateway 6At this gateway the project is complete and the project is closed

Gateway 7The project sponsor identifies the need for and arranges a post-project appraisal.

General Drainage Charge (GDC)A local income, General Drainage Charge is raised for additional maintenance of Environment Agency flood risk management assets and is raised from landowners whose land is greater than 4ha and is not within an IDB Boundary. Anglian Region is unique in raising this charge. The charge rate islinked to the % change in Local Levy contribution by a Council Tax Band D property within the regionand it has to be spent in the financial year it is raised.

Governance

Usually governance relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, guidance, processes anddecision-rights for a given area of responsibility. For flood risk the term is mostly associated with thecontrol of a project or programme via clear roles, a Project Board or the Programme Board.

H

Highland Water ChargeCharge made by IDBs to the Environment Agency for additional operating costs within their districtsdue to the need to convey water through IDB systems that originates from higher ground outside ourtheir district.

I

IDB Precept (IDBP)A local income raised from Internal Drainage Boards, with the rate generally set locally at RFCC level.It must be spent in the financial year it is raised and contributes towards Environment Agency FCRMactivities within the river catchment.

Identified NeedsA term applied to elements of work within the Revenue Maintenance programme. It comprises all theFrequent and Intermittent Maintenance needs within an Asset System (over and above the MinimumNeeds) to maintain the performance of that system of assets.

Indicative AllocationThis is the initial financial allocation (capital and revenue) for the forthcoming financial year, followingthe submission of the Investment Needs bid, and national prioritisation. It is presented to the RFCC atthe October meeting for review / amendment. The RFCC are able to allocate local income to projectsor activities as part of this process. Any changes made by the RFCC are then submitted for the finalallocation, subject to them being affordable nationally, and delivering the same or more outcomes.

Initial AssessmentOnce a candidate has passed Gateway 0, the Risk Management Authority will need to investigate theproject further to develop the Business Justification. This is the initial assessment which gathers morespecific data (ie surveys) than the desktop review as a candidate. It is a review to ensure that theproject is worthy of full appraisal. The RFCC could use the outputs of this stage to make a moreinformed decision about the use of Local Income on a project.

Intermittent MaintenanceThese revenue funded activities form part of the Environment Agency Revenue Maintenanceprogramme. It comprises a suite of works that prevents deterioration of assets below their TargetCondition. This is usually a one off activity or an activity undertaken at greater than 5 yearly intervals(ie bushing works or re-grouting of sea walls)

Investment Needs SubmissionThe needs based bid for FCRM capital GiA funding for all RMAs for the next five years. Its aim is todeliver specific outcomes or benefits (ie numbers of properties protected, number of assets at orabove target condition, number of Ha of habitat created / protected). The process starts in April, andthe submission is made in July following RFCC agreement.

J

K

Key Performance Indicator (KPI)These are the Environment Agency’s corporate performance measures against which targets are setand agreed with Regions. They reflect our progress towards achieving our environmental outcomesand are one of the ways we demonstrate we are meeting our commitment to deliver. In programming,we report our position to the RFCCs on the key FCRM KPIs (962 and 965).

Key Performance Indicator 962 (KPI962)KPI 962 reports the percentage of assets that are at or above their target asset condition, known as‘passing assets’. The Environment Agency reports on all Flood Risk Management assets on MainRiver, regardless of who owns or manages them. The national target is split by Region and, inAnglian, by the three RFCCs.

Key Performance Indicator 965 (KPI965)KPI 965 quantifies the number of households that are at increased flood risk from assets that are notat their target flood defence condition (‘failing’ assets). In an ideal world all assets would be atcondition and, hence, the additional households at risk would equal zero.

L

Large Projects Review Group (LPRG)Previously known as National Review Group (NRG), it has the same Technical Review andassurance function as the Project Assurance Board (PAB) but recommends technical and financialapproval for large and/or complex projects over the value of £10 million. It meets on a monthly basis,and reviews projects from all Risk Management Authorities across England & Wales.

Local incomeA collective term for Local Levy, General Drainage Charge and IDB Precept income.

Local LevyA local income raised by each RFCC to fund FCERM activities within the region that are a localpriority and to support Partnership Funding projects by attracting FCRM GiA. The Local Levy requiredis discussed by the RFCC annually in January and voted on by Local Authority members only. Thetotal agreed levy needed is raised from all LLFAs within the RFCC boundary and is proportionedacross them based on the equivalent number of band D council tax properties that each LLFA has inthe RFCC’s area. This means that where Local Authority boundaries cross RFCC boundaries theymay pay different rates of levy to different RFCCs. Local Levies do not have to be spent in the yearthey are raised as balances can be carried forward.

Long Term Investment Strategy (LTIS)This sets out the scale of the investment needed nationally to meet the FCRM challenges over thenext 25 years. The current LTIS was published in 2009 and was called ‘Investing for the Future’ (it iscurrently being updated). It sets out:

the present scale of flood and coastal erosion risk, and the achievements in managing it sofar;an analysis of the investment needed to adapt to climate change and manage the potentialincreased risk over the period 2010-2035;ways to manage flood and coastal erosion risk more efficiently;an analysis of the benefits of investment, and the potential to broaden the sources ofinvestment.

Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/108673.aspx

M

Maintenance Protocol

Our asset maintenance protocol sets out our approach to maintaining flood and coastal riskmanagement assets in England. It describes how we decide which assets we maintain and how wework with those affected by our decisions.

The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for England describesthe strategic approach to maintaining our flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) assets. Theasset maintenance protocol for England is an important part of the FCERM strategy and will supportits implementation. It will help us apply a consistent approach to identifying which low risk assetsshould no longer be maintained and how we will work with those affected by our decisions. Reducingour investment in low risk assets will allow us to focus our maintenance in higher risk locations.

Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/policy/135650.aspx

Medium Term Plan (MTP)The Medium Term Plan (MTP) is the spreadsheet that captures the capital Environment Agency,Internal Drainage Board and Local Authority candidates and projects over the next 20 years.

MEICA (Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation)The acronym for the regional team (that reports to an Operations Manager) and the type of assets that they look after. MEICA assets are typically pumping stations and other major assets with complexoperational arrangements. The team also develops and manages the carbon reduction work.

Minimum NeedsA term applied to elements of work within the Revenue Maintenance programme. It is the lowestunavoidable cost to maintain statutory compliance and continue operation in an Asset System overthe next year. We capture this figure (and all Identified Needs) in System Asset Management Plans(SAMPs). In undertaking the minimum maintenance required, asset condition may decline as a result.Typically this will mean that we ensure our assets meet Health and Safety standards for staff operating them, the public, and that we ensure our environmental obligations are met (eg WFD compliance).

ModerationNot all capital Candidates contribute towards Outcome Measures targets, however, there is a clearand demonstrable need for them, eg for statutory or legal reasons, emergency works, health andsafety, or time dependant works. In these cases there will be moderation evidence with the ProjectMandate. Candidates with moderation are screened nationally as part of the Investment Needssubmission to ensure the case is clear and robust, prior to the allocation of any funding.

N

National Allocation & Programming TeamWithin the FCRM Directorate at Head Office, this team develops a set of key principles for theallocation of FCRM GiA to the Environment Agency and other Risk Management Authorities. Theteam are responsible for translating the Spending Review funding levels into national and regionalbudgets for all Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) and corporate activities funded byFCRM GiA.

National Capital Programme Management Service (ncpms)A national Operations team, the National Capital Programme Management Service (ncpms) projectmanages schemes on behalf of Area teams. In Anglian Region they manage approximately 80%-90%of the Environment Agency delivered capital programme and their services can also be used by otherRisk Management Authorities.

National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS)The National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS) is responsible for managing theenvironmental impact of capital and revenue programmes to ensure projects are compliant withenvironmental legislation, have minimal environmental impact, uphold high standards inenvironmental design and contribute to national and regional environmental targets.

O

Operations ManagerOur Operations Managers lead on our asset management work to deliver professional asset creation,maintenance and operational services for local communities. This includes sponsoring EnvironmentAgency led capital projects through their Delivery phases and the associated budget management.They are also accountable for the identification of need, prioritisation and delivery of the RevenueMaintenance programme.

Their programme accountabilities are delivered through their Asset Performance teams andCatchment Engineers.

OpportunitiesThis is a term that is used for candidates that can be brought forward within a financial year to makethe most of any available budget, or indeed existing projects that can be accelerated.

Outcome Measures (OMs)A suite of performance measures specifically related to managing flood and erosion risk. Theyreplaced the priority score system and are used to assess the benefits of projects. They help prioritisethe programme of works from all Risk Management Authorities and OM1 to OM4 are used as part ofthe Partnership Funding score to calculate the FCRM GiA available to a project. Flood and CoastalErosion Risk Management have targets set for each OM. They are listed below :

OM1 - The ratio of benefits to costs that a project delivers. To ensure consistency in allschemes this is calculated over the whole life of the project (ie including the design, build,operation, maintenance and expected refurbishments). To mitigate for inflation, these figuresare discounted to ‘today’s’ price. This is applied to both costs and benefits and called PresentValue whole life. A simple way to think about it, if we had all the money up front, how muchwould we need in the bank, allowing for interest on the account, so that we had a balance of£0 when the asset reached the end of its life. At a national programme level we aim for aminimum of 5:1, however, for the last CSR period we achieved a programme ratio of 8:1.

OM2 - The number of households moved out of any flood probability category to a lowerprobability category (see flood risk categories).

OM2b - The number of households moved from the very significant or significant probabilitycategory to the moderate or low probability category (see flood risk categories). In this casethe 1:75 year (1.33% probability of flooding in any particular year) is the threshold.

OM2c - The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas moved out of thesignificant or very significant probability categories to the moderate or low probability category(OM2b). Therefore they are less likely to experience difficulties in arranging mortgages orinsurance.

OM3 - The number of households with reduced risk of coastal erosion. Therefore they areless likely to experience difficulties in arranging mortgages or insurance.

OM3b - The number of households protected against loss in 20 years from coastal erosion.Therefore they are less likely to experience difficulties in arranging mortgages or insurance.

OM3c - The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas protected against loss in20 years from coastal erosion. Therefore they are less likely to experience difficulties inarranging mortgages or insurance.

OM4a - Hectares of water dependent habitat created or improved to help meet the objectivesof Water Framework Directive. Remedies to improve condition of Sites of Special ScientificInterest and measures needed for water bodies to achieve good ecological status/potential,meeting our statutory obligations under both the Countryside and Rights of Way Act andWFD.

OM4b - Hectares of intertidal habitat created to help meet the objectives of the WaterFramework Directive for areas protected under the EU Habitats / Birds Directive. New habitatis created to offset habitat being lost to coastal squeeze.

OM4c - Kilometres of rivers protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive improved to helpmeet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. FCRM actions to restore riversdesignated as special areas of conservation.

Over-programmeThis is a programme management technique to enable a programme to deliver to budget. Effectivelyyou start a financial year progressing more projects than can be afforded on the basis that not allproject risk budgets with be fully utilised, efficiencies will be made on projects, some projects willsuffer a delay and a few may be found not to be viable.

P

PackagingThe combining of a number of projects which are similar in either nature or in geographic location. It isusually applied to lower value projects to make them more efficient by only having to let one contract,thus saving time and money on the procurement process. Packaging also provides for continuity ofwork for suppliers that enables specialist delivery teams to be formed resulting in greater deliveryefficiency.

Partnership & Strategic Overview (PSO) teamsSee Area Flood & Coastal Risk Managers

Partnership FundingFlood and Coastal Erosion Resilience Partnership Funding is Defra’s current policy. It provides asystem of funding which applies to all Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) projectsseeking FCRM GiA Capital funding in England. It is a way of increasing overall investment in floodand coastal erosion risk management by encouraging external contributions as a means to unlockGiA. GiA is capped based on the number of outcome measures a project will deliver, with eachproject having a Partnership Funding score as a means of prioritisation. The RFCC has a key role inworking with partners and communities to maximise contributions and also raise and allocate locallevy which can also be used as an external contribution.

Partnership Funding score (PF Score)Based on the outcomes a project is expected to deliver, a maximum amount of FCRM GiA iscalculated. The score is calculated based on the outcome measures benefit divide by funding,expressed as a percentage.

A project needs a minimum score of 100% to be considered for FCRM GiA. However, in many casesthe raw score (base purely on its outcomes) will be below this threshold. In these cases the projectwill either need to increase the outcomes it delivers so that FCRM GiA could fund the whole scheme,reduce the costs of the scheme (ie a cheaper way of delivering) or increase contributions from othersources. This will then give an adjusted score, called the Partnership Funding Score. That is alsoused to prioritise both nationally and locally by RFCCs. A score of 100% will not guarantee funding ofa scheme as there is a finite amount of GiA available, but the higher the score the more likely it is tosecure GiA. The RFCC can use Local levy as a contribution to schemes and therefore improve the PFscore.

PRINCE2PRINCE2 (an acronym for PRojects IN Controlled Environments) is a de facto process-based methodfor effective project management. It is used extensively by the UK Government, PRINCE2 is alsowidely recognised and used in the private sector, both in the UK and internationally.

ProgrammeIt its purest form programming is about organisational transformation. However, we use the termprogramme to describe a collection/dossier/portfolio of similar activities or projects.

Programme BoardIn terms of programme governance each Region of the Environment Agency has a Programme Boardand there is also a National Programme Board. In Anglian Region the Board is managed throughmonthly FCRM Business Group meetings where Flood & Coastal Risk Managers, Finance, ncpmsand others meet to review by exception in-year performance, programme opportunities, risks as wellas future programmes of investment. The Programme Team report performance to the Boardfollowing detailed monthly financial and programme monitoring review at an Area/RFCC level. TheProgramme Board take decisions and mitigating actions and escalate issues to the Regional Directorand his leadership team as appropriate.

Programme level risksAre risks that have the potential to affect the overall outcomes of the Programme. These may be interms of external factors (budgets, extra funding from government, new legislation, PF Scores),significant project risks (ie a project being delayed by planning consent) or the accumulation ofsmaller risks (ie the aggregation of small individual risks across a number of projects).

Programme ManagementThe term programme management refers to the co-ordinated organisation, direction andimplementation of a portfolio of projects and activities. Programme management aims to achieveresults and realise benefits that are of strategic importance.

Programme ManagerLed by the FCRM Programme Manager, programming and monitoring of all Environment Agencysupported FCERM delivery is done once at region. This includes developing and implementing RFCCprogrammes of work and assuring the outcomes of these programmes.

Programme TeamReporting to the Programme Manager, the Programme Team leads FCRM programming for AnglianRegion and monitors associated delivery. Business Partner aligned to each Environment AgencyArea/RFCC. This team provides a clear link to the National Allocation and Programme team andworks very closely with Area teams, Finance and ncpms.

ProjectWhen a candidate passes through Gateway 0 it becomes a project. A collection of projects form partof a programme. An FCRM project is set up to scope, appraise and deliver tangible products to meetthe needs identified and recorded in the Project Mandate. For FCRM capital projects, there are fivetypes of project: they are Sustain; Simple Change; Supported Change, Legal Compliance andComplex Change (See Project Type)

Project Appraisal Report (PAR)The project appraisal report (PAR) describes the appraisal that has been carried out on an FCRMproject and provides the business case to support the recommendations proposed. It is used to gainformal approval under the Environment Agency Financial scheme of delegation (FSoD) and whereappropriate approval from Defra, Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and HM Treasury.

Project Assurance Board (PAB)The purpose of PAB is to provide Technical Review and assurance of projects (up to the value of £10million) throughout their entire lifecycle. PAB makes recommendations to project teams so they canimprove their business case and once satisfied that issues have been appropriately resolved willrecommend approval to the FSoD delegated officer.

Each Region has a PAB which meets on a monthly basis. Projects from all RMAs are reviewed for thefollowing:

are projects supported by a robust case for change that provides strategic fit – the ‘strategiccase’do projects optimise value for money – the ‘economic case’are projects commercially viable – the ‘commercial case’are projects financially affordable – the ‘financial case’are projects achievable – the ‘management case’.

Membership of PAB is made up of managers and specialists from across the business.

Project BoardA small group of people (normally only the Project Executive, Senior User and, if in place, the SeniorSupplier) who collectively monitor and control a project’s overall progress. This group concentratesalmost entirely on the process of project management and:

acts as a quality assurance mechanism for a project’s deliverables;provides an escalation and resolution route (to the Programme Board) for a project’s risks andissues.

Project development costsActivity and expenditure between Gateway 0 and Gateway 3 is defined as project development.

Project ExecutiveSee Project Roles

Project ManagerSee Project Roles

Project MandateThis is the form where the outline need for investment is recorded and supports the submission of acandidate into the programme, recording Gateway 0.

Project riskAll projects have risk built up from potential occurrences that may affect the delivery of a project totime, cost, quality or outcome. Risks are explored as part of project development andmonitored/managed routinely throughout a project, Project budgets (and FSoD approval) include forthe costs of managing a project’s identified risks (but not all of them) should they arise. Thecumulative effect of this is that at a programme level a significant amount of budget is aligned toproject risk that may or may not materialise and therefore require use of that budget. The over-programming approach is a means to manage this issue.

Project rolesHaving clear and defined roles on a project is crucial to good governance. The key roles on a projectare:

Project Executive:Ultimately accountable for the project’s delivery, they should be independent from the Userand Supplier.

Project Sponsor:Identifies a need within the organisation; acts as the ultimate 'client’ for any project that is setup; and is the major driving force of the project shaping the benefits to be delivered. ForEnvironment Agency FCRM capital projects this is the Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager upto Gateway 1 and then the Operations Manager to Gateway 6. For high risk projects orpackages of work the Area Manager may perform this role.

Senior User:The senior user is responsible to the end users for ensuring that the products delivered by theproject are fit for purpose. Their input continues throughout the life cycle of the project. Thesenior user:

helps shape project deliverables;communicates the end users’ needs and aspirations throughout the life of theproject;provides a link to all the internal functions/teams during the life of the project;is the principal point of contact in FCRM for all project matters;leads on engagement with the community, partners and stakeholders;

Version 1 (December 2012) Page 14

signs off the product descriptions for products to be delivered as part of theproject board;accepts the completed project from the project executive.

For Environment Agency FCRM capital projects the Senior User is from within OperationsManagement, usually senior Asset Performance staff or the Catchment Engineer. They canbe supported by a team and for most projects will draw upon the skills and resources fromwithin our Partnership & Strategic Overview teams (eg regarding funding packages withpartners), Flood Resilience teams (who coordinate community engagement) and Modelling &Hydrology teams.

Senior Supplier:The senior supplier represents the interests of those designing, developing, facilitating,procuring, implementing, and possibly operating and maintaining the project products; theyare also accountable for the quality of products delivered by the supplier(s) and they musthave the authority to commit or acquire supplier resources required.

This role is most appropriate for high risk or key delivery projects or major packages of work.It would ordinarily be performed by a senior manager from within a Framework supplier.

Project Manager:Appointed by the Project Executive, they have the authority and responsibility to manage aproject day-to-day. This person must deliver the required products, within the tolerancesagreed with the Project Board.

Project Type– Complex ChangeA complex change project is a project that examines options at the strategic level or implements astrategic solution but where there is no agreed strategy in place. Complex change projects require astrategic approach to be developed to address the extent, integration or interconnection of differentareas. A full cost:benefit appraisal is required.

Project Type– Simple Change (aka Standalone project)A Simple Change Project is one where the problems to be addressed, potential solutions andeffective decision-making can be taken independently of the wider catchment/coastal zone or framedso as to not constrain future long term management. A strategic context is still required for a SimpleChange Project to support the decision-making process. This type of project is the most common inthe programme.

A Simple Change Project is appropriate when:a change to the standard of service (SoS) is proposedjustification to sustain the current SoS is not clear or beyond the control thresholdsa strategy plan is not required

A full Benefit:Cost analysis is required for appraisal of these projects.

Project Type – Supported ChangeA project to deliver the recommendation(s) of an approved (FSoD )strategy. As such the scope of thisproject is typically limited to assessing the specific needs to implement the strategy in the projectlocation. The overall option and new SoS will already have been determined. This project will drawheavily upon information in and gained for the strategy which will minimise the time and effort requiredfor this project.

Project Type – Sustain (standard of service (SoS))A Sustain SoS project is one that delivers activities needed to continue the agreed standard of serviceof an existing asset or group of assets. Typically projects might include the refurbishment of assets orreplacement of components of larger assets, which have reached their design life.

In addition, projects classified as Sustain must fall within Control Thresholds to ensure that theinvestment in them is justifiable and does not impede on any potential future strategic plans (ie wewouldn’t replace an asset if we plan to build something else in 5 year which will negate the need for

that asset). If the project is not within the thresholds then the project should be classified as a SimpleChange. Sustain projects are appraised using a cost effectiveness analysis.

Project Type – Legal ComplianceProjects that are required to fulfil legal obligations can typically be divided into:

legal requirements that drive the need for a project: there are two types of legislation here:o legislation with ‘general’ application, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives or

Water Framework Directive; ando specific legislation, including local legal agreements, such as navigation acts for

specific rivers.legal requirements that place duties or obligations on the project: these can be sub-dividedinto:

o duties that stem from legislation such as Health & Safety or Town ando Country Planning; and obligations that arise from contractual agreements, such as

contracts between an operating authority and a water company to provide adequatewater levels for abstraction by pumps.

Defra policy also requires that the benefits of meeting the legal requirements are identified, describedand, where possible and appropriate, quantified and valued in monetary terms. Information on thebenefits will be used to help understand who is gaining or losing from the programme of work, and tohelp demonstrate that the programme provides good value for money. It is also important to considerwhether there may be efficiency gains from providing wider benefits beyond those linked to theminimum legal requirements. The costs and benefits of providing the wider benefits would need to beappraised. This means that any incremental increases in investment

Project SponsorSee Project Roles

Q

R

Reconditioning/RECONSee Capital Reconditioning

Revenue fundingFCRM GiA Revenue funding is the money spent by the Environment Agency on day to day activities.These include salary costs of most staff, revenue projects (ie typically inspections, maintaining ourhydrometric and telemetry network and quality assurance of flood modelling) and RevenueMaintenance (ie preventing assets falling below target condition). Revenue also pays for our incidentresponse to flooding..

Revenue programmeThe revenue programme is the programme funded by FCRM GiA Revenue Funding and supported byLocal Income.

Revenue projectsA subset of the Revenue programme, these are projects generally funded by FCRM GiA Revenue.These support Environment Agency day to day activities where we have to procure specialistresource, eg diver inspections of assets. They also include work on ensuring our mapping andmodelling as at the required industry standard, biodiversity is preserved, and we maintain ouroperational capability for flood forecasting and incident management thought exercises andmaintaining our telemetry systems.

Revenue maintenanceThis is a subset of the Revenue programme and includes the maintenance activities the EnvironmentAgency undertake to ensure that assets do not fall below their target condition. They are acombination of Frequent Maintenance and Intermittent Maintenance. The programme includes routineinspections of assets and correcting minor issues, and is captured in the System Asset ManagementPlans (SAMPS).

S

Senior UserSee Project Roles

Standard of ProtectionThe probability of flooding expressed as either a return period (ie 1 in 75 years or 1:75 years) or as apercentage (1.33%) chance per year. The calculation is 1 divided by the return period multiplied by100 (1/75*100=1.33%). If we maintain the Standard of Service then we accept that the standard ofprotection will reduce in time as the affects of climate change take hold.

Standard of ServiceA measurable and objective description of an asset; for example the crest level of a wall or pumpingcapacity and a minimum condition grade. Not to be confused with the term Standard of Protection.

Senior SupplierSee Project Roles

Supplementary ExpenditureExtra funding that is required on a project, over and above what has already been allocated to it. Thiswill also require further Technical Review and FSoD approval It is captured on a Form G(Environment Agency) or FCERM4 (other RMAs) that needs to demonstrate that the businessjustification/case for the project is still robust.

System Asset Management Plans (SAMPs)These are long-term plans for each Asset System. They include information on the benefit of thesystem (ie what the system protects) and what the expected maintenance costs are for the assets inthat system. We use SAMPS to hold the information on our revenue maintenance programme. Datafrom SAMPS is used by the National Allocation and Programme team to make an indicative and finalallocation of FCRM GiA Revenue to each RFCC. Information in SAMPs is updated regularly byOperations teams.

System consequenceThis provides an indication of potential impacts of flooding for an Asset System. Each system isdefined as High, Medium or Low using a matrix that broadly compares the impact on people againstthe impact on property and land.

T

Target ConditionWe use a condition grading system (1 – 5) for our assets and each asset has a target grade againstwhich we monitor (through asset inspections), report (through KPIs) and improve (via assetrecondition/refurbishment).

Technical ReviewThe project assurance role undertaken by PAB and LPRG.

ToleranceTolerances can be set at a project and programme level. They enable project/programme outcomes(eg cost, time, scope, quality and benefits) to vary up to set limits (positive or negative) and to bemanaged in the best possible way. Once the tolerance levels are forecast to be exceeded, they areconsidered an exception, and are flagged for discussion/agreement at the appropriate governancelevel (eg Project Board, Programme Board). The in-year programme papers for the RFCC nowconcentrate on projects which have exceeded their tolerances, and are now in exception. The RFCCcould apply tolerances for their allocation of Local Levy

U

V

Variance

Variance is a measured from the previous month’s forecast or the start of year position called thebaseline. We track the variances of financial, outcome and risk forecasts. This data allows us to makedecisions on bringing in opportunities in to the programme.

VirementThe Programme Board is able to make some adjustments to in-year project budgets and bringprojects forward from future years. However, if these changes are above the threshold (eg asignificant change >£500k) a formal application of the budget change is required via Head Office andDirectors. If approved then a transfer of budget into or out of the RFCC takes place.

W

Whole Life CostThe net present cost of a project, or the asset provided by the project, to deliver defined outputs thatincludes the running and maintenance costs over an extended period. The period can include thereplacement of the asset, and is not fixed. The period is usually taken as that where the discountedfuture costs are material to the net present cost.

X

Y

Z

BLANK PAGE

Date post:	09-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times