Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee...Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Main...

Southern Regional Flood and Coastal

Committee

Main Committee Meeting Tuesday, 21st January 2020

London Councils, 59 ½ Southwark Street,

London, SE1 0AL

Intentionally left blank

2

Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

Tuesday, 21st January 2020 10:30 - 13:30 London Councils, 59 ½ Southwark Street

London, SE1 0AL

Agenda

10.30am Announcements

1. Welcome 2. Declarations of interest 3. Chairman’s announcement 4. Update on flooding – Sally Harvey, Area Director, Kent & South London

Purpose of the meeting: To consent the Capital GiA, Revenue allocation and recommend the Internal Drainage Board rates and discuss the SRFCC Strategy for 2020/21. General Business

10:50

5. Minutes of the full committee meeting of 15 October 2019 for approval 6. Matters arising from the Minutes 7. Action log 8. Forward Look

For Decision

9. 11:00 - SRFCC GiA Capital and Revenue Allocation Members will be asked to consent the 2020/21 Capital GiA allocation and the 5-year Revenue allocation.

10. 11:15 – Internal Drainage Board Rates and Budget Setting Members will be asked to make recommendation on the rates and budgets for 2020/21 for submission to the Environment Agency Board.

For Discussion

11. 11:25 – SRFCC Capital and Levy Programme 2019/20 progress update Members will be asked to note the in-year progress of the programme and approve changes in the levy programme.

Break – 11:45 Presentations

12. 11:55 – Southern Water Price Review final determination outcome – Simon Parker, Director,

Commercial Wastewater Services

13. 12:00 – Coastal Groups and partnership working – Bryan Curtis, Chair SE Coastal Group & Lyall Cairns, Chair Southern Coastal Group

3

Break–out discussion

14. 12:20 – Preparing for the future – A discussion to look at a strategy for the Southern RFCC.

For Information

(The following items are for information only. Anyone wishing to raise an information item for discussion should notify the Committee Secretariat prior to the meeting).

15. National FCERM Update

Any Other Business

13:20 - Meeting ends – 13:30 Lunch Date of next full committee meeting – Tuesday 21 April 2020 – Hosted by West Sussex County Council, Horsham

4

Southern RFCC – Main Committee Meeting Tuesday 15 October 2019, CIWEM, London Chair: Dr Martin Hurst

Southern RFCC Chair

Members:

Miss Priscilla Haselhurst Cllr Michael Payne Mr Max Tant Cllr Matthew Balfour Cllr Gary Wilkinson Mr Guy Mason Cllr Lance Quantrill Mrs Vicki Westall Cllr Pieter Montyn Mr Mat Jackson Cllr John Hobart Cllr Geraldene Lucia-Hennis Cllr Steve Leggett

Medway Council, Deputy for Cllr Kemp Kent County Council Kent County Council, Deputy for Cllr Bowles Kent County Council, Deputy for Cllr Hills Brighton & Hove City Council, Deputy for Cllr Pissaridou Portsmouth City Council, Deputy for Cllr Mason Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council, Deputy for Cllr Jan Warwick West Sussex County Council West Sussex County Council, Deputy for Cllr Edwards Isle of Wight Council LB of Bexley Council Southampton City Council

Independent members:

Dr Anthony Kimber Mr Bryan Curtis Mr Colin Tandy Ms Alison Thompson Mr Bill Symons Mr David Lowsley

Independent Member Independent Member (Coastal Lead) Independent Member Independent Member Independent Member Independent Member

Environment Agency Staff:

Mrs Sally Harvey Mr James Humphrys Mr Mark Douch Mr Ian Walker Mr Richard Oakes Mr Gary Evans

Area Director, Kent & South London Area Director, Solent & South Downs Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager, Kent & South London FCRM Programme Team Leader, Solent & South Downs FCRM Programme Team Leader, Kent & South London FCRM Programme Officer, Kent & South London

LLFA and other Officers: Guests & Observers

Mr Lyall Cairns Mr Simon Parker Mr Chris Braham Ms Jenny Jakeways Mrs Maggie Moran Ms Sam Foulds Mr Innes Thomson Ms Anne-Marie Mountifield Marc Pinnell

Chair, Southern Coastal Group Director, Commercial Wastewater Services, Southern Water Head of Strategic Planning - Wastewater, Southern Water Officer, Isle of Wight Council Officer, Brighton & Hove Council Southampton City Council CEO, Association of Drainage Authorities CEO, Solent Local Enterprise Partnership JBA Consulting

Secretariat:

Mrs Jo Matthews

RFCC Secretary

Apologies: Cllr Claire Dowling Cllr David Edwards Cllr Jan Warwick Cllr Andrew Bowles Cllr Tony Hills Cllr Barry Kemp Cllr Anne Pissaridou Cllr Hugh Mason Mr David Goff Mr Nick Claxton Mr Gordon Wilson Mr Nick Gray

East Sussex County Council West Sussex County Council Hampshire County Council Kent County Council Kent County Council Medway Council Brighton & Hove City Council Portsmouth City Council Independent Member East Sussex County Council AFCRM, Solent & South Downs AFCRM, Solent & South Downs

5

Acronyms used in these minutes: Defra = Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EA = Environment Agency FCERM = Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management FCERMGiA = Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant-in-Aid GiA = Grant-in-Aid KSL = Kent & South London (Environment Agency area) LA = Local Authority/ies LEP = Local Enterprise Partnership LLFA = Lead Local Flood Authority NFM = Natural Flood Management OWG = Officers’ Working Group OMs = Outcome measures PF – Partnership Funding RFCC = Regional Flood and Coastal Committee RMA = Risk Management Authority SMP = Shoreline Management Plans SSD = Solent & South Downs (Environment Agency area) SR19 = Spending Review 2019

Item No.

Item Action

1. Welcome, deputies and apologies for absence

The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting and listed the nominated deputies for Committee approval: Cllr Gary Wilkinson for Cllr Anne Pissaridou, Brighton & Hove City Council Ms Vicki Westall for Cllr Jan Warwick, Hampshire County Council Cllr Matthew Balfour for Cllr Tony Hills, Kent County Council Mr Max Tant for Cllr Andrew Bowles, Kent County Council Miss Priscilla Haselhurst for Cllr Barry Kemp, Medway Council Mr Guy Mason for Cllr Hugh Mason, Portsmouth City Council Mr Mat Jackson for Cllr David Edwards, West Sussex County Council Committee approved the 7 deputies Apologies were noted.

2. Declarations of interest Cllr Montyn and Mr Jackson regarding the Arundel local levy bid and the WSCC Waterfront Development levy bid. Cllr Steve Leggett regarding Southampton’s local levy bid.

3. Chair’s Announcements

Government has announced the revenue budget under SR19, which is being rolled over next year, but that they have yet to announce the capital budget.

Attended an RFCC Chair’s meeting at the end of September. A key discussion was around the coast and SMPs being refreshed, though will not be out for consultation. They agreed that the importance of the coast will rise up the agenda, particularly around the impacts of climate change.

6

4. RMA Updates Mr Humphrys told members that Emma Howard Boyd, Chair, EA, has made a declaration that the Environment Agency will aim to become a net zero organisation by 2030. This will be a challenge, particularly for future flood defence projects.

5. Minutes of the full committee meeting, 15th July 2019 Committee approved the minutes as accurate.

6. Matters arising from the minutes Mr Parker told Committee that Southern Water are still waiting for the results from the PR19 submission, but thought that they would be unlikely to get the full funding requested, possibly down by £200m. Action 1: To provide a paper for January’s meeting updating members on the outcome from Ofwat. Action 2: The Chair to contact Thames Water for a similar update to go with Southern Water’s paper. The Chair told Committee that he had written to Ofwat in support of their outcome proposals.

Mr Parker Chair

7. Action Log Mrs Matthews gave apologies to the Committee, as the version they had been sent were incorrect. An updated version will be circulated.

Mrs Matthews

8. Minutes of the Programme & Investment Sub-Committee – 24th September 2019 Committee approved the minutes as accurate.

For Decision

9.

SRFCC Capital Programme 2019/20 Update Mr Oakes gave an update of the 2019/20 programme advising Committee that some funding will be brought forward from 2020/21 due to a funding pressure next year. Some project contributions will be moved back in order to use GiA first, so there will be a drop in contributions this year. Although there have been some changes to account for next year’s pressures, the programme is forecasting to deliver more houses at reduced risk than the target. Committee approved this approach.

2020/21 Update and Capital Programme Refresh Mr Oakes told Committee that schemes completing by the 31st March 2021, in order to achieve the SRFCC’s portion of the National 300,000 houses at reduced risk target have been prioritised for GiA funding. An unconstrained bid was submitted for £78.5m of GiA, but unfortunately the bid was unsuccessful and the programme was only allocated £61.8m. This meant difficult decisions were required to come back to an affordable allocation, whilst still protecting houses at reduced risk from flooding and coastal erosion. (See paper and presentation for detail on how this was achieved).

7

Mr Oakes referred to some of the decisions made in Kent & South London area, such as Hythe Ranges being brought forward to complete in one year but Lydd Ranges being put on hold, due to planning issues, but with the assurance that it will be protected in the event of an emergency situation. Also that the following projects have been given an allocation: East Peckham PFR, £600k, has been given allocation to better protect 37 homes; Upper Westerham, £100k, better protecting 8 homes; Leigh Expansion and Hildenborough, £135k Committee approved:

Indicative allocation for 2020/21

Local choices for 2020/21

Support the capital programme prioritisation criteria

10. SRFCC local levy setting vote 2020/21 Cllr Payne, Kent County Council, opened the discussion by proposing a 5% increase. Cllr Leggett, Southampton City Council, said that as the climate change agenda and their green cities strategy are key that they support this proposed increase. Cllr Montyn, West Sussex County Council, said that while they have benefitted from local levy funding and will support the majority in this vote, it should be noted that it is very unlikely that a similar increase would be achievable next year. Cllr Quantrill, Hampshire County Council, said that there is a need to reduce funding next year and also said that it was unlikely that they would be able to support a 5% increase next year, but are supportive of it for this year. Vote for a 5% increase Cllr Wilkinson, Brighton & Hove City Council For East Sussex County Council Absent Cllr Quantrill, Hampshire County Council For Mrs Westall, Hampshire County Council For Cllr Hobart, Isle of Wight Council For Cllr Payne, Kent County Council For Cllr Balfour, Kent County Council For Mr Tant, Kent County Council For Cllr Lucia-Hennis representing: London Boroughs of Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

For

Miss Haselhurst, Medway Council Against Mr Mason, Portsmouth City Council For Cllr Leggett, Southampton City Council For Cllr Montyn, West Sussex County Council For Mr Jackson, West Sussex County Council For

Vote carried for a 5% increase in 2020/21

11.

Southern RFCC Local Levy New Bids Mr Walker gave a brief overview of the levy programme and asked members to approve two requests for projects to reprofile their allocation from 2019/20 to 2020/21. Romsey FAS would like to move £380k, due to slippage of works from this year to next, and North Winchester (Durngate) Flood Relief Scheme Phase II has asked to move their £200k allocation due to environmental and planning issues that has meant a delay to the start of construction to April 2020.

8

11a 11b 11c 11d

Committee approved the requests to re-profile these projects to 2020/21. Southern RFCC Local Levy New Bids Flood risk reduction for waterfront developments - £30k in 2019/20 To note that an update had been sent to Mrs Matthews regarding the issues raised at the P&I Sub-Committee but unfortunately this had not been included in the papers sent to members. Mr Tant felt that this study is trying to do something that already exists and seems a lot of money purely for a re-design of a pipe. He said that there are a lot of good systems dealing with rainwater run-off. Also concerned that this is benefitting architectural layouts and therefore the developer should be contributing to this. Mr Jackson said that the developer is contributing in kind by doing the modelling. Mr Tant suggested that funds could be sought from Defra and water industries, who support initiatives like this, and therefore a smaller amount could be sought from the SRFCC. Mrs Thompson suggested that the paper needs to be clearer about exactly what the study intends to do. Mrs Westall agreed with the points raised and is supportive of storage and re-use. The Chair proposed that the Committee approve the bid but that Mr Tant, Miss Haselhurst and Mrs Westall looks at the aims of the study to check that it is an appropriate use of funds. Cllr Payne said that he agrees in principle but that grey water re-use is included. Mr Curtis suggested that an additional criteria be added to include research and development, as the principles this project ticked were not entirely appropriate. Committee agreed up to £30k but only once the technical review by the officers has advised that all other avenues have been looked at. Arundel Tidal Defence Scheme – Phase 1 - £300k in 2020/21 Members supported the bid. Mr Curtis asked if the costs go up will the project return to ask the SRFCC for more levy funding. Mr Humphrys advised members that the ask is capped at £300k, so no, a further bid would not be sought. Committee approved the bid for £300k Weston Shore Coastal Erosion Scheme, Southampton - £150k in 2020/21 Members supported the bid but asked that if Southern Water were able to provide a contribution, even if in kind, that the amount of levy funding used would come down. The also asked that learning from this project be shared. Committee approved the bid for £150k Proposal to streamline the local levy bid process The Chair referred to the recommendation made at September’s Programme & Investment Sub-Committee to trial this streamlining process for a year and to cap project bids for this trial to £100k. Committee approved this proposal and the cap.

9

Presentations

12. 13. 14.

Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) – Innes Thomson, Chief Executive Mr Thomson gave an overview of the work of the ADA and its aims in partnership working with the RFCC and others. Mr Thomson asked members if they had anything they would like him to raise on their behalf when he meets with Rebecca Pow, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Defra on the 11th November. Action 1: Please email Mr Thomson if you would like him to raise an issue. Mr Curtis asked that coastal erosion and adaptation be raised as an ongoing issue. Cllr Payne asked that the remit of environmental outcome measures be made wider. Mr Thomson offered to send members a copy of the ADA Gazette. Action 2: Let Mrs Matthews know if you’d like a copy. The Chair thanked Mr Innes for a very interesting presentation and looks forward to closer working ties. Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (Solent LEP) – Anne-Marie Mountifield, Chief Executive Presented the aims of the Solent LEP, outlining the four key roles – Strategy, allocation of funds, co-ordination and advocacy and the area that the Solent LEP covers – 9 local authority areas, 3 universities, 12 further education colleges, as well as the private sector. Also discussed the new national Industrial Strategy, though emphasised that this isn’t just about industry but about focus on local growth, such as future high streets and town deals, which will be announced in the near future. The Chair thanked Mrs Mountifield for informing the committee on their work and their forward look. Climate change emergency and Southampton’s Green City portfolio – Cllr Steve Leggett Informed members of the green city charter and environment work that Southampton City Council have been, and are, undertaking to improve the issues affecting the city, such as air pollutions, climate change, green infrastructure, biodiversity, and energy use. The council has already seen improvements in air quality and urban green spaces by creating living walls on a flyover, planting trees and creating more green spaces for residents. This work will reduce the need for energy and use it more efficiently, as well as reducing carbon emissions and thus improving the health of residents. The Chair thanked Cllr Leggett for a positive view of adaptation and mitigation using green technologies and suggested members speak to Cllr Leggett about their own aims to address these issues in the authorities. Action: Circulate all the presentations.

All All Mrs Matthews

10

Information Papers

15. 16.

The Chair encouraged Members to read these information papers and note content that will assist with their wider role as Committee Members. National FCERM Update River Basin Management Plan consultation and engagement

17. Partnership funding for the future FCERM investment programme Mr Oakes gave an overview of the proposed changes to the partnership funding rules, in line with the associated paper, where Committee is asked to: 1. Note the progress in preparing a case for a future Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) capital programme. 2. Note that outcomes from a future investment programme will be dependent on amending the Partnership Funding rules, including those coming into operation in April 2021. 3. Provide support and views on a number of potential Partnership Funding rule amendments being considered by Defra and the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency and Defra will take these views into account when deciding on the approach to a new investment programme.

Mr Tandy expressed support for these changes especially knowing how difficult it can be to obtain contributions. The Chair was disappointed that there wasn’t a lot for business, particularly small to medium businesses that would often not be able to provide significant contributions. Mr Jackson said that the OM4s should align with Natural England and that Environmental Benefits should be renamed to reflect green capital infrastructure benefits. Mr Curtis asked whether the asset replacement fund was for all RMAs or just the EA? Action 1: To provide an answer. Mr Oakes told members that Defra will consider further PF changes in 2020. Committee are supportive of these proposals and noted the progress in preparing a case for future FCERM capital programme and the outcomes for future investment programme will be dependent on amending the PF rules, including those coming into operation in 2021.

Mr Oakes

18. Any other business

The Chair thanked Mr Walker and his team for their help in sorting out the papers for this meeting.

13:45 Meeting ended. Date of next main meeting: Tuesday 21 January 2020 – London Councils, 59 ½ Southwark Street, London, SE1 0AL

11

SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE

ACTION LOG

Last updated – 25/10/2019

Meeting Date

Agenda Item No.

Action Lead Status

15/10/2019 6 Update from Mr Parker on Southern Water’s PR19 submission. To provide a paper/presentation for January’s meeting to update members on the outcomes from Ofwat.

Mr Parker In progress

15/10/2019 6 To contact Thames Water for a similar update on their submission to Ofwat. The Chair In progress

15/10/2019 7 To circulate the correct version of the action log from July’s meeting. Mrs Matthews Completed

15/10/2019 12 Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) presentation. Mr Thomson, CEO, asked members to let him know if they would like him to raise on their behalf an issue for his meeting with Rebecca Pow, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defra before the 11th November 2019.

All Completed

15/10/2019 12 Offered to send to members a copy of the ADA Gazette. To let Mrs Matthews know if you’d like a copy.

All Completed

15/10/2019 12-14 To circulate all the presentations. Mrs Matthews Completed

15/10/2019 17 Partnership Funding – to provide an answer to Mr Curtis regarding whether the asset replacement fund was for all RMAs or just the EA.

Mr Oakes Completed

12

SRFCC FORWARD LOOK – 2020

SRFCC MAIN MEETINGS 21 January 2020 – London Councils, London

SRFCC FCRM GiA 6 year programme update 2020/21 – members will be asked for their consent to the changes since the Autumn statement and the revenue allocation (S/De)

Update on IDBs and setting rates for 2020/21 – if any (De)

SRFCC Local Levy Programme 2019/22 – (S/De)

SRFCC Programme 2019/20 Progress update – members will be asked to note the in-year progress on the programme (S)

Coastal Groups update – Bryan Curtis/Lyall Cairns (S/P) National papers – to be confirmed (Di or I)

21 April 2020 – hosted by West Sussex CC, Horsham

SRFCC Local Levy Programme update, review of projects wishing to roll over funds to 2020/21 and review new bids for funding (S/De – 1 hour)

SRFCC Review of 2019/20 Programme

SRFCC Baseline Programme 2020/21 (S)

Maintenance Programme 2020/21 (Di) – (20 mins)

Annual review of the Risk Register (De)

Fixing & Linking Our Wetlands (FLOW) Partnership - Jane Reeve/Sue Furlong – (P)

3rd UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) – Kristen Guida (P) – (25 mins)

National papers – to be confirmed (D/I)

21 July 2020 – venue tbc

SRFCC Baseline Programme 2020/21 (S/Di)

SRFCC GiA 6 year programme update 2020/21 (S/Di)

SRFCC Local Levy Programme update (S/Di)

SRFCC look at NFM/conservation matters – Ali Morse (P)

Coastal Groups update – Bryan Curtis/Lyall Cairns (S/P) National papers – to be confirmed (D/I)

20 October 2020 – London Councils, London

SRFCC Local Levy Setting 2021/22 and programme 2019/22 & bids for funding (De) – 45 mins

SRFCC Programme 2020/21 progress update and agree local choice bids for funding, review the refresh and agree the FCRM GiA Indicative Allocation (De) – 45 mins

National papers – to be confirmed (D/I)

13

SRFCC PROGRAMME & INVESTMENT SUB-COMMITTEE 17 March 2020 – Worthing

Update from Officer’s Working Group

Local Levy programme review, bids for roll-over and new bids (1 hour slot)

Capital Programme 2020/21 in-year progress & 2021/22 forward look

Update and review of the Risk Register (30 minute slot) Update on Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy – Teresa Willway (P) (tbc)

22 September 2020 – CIWEM, 106-109, Saffron Hill, London

Update from Officer’s Working Group

Capital Programme update and in-year progress

SRFCC Local Choices 2020/21

SRFCC Local Levy setting discussion and Local Levy bids

14

Southern RFCC Committee Meeting

Item no. 9 Date: 21 January 2020

Paper by: Director of FCRM Allocation and Asset Management Subject: 2020/21 Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) Grant in Aid

(GiA) allocation for capital and revenue funding

Appendix A: FCRM allocation principles Appendix B: Indicative capital allocation Appendix C: Indicative revenue maintenance allocations Appendix D: Revenue maintenance programme – type of work Appendix E: Southern RFCC capital Schemes 2020/21 Appendix F: Annual allocation funding cycles for RFCC’s – a simple guide

Headline messages:

This paper asks Committees to discuss and consent their capital and revenue indicative allocations for 2020/21.

As in previous years, the capital programme is being prioritised by homes better protected.

Rather than doing a full refresh this year we have retained, as closely as possible, the existing allocations for 2020/21.

All RFCC local choices submissions which met the criteria have been approved.

The most likely outcome, relative to the national 300,000 homes target, is now 315,000 homes better protected by the end of the 6 year programme in March 2021.

Delivery of 30,000 homes remains dependent on securing a further £30m-£40m of partnership funding contributions.

Recommendations: The RFCC Committees are asked to:

1. Note the allocation principles for the 2020/21 FCRM GiA capital allocation (Appendix A).

2. To review and consent the final draft indicative allocations for FCRM capital GiA funding (Appendix B and Scheme detail in Appendix E).

3. To review and consent the final draft indicative allocations for FCRM revenue GiA funding (Appendix C).

15

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This paper is the final stage in allocating FCRM GiA for financial year 2020/21. This

will be the final year of the current 6 year capital investment programme.

1.2 The scheme level detail of this allocation for the Southern RFCC Committee can be found in appendix E.

1.3 The Committees are asked to review and consent their final draft indicative allocations for next financial year.

1.4 In building the indicative allocations, the allocation principles and Defra’s Partnership Funding Policy have been applied. They are the allocation principles reviewed by the Committees and approved by the EA Board on 7 February 2019 (Appendix A), and remain unchanged from last year.

1.5 As of the end of October 2019 (quarter 2 of this financial year) we have achieved

200,425 homes better protected since the start of the 6 year capital programme in 2015.

1.6 A simple guide to the annual allocation process was set out in the appendix of the April 2019 National Allocation paper. The summary capital and revenue funding allocation cycles have been included in Appendix E as a reminder.

2.0 FCRM Grant in Aid capital allocation 2.1 Table 1 shows the capital profile for the final year of the current 6 year programme,

and 2019/20 for reference. As noted at the last meeting, this now includes the additional £62.4m funding uplift (announced on 10 September) which benefits 5 RFCC Committees (detailed in the October 2019 Committee paper).

Table 1: FCRM GiA capital funding profile, £m

Year 5

2019/20 Year 6

2020/21

Pre-Autumn Budget 2017 £463.0 £451.0

Additional funding to accelerate schemes £18.0 £8.0

Additional funding for deprived communities £20.0 £10.0

Additional funding uplift September 2019 n/a £62.4

Revised profile £501.0 £531.4

Forecast ‘most likely’ homes better protected 251,000 homes 315,000 homes

2.2 As in previous years, the programme is being prioritised by homes better protected to

ensure we meet our 300,000 homes target by 31 March 2021. 2.3 The National Portfolio Management Office (PMO) undertook a national prioritisation

exercise which showed that the homes target would best be achieved through

16

retaining, as close to possible, the indicative allocations for 2020/21. These were provided as part of the 2019/20 refresh (shared with RFCC Committees in January 2019) and agreed at the EA Board on 7 February 2019.

2.4 We have been able to take this approach for 2020/21 as previous annual allocations

have ensured that money has been fairly distributed across the RFCCs in the best way to achieve at least 300,000 homes better protected. This is good news as it allows Area teams the freedom to operate within this framework to ensure they manage their programmes and 2019/20 and 2020/21 budgets to achieve the target and provides a more stable programme. This should limit significant funding changes between the Committees.

2.5 Prioritising by homes maximises the likelihood of achieving our 300,000 homes target

within the current allocation. The draft indicative capital programme for review and consent has been prioritised using the following approach:

Projects in construction by 1 October 2019 and statutory and legal ‘must do’s’

Projects better protecting homes by 2021, then

Projects better protecting homes beyond 2021, prioritised by Partnership Funding score

Local Choices

2.6 The draft indicative programme was shared with RFCCs at their October ‘local choices’

meetings. Local choices enable RFCCs to make changes to the programme within their funding allocation. They must maintain or increase the ‘most likely’ forecast of homes better protected.

2.7 Following these meetings and submission of all local choice returns back to the

national PMO we can now provide the draft final indicative allocations. All local choices which met the criteria set out in the October paper have been approved and built into the Committee’s allocations.

2.8 Our updated ‘most likely’ forecast, taking into account delivery confidence of

individual schemes, is 315,000 homes better protected by the end of the 6 year programme.

2.9 A table showing the allocation by RFCC for 2020/21 for schemes and support

schemes can be found in Appendix B. The table also shows each RFCC’s contribution to the homes better protected target.

2.10 Our focus remains on achieving our fixed 300,000 homes better protected target by

end of March 2021. This focus on a shorter term goal means that the programme is in essence now a 15 month programme. Ideally it would consist of a blend of projects at different stages of development to manage flood and coastal erosion risk into the future. However, with the current pressure on budgets, we are funding less projects that will input into the future programme beyond March 2021.

Settlement conditions 2.11 In line with our settlement condition for the 6 year programme we would expect to see

10% efficiency savings on the £531m allocation for 2020/21. If half of this £53m were cash releasing, this would free up £26.5m to reinvest in schemes to help manage any in-year financial pressures.

17

2.12 The overall partnership funding contributions required to achieve the 300,000 homes

better protected target for the 6 year programme is in the range of £550m to £600m, of which £561m has already been secured. Achievement of 30,000 homes of the 339,000 maximum possible homes are dependent on £30m-£40m of contributions which remain to be secured. We are actively managing this and it is likely that some schemes which cannot secure the required partnership funding will achieve their homes early in the next programme. We welcome the RFCC Committees continued support in securing partnership funding contributions.

3.0 Asset management revenue maintenance programme 3.1 Based on the planning assumption that we will get a roll-forward budget for 2020/21

we will invest £110m into our Field Operations teams and maintenance programme. 3.2 Over a number of years we have been moving towards a position where all RFCCs

are funded to the same level of asset risk as defined in our Asset Information Management System (AIMS). We are now close to achieving this. In previous years we have capped decreases at 10% per year. The maximum decrease for any RFCC Committee is 9% for 2020/21.

3.3 The indicative allocation to RFCCs for Area Operations Services teams and

maintenance programmes are provided in Appendix C. Details of the type of work contained within the indicative revenue maintenance programme is provided in Appendix D.

4.0 Recommendations

The RFCC Committees are asked to: 1. Note the allocation principles for the 2020/21 FCRM GiA capital allocation

(Appendix A).

2. To review and consent the final draft indicative allocations for FCRM capital GiA funding (Appendix B).

3. To review and consent the final draft indicative allocations for FCRM revenue GiA

funding (Appendix C). Ken Allison Director FCRM Allocation and Asset Management 17 December 2019

18

Appendix A: FCRM allocation principles Protect people and homes

Deliver the £2.6bn six year capital programme Increased protection for at least 300,000 homes between 2015/16 and 2020/21 Protect maintenance funding in real terms and re-invest 10% efficiency savings

Take a risk-based approach to securing the condition of existing assets including channel conveyance

Maintain our ability to warn people and respond to incidents so as to save lives and property

Support the provision of property scale resistance and resilience measures Working in partnership

Provide positive contributions to the recently announced Government-led reviews into flood risk management

Achieve third party, including private, investment in line with the Defra partnership funding and contributions policy

Support community-based solutions that are innovative, cost-effective and affordable

Achieve balanced programmes in collaboration with RFCCs

Promoting an integrating approach to managing flood risk working with other Risk Management Authorities

We will take a catchment based approach

Improve our understanding with partners of all flood and coastal erosion risk data and support the government’s ‘Open Data’ commitment making our data and information easily accessible to all who want it

Way we work

Maintain skills and a pipeline of studies for medium and long-term investment needs

Maximise efficiency savings and value for money

Continue to promote schemes that meet statutory environmental requirements

Promote sustainable development that reduces flood risk

Provide appropriate funding toward the essential support services that enable delivery of flood and coastal risk outcomes

We will work collaboratively across the Environment Agency and with external partners to realise multiple benefits.

19

Appendix B: FCRM GiA indicative capital allocation for schemes and support schemes

RFCC

2019/20 Opening

Allocation1

2020/21 Current published

programme indicative allocation2

2020/21 Refresh indicative

allocation Post Local Choices3

Difference Post Local Choice vs

indicative allocation for

2020/21

Programme forecast 2020/21

Indicative allocation

for support schemes 2020/214

Total final indicative

allocation for 2020/215

£m Max

homes £m

Max homes

£m Max

homes £m

Max homes

Most likely homes

£m £m

Anglian Eastern 35.5 4,620 16.1 2,858 32.0 5,346 15.9 2,488 3,782 1.8 33.8

Anglian Great Ouse 13.1 394 18.7 1,557 26.1 2,247 7.4 690 1,793 0.4 26.5

Anglian Northern 57.6 16,871 19.3 5,133 46.6 21,281 27.3 16,148 17,518 1.3 47.9

English Severn and Wye 3.4 969 1.5 396 1.8 852 0.3 456 543 1.5 3.3

North West 56.9 5,624 73.1 6,194 65.1 5,120 -8.0 -1,074 4,800 3.3 68.4

Northumbria 10.1 1,167 5.5 1,118 13.1 1,502 7.6 384 1,067 0.8 13.9

South West 22.5 2,088 20.6 1,050 19.9 2,055 -0.7 1,005 1,315 2.3 22.2

Southern 42.1 12,914 62 13,940 60.9 12,457 -1.1 -1,483 7,998 3.3 64.2

Thames 48.7 6,267 29.9 5,860 39.6 5,959 9.7 99 3,041 2.1 41.7

Trent 50 2,481 37.2 10,318 39.5 11,407 2.3 1,089 7,704 1.0 40.5

Wessex 9.1 1,125 13.1 1,286 12.2 1,730 -0.9 444 1,338 1.4 13.6

Yorkshire 95.3 23,572 104.4 18,205 102.6 21,904 -1.8 3,699 17,827 2.7 105.3

Total 444.3 78,092 401.4 67,915 459.43 91,860 58.0 23,945 68,726 21.9 481.3

1. Includes over-allocation of £15.4m. Budget for 2019/20 was amended in Q1 2019/20 to ensure programme remained affordable.

2. Indicative allocation for 2020/21 given as part of the 2019/20 allocation agreed at EA Board on 7 February 2019. 3. £2m for Adaptive Pathways is yet to be allocated. 4. Support schemes are projects which provide wider FCRM benefits, such as mapping and modelling, incident management, hydrometry and telemetry. 5. Total is 2020/21 Refresh indicative allocation post Local Choices plus final allocation for support schemes.

20

Appendix C: FCRM GiA indicative revenue maintenance allocations for 2020/21 and 2021/22

RFCC 2019/20

Allocation, £k

2020/21 Indicative Allocation

£k

2021/22 Indicative Allocation

£k

Anglian Great Ouse 4,770 4,542 4,087

Anglian Eastern 8,698 8,450 7,955

Anglian Northern 10,287 10,755 10,426

North West 10,645 10,950 11,700

Northumbria 2,475 2,549 2,500

Severn & Wye 4,833 4,411 4,043

South West 5,119 5,004 4,630

Southern 11,276 10,964 10,405

Thames 19,399 20,027 21,021

Trent 12,335 12,730 14,164

Wessex 7,729 7,420 6,870

Yorkshire 12,434 12,198 12,198

Total 110,000 110,000 110,000

21

Appendix D: Southern RFCC 2020/21 Revenue maintenance programme – type of work

Type of Work - Value (£k)

System Risk

Dredging Maintain

Conveyance

Maintain Raised

Defences

Maintain Structures

MEICA Operation Other Survey/

Inspection Statutory

Inspection Channel Repairs

Coastal Repairs

Raised Defence Repairs

Structure Repairs

Unscheduled

Revenue Maintenance Support

Schemes High 497 1849 1314 1772 1389 15 425 63 6 17 10 846 125 1085 118

Medium 2 120 83 65 29 1 2

15 44

Low 19 499 164 75 92 4 21 29

22

Appendix E: Southern RFCC capital Schemes 2020/21

National Project Number

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Raw Partnership

Funding Score

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Public

Contributions Private

Contributions All other

contributions OM2 OM3

SOS003E/000A/016A Bulverhythe Capital Maintenance 2018/19-2022/23

Environment Agency 489% 489% 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 32 0

SOC501E/000A/003A Eastbourne Beach Management - 5 yr Plan (2021/22 - 2024/25)

Eastbourne Borough Council

468% 500% 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOS003C/004A/002A Eastbourne Beach Management - 6 yr Plan (2015/16 - 2020/21) (Yrs 1 to 6)

Eastbourne Borough Council

1058% 1076% 400,000 300,000 100,000 0 0 1,494 55

SOC501E/000A/020A Malling Brooks Desilting Environment Agency 26% 26% 180,000 180,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOS004E/001A/009A Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 221% 221% 1,220,000 1,220,000 0 0 0 117 0

SOC006E/000A/005A North Street & Talbot Terrace, Lewes, Flood Alleviation Scheme (Sussex Ouse Strategy)

Environment Agency 13% 4753% 1,220,000 10,000 0 1,210,000 0 0 0

SOC999/000/093A Peacehaven Sea Walls Capital Maintenance and Improvements to take into account climate change

Lewes District Council

9% 12% 84,800 66,800 18,000 0 0 0 0

SOS003E/002A/003A PEVENSEY BAY SEA DEFENCES PPP

Environment Agency143% 208% 1,744,733 1,479,733 0 265,000 0 2,117 0

SOS004C/000A/010A Seaford Beach Shingle Recycling 2018/19 - 2023/24

Environment Agency214% 214% 529,700 529,700 0 0 0 92 0

SOS004E/001A/008A Southease Parish and Southease to A27 Tidal Embankment Rebuilds


SOS004C/011A/002A Works from Brighton Marina to River Adur Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy

Brighton and Hove City Council

39% 100% 1,042,457 456,074 4740,887 111,496 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/165A Broomhill Sands Beach Management 18/19 to 20/21


SOS003E/001A/015B Lydd Ranges Schemes Environment Agency 119% 121% 730,000 730,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/162A Pett Beach Management 2020/21 - 2021/22


SOC004E/000A/004A River Rother Restoration Study Environment Agency N/A N/A 65,000 0 0 0 65,000 0 0

SOS003E/001A/023A Rother Tidal Walls East Environment Agency 119% 121% 184,500 184,500 0 0 0 0 0

THE001E/000A/012ASo

Thames Estuary Phase 1 Programme (So)

Environment Agency 43% 100% 7,419,810 7,419,810 0 0 0 52 0

SOC500E/000A/061A Alverstoke Coastal Flood & Erosion Risk Management Scheme

Gosport Borough Council

144% 144% 420,489 420,489 0 0 0 99 0

SOC999/000/081A Bourne Rivulet Groundwater Alleviation

Hampshire County Council

2% 93% 165,000 0 115,000 0 50,000 5 0

SOC500E/000A/038A Forton Lake (Gosport) Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Scheme


56% 101% 385,482 111,716 0 0 273,766 66 1

SOS005C/016A/003A Hill Head to Portsmouth Harbour Entrance Beach Management Plan


22% 22% 323,564 0 0 0 323,564 9 3

23




Raw Partnership

Funding Score


Funding Score


GiA Public




SOS005C/011A/013A Hurst Spit Beach Management Plan 2018/19 to 2022/23

New Forest District Council

46% 46% 170,680 40,000 0 0 130,680 0 0

SOS005C/011A/021A Hurst Spit to Lymington FAS Environment Agency 17% 17% 66,000 66,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOS000F/005A/014A Langstone (Havant) CFERM scheme Havant Borough Council

11% 80% 300,000 0 300,000 0 0 0 5

SOC010F/000A/009A Outer Winchester Flood Alleviation Hampshire County Council

6% 48% 1,435,000 0 80,000 0 1,355,000 0 0

SOS005E/005A/001A Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove Tidal Defence

Fareham Borough Council

N/A N/A 353,644 0 0 353,644 0 0 0

SOS005F/004A/002A Portsea Island - Flood Cell 1: Southsea Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Scheme

Portsmouth City Council

81% 85% 13,500,000 9,500,000 4,0000,000 0 0 810 0

SOS005F/004A/006A Portsea Island - Flood Cell 4: North Portsea Island Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Scheme

Portsmouth City Council

100% 100% 4,878,084 4,878,084 0 0 0 152 0

SOS005C/000B/002A River Itchen (Tidal) Flood Alleviation Scheme


SOC010E/000A/012A Romsey Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 64% 128% 2,316,969 300,000 1,636,969 0 380,000 0 0

SOS005F/001A/006A

South Hayling Island Beach Management Activities (including Eastoke Drainage Improvements CFERM Scheme)

Havant Borough Council

168% 168% 418,000 418,000 0 0 0 311 0

SOC500F/000A/034A Totton Surface Water Flood Alleviation Hampshire County Council

70% 70% 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0 0

SOC010E/000A/011A Winchester (R. Itchen) Fluvial Flood Alleviation Scheme

Hampshire County Council

45% 104% 1,078,000 0 1,078,000 0 0 0 0

SOS006C/000B/001A East Cowes Flood Risk Management scheme


SOC500E/000A/055A Appledore Pumping station Environment Agency 100% 108% 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/174A Deal Beach management 2020-2025 Dover DC 216% 216% 350,000 350,000 0 0 0 1,035 108

SOC500E/000A/166A Denge (Lydd Ranges) Beach Management 2019/20 - 2020/21

Environment Agency 137% 137% 550,000 550,000 0 0 0 1,724 0

SOC003E/001A/005A East Peckham PFR Environment Agency 91% 91% 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 37 0

SOO004E/000A/048A Elmley Managed Realignment and Habitat Creation


SOO004E/000A/083A Great Bells Farm - RHCP Environment Agency N/A N/A 16,085 16,085 0 0 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/072A Greatstone Dunes Management (2017 - 2021)

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

2378% 2378% 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 155 0

SOS003E/001A/001A Hythe Ranges Scheme Environment Agency 119% 121% 20,731,000 20,731,000 0 0 0 746 0

SOS500C/000A/012A Hythe to Folkestone Beach Recharge 2019-21

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

433% 433% 4,078,409 4,078,409 0 0 0 0 2,190

SOC003E/001A/020A Leigh Expansion and Hildenborough Embankments

Environment Agency 66% 122% 460,398 160,398 300,000 0 0 0 0

24




Raw Partnership

Funding Score


Funding Score


GiA Public




SOC500E/000A/057A Leigh FSA Improvements Environment Agency 100% 100% 207,500 207,500 0 0 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/099A Leigh MIOS 17 – 21 Environment Agency N/A N/A 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/168A Littlestone Beach Management 2020/21-2021/22


SOC500E/000A/083A Middle Medway Flood Resilience Environment Agency 63% 100% 1,400,000 0 1,400,000 0 0 0 0

SOC500E/000A/098A NFM - Medway Environment Agency 165,000 0 80,000 0 85,000 0 0

SOC500E/000A/156A Northern Sea Wall Beach Management 20/21 to 21/22

Environment Agency 116% 121% 120,000 115,000 0 0 5,000 28 0

SOS003E/001A/012A Romney Sands Coastal Defences Environment Agency 119% 121% 295,779 295,779 0 0 0 27 0

SOS001E/006A/015A Sandwich Town Tidal Defences Environment Agency N/A N/A 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOC001E/000A/097A Upper Westerham Flood Alleviation Scheme


SOS004C/003A/008A Aldwick Groyne Replacement Scheme Ph 10

Arun District Council 85% 105% 750,000 597,000 0 0 153,000 24 30

SOO002E/000A/299A Angmering FAS Environment Agency 29% 65% 267,000 20,000 100,000 60,000 87,000 22 0

SOS004C/003A/010A Arun to Pagham Beach Management Plan

Arun District Council 198% 214% 61,000 51,000 10,000 0 0 0 27

SOC008E/001A/013A Arundel Tidal Defence Improvements Phase 1

Environment Agency71% 100% 700,000 250,000 300,000 0 150,000 118 58

SOC500E/000A/020A Climping (Legal Frontage) Beach Management


SOS004E/003A/009A Elmer Beach Management Works Environment Agency 101% 102% 76,000 76,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOO002E/000A/296A Ferring Rife FAS Environment Agency 179% 179% 75,000 75,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOC007E/000A/015A Hassocks Surface Water Management Plan and Actions

West Sussex County Council

145% 145% 90,000 90,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOS500C/000A/009A

Implementation of the Selsey, Bracklesham and East Wittering Beach Management (5yrs 2016/17 to 2020/21)

Chichester District Council

152% 152% 280,000 280,000 0 0 0 85 15

SOS005E/009A/001A Medmerry Managed Realignment Environment Agency N/A N/A 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOC999/000/104A Project Marker - Thorney Island Coastal Habitat Creation Scheme

Environment Agency20% 38% 500,000 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0

SOO002E/000A/292A River Ems, Westbourne FAS Environment Agency 29% 94% 218,000 148,000 0 0 70,000 0 0

SOS004E/002A/002A Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls Scheme Environment Agency N/A N/A 986,000 986,000 0 0 0 0 0

SOS004C/000A/020A Shoreham and Lancing Coastal Defences Beach Management Plan


SOS004C/002A/017A Shoreham Western Harbour Arm Flood Defence - Development and construction

Adur and Worthing Councils

10% 105% 1,226,000 249,000 977,0000 0 0 0 0

25




Raw Partnership

Funding Score


Funding Score


GiA Public




SOS004C/002A/012A Worthing - Goring Development, delivery and construction of replacement groynes

Adur and Worthing Councils

104% 104% 500,000 200,000 300,000 0 0 0 0

26

Appendix F: Annual allocation funding cycles for RFCCs – a simple guide

27


28

SOUTHERN REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE

Item: 10

Date: 21 January 2020

Paper by: Peter Carver – Clerk to the River Arun Internal Drainage District

Subject: Financial matters relating to Internal Drainage Districts in Sussex

and Kent for 2020/21

Recommendation The Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to:

1. Note that we are still awaiting a decision from the Minister on the proposedabolition of the River Arun Internal Drainage District.

2. Note and comment on proposals to the Environment Agency Board to appoint theSolent and South Downs (SSD) Area Director and SSD (East) OperationsManager as the Responsible Officer and Clerk respectively to the River ArunInternal Drainage Board.

3. Note that the final accounts of the Environment Agency administered River ArunInternal Drainage Board have been completed and audited.

4. Review and provide advice to the Environment Agency Board on the DrainageRates and Special Levies for 2020/21 for the River Arun Internal Drainage Districtin West Sussex.

5. Review and provide advice to the Environment Agency Board in respect of theprecepts on the 7 Internal Drainage Boards in the Southern Region for 2020/21.

6. Review and provide advice to the Environment Agency Board in respect of theUpland and Higher Land Water Contributions for these Internal Drainage Boardsfor 2020/21.

1. Introduction & Background

1.1 There are 7 Internal Drainage Districts (IDDs) across the Committee’s area. Of these 6 are administered by independent locally representative and accountable Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs). Since 2010, the Environment Agency Board has acted as the IDB for the River Arun IDD pending a decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment on its proposed abolition.

1.2 This paper presents:

An update on progress on the project to abolish the River Arun IDD

Proposed changes to the appointed Responsible Finance Officer and Clerk tothe River Arun IDB

Proposed drainage rates and special levies for the River Arun IDD which will bepresented to the Environment Agency Board in February 2020 for approval intheir capacity as IDB of the River Arun IDD. Under an agreed protocol, theEnvironment Agency Board values input and advice from the Southern

29

Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, as a body with local representation, into their deliberations when approving the rates and levies.

Precepts on the local IDBs to be paid to the Environment Agency as theircontribution towards the costs of work on main rivers from which they benefit.

Contributions made by the Environment Agency to the local IDBs in recognitionof their dealing with water entering the IDDs from higher up the catchment.

2 Current situation on the abolition project

2.1 Following the abolition of 7 Environment Agency administered IDDs across the Committee’s area between 2015 and 2017, the River Arun IDD is now the only IDD remaining under EA administration.

2.2 In March 2017 Defra advertised the draft order to abolish the River Arun IDD and, as objections were received, called a local public inquiry into the proposed abolition which was held in February 2018.

2.3 In his report, the inquiry inspector concluded that abolition of the IDD would not have significant effects on some matters and only relatively modest effects on others. However he considered that there was a lack of certainty over its possible impact on the designated features of 2 of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and on the River Arun SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. He therefore recommended that the Order to abolish the River Arun IDD be not made.

2.4 At the Minister’s request we drafted and consulted on a new Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the abolition of the River Arun IDD. In addition to enmainments at Amberley Wildbrooks SSSI, the HRA included a drainage scheme at Waltham Brooks SSSI.

2.5 In January 2019 NE agreed with our HRA that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of Arun Valley SPA, SAC and Ramsar from the abolition of the Arun Valley IDB subject to the above measures being implemented.

2.6 Since providing the further information required by the Minister in January 2019, we have been maintaining contact with Defra whilst awaiting the Minister’s decision. As a result of ministerial and other changes during 2019 and the general election this has not progressed and we are still waiting to see how the new Minister will approach this. Whether or not the Minister approves abolition, it is unlikely that an abolition will come into effect before 31 March 2021.

2.7 As a result, the Environment Agency Board will continue to act as the IDB for the River Arun IDD, as it has since 2010, and will need to raise drainage rates and special levies for the financial year 2020/21.

2.8 In 2012, pending abolition of the 8 Environment Agency administered IDDs, arrangements were put in place to meet legal, audit and good practice requirements of the IDDs. This formally appointed the following named individuals as the Chairman, the Responsible Finance Officer and the Clerk of the IDBs:

Chairman of the IDBs - Lord Chris Smith, then Chair of the Environment Agency Responsible Finance Officer -Dr Paul Leinster, then Chief Executive of the Environment Agency. (Role currently delegated to FCRM Director) Clerk to the Boards - Peter Carver, then Southern Region Finance Business Partner

30

2.9 As the named individuals appointed as Chairman, Chief Executive and Clerk in 2012 have now left or moved to other roles within Defra, these appointments do need to be reviewed and updated.

2.10 Under the Environment Agency standing orders the role of chair of the Internal Drainage District cannot be delegated from the EA Board. Thus the Chair of the EA Board meeting dealing with IDD matters remains the Chair of the Internal Drainage Board. The role of Responsible Finance Officer can be delegated. The role of the Clerk can be allocated to any relevant member of staff, an individual or a postholder.

2.11 As the River Arun IDD in Solent and South Downs Area is now the only IDD administered by the Environment Agency the following proposals are being taken to the Environment Agency Board for their approval in February:

Proposed that the role of:

Responsible Finance Officer be delegated to the Solent and South Downs Area Director.

Clerk to the River Arun IDB be assigned to the Solent and South Downs (East) Operations Manager.

Having roles assigned to postholders rather than individuals will ensure that future staff changes will not require regular updating via the EA Board.

3 River Arun IDB Accounts 2018/19

3.1 The Audit Commission require that the IDB annual accounting returns are approved by the Environment Agency Board acting as the River Arun IDB by the 1 July.

3.2 Whilst the Environment Agency Board members formally sit as the River Arun IDB to approve the accounts in June, it welcomes the RFCC’s view on matters relating to the IDB.

3.3 The financial year ended on the 31 March 2019. Accounts were prepared for the River Arun IDB in accordance with the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations and submitted to the external auditors on 1 July 2019.

3.4 Unfortunately the timing of end of year, EA Board and RFCC meetings did not allow for the RFCC to scrutinise the accounts in advance of the Board meeting that approved the accounts. As a result the final submitted accounts are included in appendix 4.

3.5 The audited Annual Governance and Accountability return is attached as Appendix 3. The main difference between the final figures and the forecast estimates presented at the January 2019 Southern Regional Flood Coastal Committee meeting relates to the level of expenditure. The outturn expenditure was lower as the Waltham Brooks scheme did not proceed in the 2018/19 financial year. This scheme, which is still under discussion is included in the budgeted expenditure for 2020/21.

3.6 Government Internal Audit signed off the accounts which were approved by the Environment Agency Board on 16th May 2019 and these submitted for external audit to PKF Littlejohn LLP, the appointed auditor.

31

3.7 We received our External Report and Audit Certificate from PKF Littlejohn on 4th September 2019. Their audit certificate was unqualified and stated;

On the basis of our review of Sections 1 and 2 of the Annual Governance and Accountability Return (AGAR), in our opinion the information in Sections 1 and 2 of the AGAR is in accordance with Proper Practices and no other matters have come to our attention giving cause for concern that relevant legislation and regulatory requirements have not been met.

They did however note the following “Other matter” – which whilst it did not affect their opinion was something they wished to highlight;

We note that the smaller authority did not comply with Regulation 15 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 as it failed to make proper provision during the year 2019/20 for the exercise of public rights, since the correct information was not published on a website as well as a noticeboard. As a result, the smaller authority must answer ‘No’ to Assertion 4 of the Annual Governance Statement for 2019/20 and ensure that it makes proper provision for the exercise of public rights during 2020/21.

3.8 This is an example of an issue where the structure and constraints on the EA has prevented full compliance with a preferred governance model for an IDB. Moves to add reporting and governance requirements may give rise to further difficulties and additional matters being raised in the audit opinion in future years.

4 River Arun IDD Budget for 2020/21

4.1 As a result of the current situation (stated above) we are presenting a 2020/21 budget and setting drainage rates and special levies for the River Arun IDD. The detail of the expenditure and the resulting amounts to be raised through a combination of drainage rates, on agricultural landowners, and special levies on District Councils for the financial year 2020/21 are shown in Appendix 1.

4.2 The key points to note from the budget are as follows;

o Following consultation with Arun District Council, who provide over 80% of thefunding raised through drainage rates and levies through their special levy,drainage rates and special levies are proposed in line with prior year levels andthis is managed through the use of balances.

o The contribution we make to the IDB in recognition of their dealing with waterentering the IDD from higher up the catchment (Higher Land water Contribution)has also been held at prior year levels.

o Based on the latest forecasts of work in 2019/20 the opening reserve balance(held to cover unforeseen circumstances) is expected to be £57,957 at the start ofthe budget year.

o Of this 47% is being used to reduce the amount needed to be raised in 2020/21and to maintain the rates and levies at the previous levels.

o The remainder is available to cover unforeseen costs or for carry forward into2021/22. At 25% of the annual total expenditure this is in line with previous years.

32

o Maintenance expenditure is based on an agreed programme of work adjustedfrom time to time based on local conditions and issues. Work has been somewhatlimited in recent years in view of the uncertainties. Following consultation withArun DC the programme for 2020/21 returns to more traditional levels. Theprogramme does include the costs of delivering the Waltham Brooks scheme.

o As the earliest the IDD could be abolished is 31 March 2021, we have prepared abudget based on completing a full year programme of work in 2020/21. Theoutcome of the approach to water level management in future years will determinethe work required and hence the cost in subsequent years which may be differentfrom the 2020/21 budget.

o The expenditure budget also includes the following;

A precept contribution towards the Environment Agency’s floodmanagement activities in the immediate locality of the IDD at the same levelas in previous years.

Within the expenditure budget are the various costs involved inadministering and managing the IDD, preparing accounts and the costs ofinvoicing and collecting the rates and levies.

As this is now the sole IDD that we administer a greater burden of thepreviously shared administration effort will fall on the River Arun IDDresulting in a considerable higher level of overall administration cost ascompared to the income raised. This is likely to continue and may increasefurther in the face of additional reporting and governance requirements.

In addition there is a requirement for an external audit, which will be carriedout by Littlejohn LLP. Their costs are billed directly to the IDD.

o In the unlikely event that the IDD is abolished during the financial year, anyunspent monies will be passed back to the District Councils that are contributing inproportion to the special levies they pay.

5 Environment Agency precepts on IDBs

5.1 Precepts are raised on IDDs based on the benefit that the districts get from main river flood risk activities carried on by the EA in the locality of the drainage district. This applies to those administered by the EA and to external IDBs.

5.2 In addition to the precept raised on the River Arun IDB mentioned above, precepts will be raised on the 6 locally representative and accountable IDBs, 1 in East Sussex and 5 in Kent.

5.3 The formula for calculating the levels of precepts in Kent (agreed in 2003) is a rolling average of previous years’ precepts to which is applied an annual inflation rate. This year we are proposing 1.9% increase for Stour and Romney Marsh and 2% for Upper Medway and Lower Medway. North Kent Marshes retains a 0% increase.

5.4 The precepts for Pevensey & Cuckmere Water Level Management Board (an IDB) in East Sussex have been maintained at £40k following discussions with the WLMB on work to be carried out during 2020/21.

33

5.5 The precepts are shown as “Contributions to flood defence” in Appendix 1 and will be presented to the EA Board for their approval as set out in Appendix 2 (including the independently managed boards).

6 Environment Agency Contributions to other IDBs

6.1 The contributions that the EA makes to the Kent IDBs in recognition of their dealing with water entering the IDDs from higher up the catchment are known locally as upland water contributions (UWC). UWCs are based on a historically agreed percentage contribution to the expenditure of each district.

6.2 The amounts are payable to the Upper and Lower Medway, Stour and Romney Marsh and North Kent Marshes in addition to the new Pevensey and Cuckmere IDB is Sussex. The total budgeted for payment for 2020/21 is £300k which is a similar level to 2019/20.

7 Recommendations

7.1 The Southern Regional Flood & Coastal Committee is asked to:

1. Note that we are still awaiting a decision from the Minister on the proposedabolition of the River Arun Internal Drainage District.

2. Note and comment on proposals to the Environment Agency Board to appoint theSolent and South Downs (SSD) Area Director and SSD (East) OperationsManager as the Responsible Officer and Clerk respectively to the River ArunInternal Drainage Board.

3. Note that the final accounts of the Environment Agency administered River ArunInternal Drainage Board have been completed and audited.

4. Review and provide advice to the Environment Agency Board on the DrainageRates and Special Levies for 2020/21 for the River Arun Internal Drainage Districtin West Sussex.

5. Review and provide advice to the Environment Agency Board in respect of theprecepts on the 7 Internal Drainage Boards in the Southern Region for 2020/21.

6. Review and provide advice to the Environment Agency Board in respect of theUpland and Higher Land Water Contributions for these Internal Drainage Boardsfor 2020/21.

Peter Carver Clerk to the EA administered IDDs

January 2020

Enc: Appendix 1 – River Arun 2020/21 budget Appendix 2 - Environment Agency Precepts Appendix 3 – Annual Governance and Accountability return 31/3/2019

34

River Arun Internal Drainage Board Appendix 1

Income and Expenditure Account - Prior year Actual and Budget Estimate 2020/21

Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

£ £ £ £ £

15,435 15,435 15,435 15,435 Contributions to Flood Defence (the Agency) 15,435

31,584 25,127 18,093 24,565 Maintenance Works 65,000

500 500 500 500 Audit Fee 500

16,358 18,873 19,993 19,993 Support Costs 20,000

3,930 9,000 13,343 13,343 Operational Costs 13,500

4,070 6,105 6,670 6,670 Cost of Collection 6,70071,877 75,040 74,034 80,506 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 121,135

INCOME

12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Contribution from the Agency 12,000

12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 TOTAL INCOME 12,000

NET AMOUNT TO BE MET FROM DRAINAGE

59,877 63,040 62,034 68,506 RATES AND LEVY 109,135

DRAINAGE RATE

5.68 5.69 5.69 5.68 Sub-Districts A 5.68

7.38 7.39 7.39 7.39 Sub-Districts B 7.39

1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 Sub-Districts C 1.46

£ £ £

Income from Drainage Rates on

6,767 7,993 10,780 14,934 Agricultural Land 15,273

66,428 66,515 66,473 66,468 Levy on District Councils 66,462

0 0 0 0 Amount (Added to)/Taken From Balances 27,400

73,195 74,508 77,253 81,402 109,135

18,374 29,842 45,061 57,957 Balance Carried Forward 30,557

Levy Apportionments

Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget

2016/17 2017-18 2017-18 2019/20 2020/21

£ £ £ £

65,413 65,498 65,458 65,453 Arun D.C. 65,447

717 719 717 717 Horsham D.C. 717

298 298 298 298 Chichester D.C. 298

66,428 66,515 66,473 66,468 66,462

35

Appendix 2

Environment Agency precepts

Financial year to 31 March 2021

Precepts on Internal Drainage Boards

Amount of Precept 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

£ £ £ £ £EA administered

Adur 7,325 0 0 0 0Arun 15,435 15,435 15,435 15,435 15,435SW Sussex 26,564 0 0 0 0Pevensey 54,685 0 0 0 0Cuckmere 789 0 0 0 0Ouse 58,353 0 0 0 0East of Gravesend 23,429 0 0 0 0West of Gravesend 0 0 0 0 0

186,580 15,435 15,435 15,435 15,435

External Drainage Board

Lower Medway 410,518 410,518 410,518 418,318 426,684Upper Medway 119,423 119,423 119,423 121,692 124,126Stour 129,047 129,047 130,983 90,574 92,295Romney Marsh 346,010 346,010 346,010 352,584 359,283North Kent Marshes 23,429 46,858 46,858 46,858 46,858

Pevensey & Cuckmere WLMB 55,474 110,948 70,948 40,000 40,000

1,083,901 1,162,804 1,124,740 1,070,026 1,089,246

Total 1,270,481 1,178,239 1,140,175 1,085,461 1,104,681

36

37

38

Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee meeting

Item no. 11 Date: 21 January 2020 SUBJECT: Update on Southern RFCC Capital and Levy Programme 2019/20 PAPER BY: Programme Managers Recommendations The Committee is asked to:

- Note the current position on the 2019/20 Capital Programme - Approve the levy changes to the Programme

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to update the Southern RFCC on the 2019/20 Capital Programme.

It sets out the current position on homes better protected, finance, risks and mitigation.

2. 2019/20 Programme Performance – Homes Better Protected from Flooding and Coastal Erosion (OM2 & OM3)

2.1. Our original April 2015 baseline target for homes at reduced risk from flooding and Coastal

Erosion for 2019/20 was 12,778 and a six year total of 72,395. However, the annual refresh process continually refines the profile of investment and the homes protected target, giving us revised targets each year that we are then asked to deliver to. The revised 2019/20 homes protected target for Southern RFCC is 10,234.

2.2. As seen in Table 1 below, we are currently predicting to exceed this target with a forecast total of 12,001 homes at reduced risk from flooding and Coastal Erosion by March 2020, a significant 19% of the National forecast of 63,381. This will take the Southern RFCC cumulative total over the 5 years to 62,261 properties at reduced risk of flooding and Coastal Erosion, 7,623 ahead of original committed programme forecast and gives a revised 6 year forecast of 74,718.

Table 1: Southern RFCC 2019/20 current position - Households at reduced risk of flooding and Coastal Erosion (OM2 & 3)

Target Forecast Variance

Houses at reduced risk from Flooding (OM2)

9,282 11,049 1,767

Houses at reduced risk from Coastal Erosion OM3)

952 952 0

ALL 10,234 12,001 1,767

39

2. 2019/20 Programme Performance – Finance

2.4. The Southern RFCC allocation approved in February for capital projects in 2019-20 was £51.4m. This is divided between FDGiA (£42.4m) Contributions (£6.4m) and Local Levy (£2.6m). Table 2: Southern RFCC financial position summary

£m Budget Forecast Variance

FCERM GiA 42.4 50.7 8.3

Local Levy 2.6 1.7 -1.1

Contributions 6.4 4 -2.4

Total 51.4 56.4 4.8

2.5. Total Spend - we are currently forecasting a total spend of approximately £56.4m by the end of this financial year, against our total affordable budget of £51.4m. This represents a £3.8m overall increase from the last meeting.

3.3. FDGiA position - the current FDGiA forecast is £50.7m against our affordable budget of £42.4m, so £8.3m over our budget. This represents a £3.4m increase from last meeting. This over forecast reflects the impact of emergency work seen earlier in the year such as the foreshore erosion at Lower Hope Point and storm damage to the Jurys Gap frontage. With additional emergency work seen at Sandwich town tidal walls and on the Southsea frontage at Portsmouth. We are working with the National allocation team to try and secure additional FDGiA to fund these works but we are also making plans to reduce expenditure if required to head towards our affordable GiA budget.

3.4. Local Levy position 2019/20 levy programme - The current Levy programme is summarised in table 1 and

shown in more detail in Annex 1 along with a Red / Amber / Green status according to the confidence in delivery of the project to its in-year spend profile. Table 1 – Summary of SRFCC 2019/20 Local Levy Programme

3.5. West Sussex CC update on local levy bid - Update from October’s meeting regarding the

West Sussex CC bid for a study to identify options for the placement of over-flow pipes on waterfront developments. The Chair asked the Committee to approve the allocation of £30k but only once officers from Kent CC, Hampshire CC and Medway Council reviewed the bid and agreed that it was an acceptable use of funds. The officers have now confirmed they are supportive and this project will go ahead. See Annex 2 for details.

3.6. Request to re-profile local levy allocation - The River Rother restoration project would like to

request a re-profile of its levy allocation. This requirement can be attributed to the previous landowner sadly passing away early last year soon after funding was awarded and the new landowner not engaging with the project team. Alternative suggestions were not productive and involved Natural England (NE).

£m 2019/20 Local Levy Forecast

Starting Programme Budget

Local Levy 1.7 2.6

40

However a new solution was discussed in October and met with cross party support, including the landowner, who gave approval last month. A survey of the embankment has now been commissioned to aid detailed design of the leading option. The quoted cost price of the survey from Geomatics is £3k, to be spent within this financial year. This will take the total current project spend to £3,550. Despite this, due to the unforeseen issues identified above (delaying the initial phase of the project), a re-profile of project budget is required to take the remaining £26,450 into 2020/21. This will allow design, construction and completion of the leading option in house, as well as completion of the required Asbestos Management Plan currently under investigation by Asset Performance.

3.7. Contributions position – we are forecasting to spend £4m against our budget of £6.4m. This

is a controlled position to use around £2m of contributions planned for 2019/20 in 2020/21 to offset a reduced FDGiA allocation in year 6 of the programme and allow schemes to progress that would otherwise have had to defer.

4. 2019/20 Programme Performance – claimed Efficiencies

4.1. The Southern RFCC efficiency target is 10% of our FDGiA budget which for 2019/20 equates to £4.2m. For the first quarter of the year we claimed £388,087 of efficiency savings. Combined with the £704,407 of savings achieved in Quarter 2 we have claimed £1,092,493 of savings. Meaning we need to achieve a further £3.15m of efficiency savings to hit our target for 2019/20.

Table 3: Southern RFCC quarter 2 efficiency claims

5. Conclusion 5.1 The Committee is asked to:

- Note the current position on the 2019/20 Capital Programme - Approve the levy changes to the Programme

Programme Managers (January 2020)

Project RMA claimed efficiency

Seafield FCEERM Scheme Options Gosport Borough

Council £20,691.00

Alverstoke FCERM Scheme Pre-con stage


£14,680.62

Forton FCERM Scheme Pre-con stage Gosport Borough

Council £7,209.55

Hayling Island Funding and Implementation Strategy

Havant Borough Council £300.00

Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls Scheme Environment Agency £637,031.09

Romsey FAS Hampshire County

Council £24,494.49

Total £704,406.75

41

Annex 1 6 year local levy programme allocation

£k 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Total

Current Levy programme

560 1,643 1,755 2,102 1,753 1,990 9,803

Levy income* (assuming 5% per annum increase)

1,219 1,243 1,268 1,332 1,399 1,469

Effect on balances 3,320 2,920 2,433 1,663 1,309 788

Current Local Levy Programme 2019/20

Proposed Local Levy Programme (£k)

Area Lead Risk Management

Authority

2019/20 £k

Current Forecast

£k

RAG Status

Update

Land Drainage Outfall Extension - Peak Lane, Kingston

SSD Arun District Council 40 40

December 2019 - allocation has been claimed.

Southern Wealden Groundwater Study

SSD East Sussex County Council

16 16


Hedge End PLR FAS SSD Environment Agency 46 46

December 2019 - Anticipates installation in early February 2020.

NFM Studies SSD Environment Agency 20 20

December 2019 - Supplier appointed to start this phase of work in January 2020 and be completed before end of March 2020. Preparation will commence for the next phase to start in April 2020.

River Ems, Westbourne FAS SSD Environment Agency 200 148 December 2019 - BEE £148k

Tidal Flood Defence Improvements, Wallington Shore Road, Fareham

SSD Environment Agency 35 35

December 2019 - Completion of works scheduled for February 2020.

Forton Flood Risk Management Scheme

SSD Gosport Borough Council

157 157 December 2019 - BEE £157k

Bourne Valley Small Schemes Pathfinder

SSD Hampshire County Council

150 150

December 2019 - awaiting feedback from parish council re: putting in a bund as an alternative to a culvert. If they agree timelines for work would be 2020/21.

Outer Winchester Flood Alleviation

SSD Hampshire County Council

185 185 December 2019 - Revised construction start to

be February 2020.

Langstone (Havant) CFERM scheme

SSD Havant Borough Council

36 36 Sept 2019 - Have claimed their allocation.

Southern Coastal Group SSD Havant Borough Council

23 23

Sept 2019 - project complete and claim submitted. April 2019 - New bid approved

Barton Coast Defence Scheme Phase 1

SSD New Forest District Council

181 181

December 2019 - Initial claim of £45k made in November with the remaining allocation to be claimed in January 2020.

42

Proposed Local Levy Programme (£k)

Area Lead Risk Management

Authority

2019/20 £k

Current Forecast

£k

RAG Status

Update

Hurst Spit Beach Sediment Tracer Study

SSD New Forest District Council

44.5 44.5


Eastney Spit Coastal Defence Option Appraisal Study

SSD Portsmouth City Council

100 100 December 2019 - BEE £85,740k

Portsmouth Groundwater Monitoring

SSD Portsmouth City Council

20 20

Sept 2019 - Project complete and allocation has been claimed. April 2019 - Roll-over request from 2018/19 approved on 09/04/2019

Flood risk reduction for Waterfront developments

SSD West Sussex County Council

30 30

January 2020 - Officers gave their support for this bid and it will be going ahead. October 2019 - new bid approved by full committee, once it has been supported by officers. Recommended by the P&I sub-committee in September.

Brewery Sluice Reinstatement KSL Environment Agency 232 232 January 2020 - Works completed on site and

demobilised, will now enter a period of defects testing

Middle Medway Flood Resilience Scheme

KSL Environment Agency 100 100

January 2020- Project progressing well with good uptake on PFR measures

Middle Medway Flood Resilience Scheme Phase 1b

KSL Environment Agency 91 91 January 2020- Project continuing to progress

well

River Rother Restoration Study

KSL Environment Agency 30 3

January 2020 - Prolonged landowner negotiations have pushed work back out of 2019/20. Agreement has now been reached to take the project forward but requires a re-profile of £27k to 2020/21.

Viking Bay to Dumpton Gap - Berm Slab, Coping and Apron Repairs

KSL Thanet District Council 95 95

January 2020 - Study complete, construction work underway

1831.5 1752.5

43

Annex 2 – West Sussex County Council local levy bid update Supplementary Information in Response to Feedback from RFCC dated 15 October 2019. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 At the RFCC of 15 October under item 11a, West Sussex LLFA proposal for a £30,000 local levy contribution in 2019/20 to fund the study project: Flood Risk Reduction for Waterfront Developments; the Committee agreed up to £30k

but only once the technical review by the officers has advised that all other avenues have been looked at.

1.2 On 8 November 2019, Ray Drabble, the proponent of the project representing West Sussex LLFA emailed those RFCC members who had raised outstanding concerns (Enclosures 1).

1.3 This note summarises the responses received from Committee Members who had voiced outstanding queries / concerns at the 15 October RFCC meeting and provides the audit trail to satisfy the pre-condition attached to the £30K

grant for the project. 2.0 Summary of Responses from Selected RFCC Members to Additional Information Provided in Support of the Project 2.1 On 8 November 2019, Vicki Westall, representing Hampshire LLFA provided the following response to Enclosure 1: Thank you for this clarification, seems several of the areas we raised had been addressed in the attached documents. We are always interested and happy to support options which reduce flood risk. However, we always start with the

stance of 'water management' as a whole, and therefore seeing water as a resource, rather than just trying to dispose of it. Therefore, it is great to see that in-combination solutions are going to be included in the study.

2.2 On 15 November 2019, Max Tant, representing Kent LLFA confirmed its support for the project in an email to Martin Hurst, Chair of the SRFCC and to Jo Matthews, Secretary of the Southern RFCC. The response read as follows: Hi Martin, Jo, I have spoken to Ray Drabble about West Sussex’s local levy bid and he has provided more information about the proposal, which is looking to demonstrate less expensive and carbon intensive methods to discharge roof drainage in

coastal areas whilst reducing flood risk. Following this conversation, I am happy to support this local levy bid. Thanks to Ray for providing more information. Please let me know if you need any more information. Thanks,

2.3 On 18 November 2019, Cigolene Nguyen, representing Southern Water, wrote to Ray Drabble expressing its support for the project and its alignment with the outcomes of the UKWIR Project Ref. BQ6 project 03: Surface water drainage from new developments, of which Southern Water is a participant. A copy of the letter is provided as Enclosure 2 to this note.

2.4 On 19 November 2019, Alison Thompson, Independent Member of SRFCC emailed Ray Drabble, stating: I've nothing material to add, thanks Ray.

3.0 Conclusion

3.1 On the basis of the information set out in Section 2 above, the pre-conditions for a grant of up to £30K for the Over the Wall Project have now been satisfied. 3.2 It is requested that the Secretary for the SRFCC confirms that the pre-conditions have been met and instructs West Sussex LLFA the terms attached to this award. Ray Drabble 2 January 2020

Enclosures:

1. Ray Drabble (West Sussex LLFA) email of 8 Nov 19 to selected RFCC Members. 2. Southern Water letter of support dated 18 Nov 19 signed by Cigolene Nguyen (separate e-copy under covering email).

44

Enclosure 1

From: Ray Drabble Sent: 08 November 2019 15:32 To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Mat Jackson; Kevin Macknay; Matthews, Jo Subject: FW: TO REVIEW/COMMENT: Draft minutes of the Southern RFCC meeting, 15th October 2019 - DEADLINE: Friday 22nd November Ladies and Gentlemen, Upon return from annual leave my colleague Mat Jackson has circulated the draft minutes from the recent RFCC meeting at which the proposal for the Project: Flood Risk Reduction for Waterfront Developments was referred to in paragraph 11a of the minutes. As the draft minutes state, the Supplementary Information that had been sent to the Secretary of the RFCC in advance of the meeting had not been circulated; I attach a copy of these notes that addressed the queries which had been raised at the earlier Officers Working Group of 24 September and indeed is pertinent in addressing some of the comments made on 15 October. I have included the comments recorded in the minutes below and provided a response to each of the points raised, cross-referring as appropriate to the Supplementary Information but intend to follow this email up with individual calls or a conference call (if preferred) in an effort to ensure that all outstanding concerns are addressed to the satisfaction of RFCC members. Mr Tant felt that this study is trying to do something that already exists and seems a lot of money purely for a re-design of a pipe. He said that there are a lot of good systems dealing with rainwater run-off. Prior to compiling this proposal, a web search was made of the topic to ascertain the extent to which this approach is being taken to waterfront developments both in the UK and beyond. Discussions were also held with developers and with Anthony McCloy who peer reviewed the proposal who is a technical tutor on the CIRIA SuDS Design Course. Whilst these enquiries could not be described as exhaustive, it is reasonable to assume that, were there examples of over the wall drainage being pioneered or forming best practice for waterfront developments, one or more of these enquiries would have positively identified existing case-studies. The only instance where ‘Over the Wall’ Drainage was found to have been used was in the Barking Riverside development where it was incorporated to overcome constraints posed by a contaminated land issue at the site. Also concerned that this is benefitting architectural layouts and therefore the developer should be contributing to this Because all developers within the Shoreham Harbour Regeneration have been approached regarding an innovative ‘over the wall’ approach for rooftop drainage (Enclosure 1 to Supplementary Information – attached) it is predicted that there will be scope to work with developer architects and thereby derive a contribution in kind – purely by exploiting the opportunity of a number of key waterfront developments coming forward. Mr Tant suggested that funds could be sought from Defra and water industries, who support initiatives like this, and therefore a smaller amount could be sought from the SRFCC. Defra funding has not been sought for this project as the project met local levy criteria and the LLFA considers this to be a legitimate study that has longer-term benefits in terms of reduction in flood risk. In response to the original comments received from OWG held on 12 February 19, the amount of levy funding sought has been halved from £60K to £30K and the whole approach to the study has been overhauled. Martin Banks who attended the 12 February OWG as Southern Water’s representative could have fed information about the proposal to The UKWIR Project Ref. BQ6 project 03 Surface water drainage from new developments that was under development in July 2019 and is due to complete in January 2020. However, notwithstanding the clear relevance of the over the wall drainage concept to Task 4 of the UKWIR project, an exploration of the possible changes that might be made to current standards and criteria with particular attention on achieving greater benefits for the performance receiving sewers, adopting a different approach to waterfront drainage has not been considered – arguably a missed opportunity. If funding from Defra or other parties were to be pursued at this stage it is the LLFA’s view that the lead time to secure such funding would mean that the opportunity to influence the new developments coming forward as part of the Shoreham Harbour Regeneration would, in all probability, be missed and the LLFA would also jeopardise the funding in kind that has been secured from the University of Portsmouth. Mrs Thompson suggested that the paper needs to be clearer about exactly what the study intends to do The objectives for the project are set out in Section 2.1 of the bid. These objectives are repeated below, together with amplifying text (italicized) that is aimed at providing the increase clarity in terms of deliverables.

Contribute to reduction in surface water flood risk for coastal communities in defended floodplain;

Where existing drainage typically comprises below ground gravity drainage in waterfront areas, directing rooftop drainage over the tidal defences removes additional stress on the surface water network. £15,000 has been earmarked in the project to quantify the reduction in flood risk that can be achieved by use of over the wall drainage.

Investigate the opportunities, constraints and overall feasibility of ‘over the wall’ drainage for waterfront developments;

This will identify the challenges to ‘over the wall drainage’ for different waterfront layouts and how these challenges may be overcome; examples include buildings set back a significant distance from the waterfront; how designs would need to be modified to accommodate pedestrian walkways; rain water harvesting; roads etc.

Work with the New Wharf development team in particular to apply this innovative approach to the design of drainage for the scheme.

• Influence developers to adopt more innovative and sustainable design in drainage; it is stressed that the concept of over the wall drainage does not necessarily rule out the scope for rainwater harvesting / re-use where space and feasibility allows; such an in-combination option will be explored as part of the study;

The case study / studies compiled will be used to demonstrate the potential benefits to other developers bringing forward developments in both Shoreham and beyond. • Assess the relative costs and benefits of traditional vs ‘over the wall’ drainage;

The study will compile or source a bill of quantities for a traditional approach and compare this with the costs of an over the wall approach. It is the view of the project team that an ‘over the wall’ approach for rooftop drainage can achieve cost-savings compared with a traditional approach.

• Initiate a wider debate on the possible merits of a changed approach to drainage of waterfront developments. The findings from the study and case studies will be shared throughout the drainage / flood risk sector by presenting the material at conferences and in appropriate journals / web sites.

Mrs Westall agreed with the points raised and is supportive of storage and re-use Cllr Payne said that he agrees in principle but that grey water re-use is included The above comments pick up on a query raised at the OWG on 24 Sep 19 (see Supplementary Information attached paragraph 2.4). Paragraph 2.1 fourth bullet of the bid (and repeated above) states: it is stressed that the concept of over the wall drainage does not necessarily rule out the scope for rainwater harvesting / re-use where space and feasibility allows; such an in-combination option will be explored as part of the study I hope that the additional information provided more clearly demonstrates the value of the project and I will follow up with calls to addressees to ensure that I address any remaining queries. Kind regards Ray Drabble Flood Risk Engineer (Sustainable Drainage) Economy, Infrastructure and Environment, Highways and Transport, West Sussex County Council

45

Enclosure 2 Southern Water Letter of Support dated 18 Sep 19

46

FCERM update paper December 2019 Incident management

November Flooding Large parts of central and eastern England had twice the normal level of rainfall in October, with central parts of England receiving a month’s worth of rainfall in the early part of November. The 7th November is the 7th wettest day on record in Sheffield (63.8mm of rain). The highest ever river levels were recorded on the Don at Doncaster and Derwent in Derby, exceeding 2007 flood levels in places. The peak at Evesham is the 5th highest in the 82 year record. The most significant flooding impacts was seen along the River Don in South Yorkshire. The main areas that flooded in South Yorkshire were Fishlake and Bentley and Worksop in Nottinghamshire. 7 Severe flood warnings (covering some 400 properties) were in force to communicate ‘risk to life’ along the River Don near Doncaster. Around 22,000 properties and businesses have been protected by flood defences across the impacted areas and approximately 1,000 properties have flooded during the event, mostly in South Yorkshire. Catchments across much of England are absolutely saturated and are very sensitive to rainfall and will

mean flood risk is higher and it will take a lot less rain than it ordinarily would at this point in the year to

result in flood warnings.

The future of flood warning? Cell Broadcast Trials We are trialling the use of cell broadcasting technology and its potential for alerting people to the risk of flooding. Cell broadcasting is a way of transmitting a message to all mobile phones within a geographic location. It is not currently used in the UK but has been adopted by many countries internationally as a preferred alerting platform. These countries include the USA, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan amongst others.

Cell broadcasts can be received even when mobile phone signal is poor or from a different operator. They are designed to reach as many people as possible in the affected area, meaning that we can target those who need it, when they need it most.

The first of these trials will take place in Hull, in partnership with Fujitsu, EE and the University of Hull, on the 26 November 2019. Depending on the findings of the initial trial, a public trial is planned for 2020 in Hull city centre on the EE 4G network, with further trials on other mobile networks likely in 2020. To help us understand how a cell broadcast would be received and what action someone might take, we’d like to invite Chairs and Committee members to respond to our pre-trial questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdB_2Bj1uBBCqPr4EtdVPJqe7S9MzE249yiqIwvGejxmLZNsA/viewform If you are interested in this initiative, please email us on [email protected]. You can also follow us on twitter on @FloodDigitalEA. Flood Risk Mapping and our ‘knowledge services’

47

We have two flood mapping services:

1. Long Term Flood Risk Information (LTFRI) provides the public with flood risk information for locations in England https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/. It includes risk from rivers, the sea, surface water reservoirs and groundwater and is our primary channel for communicating flood risk from all sources. It has 400,000 users completing 1 million visits a year. We are currently improving the way that local surface water risk is communicated so that it is better presented and more easily understood. 2. Flood Map for Planning is a service for developers, and their consultants, to check the flood risk of potential development sites https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/. With 420,000 users completing 800,000 visits a year, we are currently working to improve this service by automating the provision of all data required for a flood risk assessment. This will provide information to customers faster, without compromising quality and significantly reduce demands on staff time. Flood Warnings and our ‘Live services’ The Flood Information Service https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/warnings is the home of our flood warning pages online as well as information on river and sea levels and the five day forecast. We have recently added 30 more flood forecast sites to our river levels online pages. In addition to continuing the great partnership work with Google to share our flood warnings through Google public alerts (reported in the Sept RFCC stakeholder update), further important work has been ongoing to develop our cell broadcasting capability (see above).

Planning for the future Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy Following the public consultation on the draft FCERM Strategy, we are in the process of finalising the strategy taking on board the extensive stakeholder feedback we received. We received over 400 consultation responses and there has been significant support for three ambitions of the draft Strategy: climate resilient places; today’s growth and infrastructure – resilient to tomorrow’s climate; and a nation of climate champions. We are very grateful for all the feedback and support we have received. The work to deliver the ambitions within the strategy remains our focus. We will be seeking to finalise the strategy for approval by the new Secretary of State in the New Year. As a statutory document, the strategy needs to be laid in Parliament for 40 days and so we are now aiming to publish the strategy in spring 2020. Flood and Coast Conference 2020

48

We are pleased to announce that The 2020 Flood and Coast Conference will take place from 2-4 June 2020 at the Telford International Centre. The event will be developed and delivered in partnership between the Environment Agency and CIWEM, who have recently acquired the Intellectual Property Rights from TRIO events. We are really excited that this year’s conference will not only focus on flood and coastal issues, but will also have a greater focus on Climate Change, linking in to the aspirations of CoP26 conference taking place in November 2020. The event will draw together key partners from the flood and coastal risk management community, including local authorities, internal drainage boards, contractors and suppliers, community groups and academia. The project board have invited key professionals across the Flood and Climate Change sector to form our Advisory Committee and we look forward to welcoming Martin Hurst to help in the design of the conference programme. All RFCC Chairs and members are requested to book these dates in their diary and are strongly encouraged to attend. Building on our previous success, we are currently working on an exciting programme for 2020. We would like to invite RFCC members to get involved by suggesting stimulating discussion topics, interactive displays, facilitated workshops as well as lively presentations which will form part of that programme. If you are aware of any projects that have delivered excellent results or have found a new or improved way of working that you would like to highlight, please let the team know by contacting: [email protected] New National Flood Risk Assessment Our National Flood Risk Assessment is changing. Our current assessment only considers flooding from rivers and the sea. In future, we will draw upon a wider range of flood risk information from a variety of sources to inform our New National Flood Risk Assessment, available in 2024.

It is essential that we engage and involve our stakeholders at all stages of the project. We are currently seeking to establish an External User Advisory Group to help shape, review and test the products. We’d like to have this group set up before April 2020. We would like to invite you and your committee members to participate in this group. This is a key opportunity to help us produce improved flood risk information for the public and create a shared understanding of flood risk across our organisations. Lead Local Flood Authorities’ involvement is particularly important. To receive updates or join the group, please send your details to [email protected] Flood risk and hazard maps publication

49

The flood risk regulations (FRR) require the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) to produce flood risk and hazard maps and review them every six years. Our first flood risk and hazard maps were published in 2013. We must review, update and publish second cycle maps by 22 December 2019. Flood risk and hazard maps must be produced to reflect the different sources in the flood risk areas (FRAs) which were identified using the methodology we agreed when we undertook the preliminary flood risk assessment. Having consulted with LLFAs to gain agreement, we will prepare all the necessary maps on behalf of both the Environment Agency and LLFAs. This will provide consistency across the country and reduce the burden for LLFAs. The maps are published on gov.uk in order to meet our requirements under the FRR and they are used to inform the production of flood risk management plans. The flood risk maps show what is at risk of flooding such as people, property, economic activity and natural and historic areas of environmental importance. The flood risk maps use static data from a snapshot in time in order to report to the EU are not intended for use by the public and other stakeholders. The flood hazard map requirement is covered by our ‘long term flood risk assessment for locations in England’. Contact: [email protected]

Improving our data: Conceptual Data Model for FCRM Comprehensive, useable and reliable data underpins the Environment Agency’s ability to operate and is key to the success of the FCERM Strategy, our digital services and the 25 Year Environment Plan. Data is the vital hidden asset we need to look after to help us provide a better service as well as maintain the trust of customers and partners. We want to embed digital services and good data management as a core part of our structures, culture and skills. To help do this we are creating a conceptual data model which will be used to improve how we create, maintain and use data across flood and coastal risk management. Creating and maintaining data models means we can see the whole picture on data across flood activities and understand the impacts of any changes to the data, actions we take and who will be impacted. We can identify any potential clashes of understanding, terminology, relationships and dependencies both within the FCRM business and potentially with other parts of the Environment Agency. We can then use this knowledge to identify what could be done better. The Mapping, Modelling and Data Leadership Group, will be using the data model as a reference in its new role as the FCRM Data Governance Council (DGC). We’ll make sure that new projects adhere to the data model, helping Project Executives and Data Custodians to make the right strategic decisions for all stakeholders based on their data needs. Contact: [email protected]

Property flood resilience A new British Standard for property flood resilience (PFR) products was published on 24 September 2019. It replaces PAS1188:2014 Parts 1 to 4, which will now be withdrawn. It sets standards for the laboratory testing of the leakage rate of PFR products. Part 1 of the new standard covers products for buildings and Part 2 covers perimeter systems, which includes temporary barriers and demountable systems. Engineers from Defra and the Environment Agency provided technical expertise as members of the drafting committee for the British Standard. Manufacturers testing new products will use the new standard. Manufacturers with existing PAS1188 tested products will have an interim period to test products and ensure they comply with the new standard. A new Code of Practice (CIRIA RP1055) will explain the assessment, design, installation, aftercare and operation of PFR products and is due to be published shortly. Contact: [email protected] or [email protected] World Class Asset Management

50

The Asset information Management System (AIMS) Upgrade project will put in place a comprehensive enterprise asset management (EAM) system and central asset data repository for the Environment Agency. It is an important step in our goal of becoming world class asset managers. It will replace existing systems, improve the way we manage Environment Agency maintained assets, and improve our ability to share data with other Risk Management Authorities. AMX Solutions is the recently appointed supplier of the new system; they already provide similar systems to Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and other major infrastructure organisations. Work is now progressing to configure the new systems, develop new ways of working and prepare data for transfer. We are also collaborating with NRW and other users of the AMX solution to identify common objectives and features. In May 2021, AIMS: Operations & Maintenance (AIMS: OM), will replace the many existing flood and coastal risk management systems with a single application and consolidated data repository. The system will be rolled out to the Environment Agency’s Environment & Business (E&B) directorate in April 2022. Once in production, we will have ownership of the system’s functionality and underlying data, meaning we will be able to control over how the system evolves and expands in the future. Contact: [email protected] Flood risk activity permitting Multi-site permits In our ambition to be a fair regulator offering value for money we have developed a multi-site permit for flood risk activities. Multi-site permits allow for a number of activities to be held on one permit and offers greater flexibility while still managing flood and environmental risks. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR) enables groups or individuals to apply for one bespoke permit to cover a large area perhaps for 5-10 years. We have used this principle in Alt Crossens (Lancashire) to enable a group of around 15 landowners to undertake a significant amount of channel maintenance (previously undertaken by the Environment Agency). This multi-site permit has been a great success. The main outcomes include:

Cheaper permits as costs can be shared

Proportionate risk based regulation

Maintenance for a substantial area co-ordinated by a group of landowners meaning better environmental outcomes as well as land drainage benefit.

Improved delivery. We can programme Environment Agency work to complement the work of landowners in a co-ordinated way

Stronger local partnerships

Contact: [email protected]

Sharing best practice with Scottish Environmental Protection Agency As part of our regulatory work we continue to look at ways to improve the service. Last month we visited the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) to understand how their regulations apply in practice for river activities. We also exchanged ideas on working practices that would enable a better experience for our customers. Contact: [email protected]

51

Working with others De-maining pilots (testing approaches to transferring watercourses and assets) The de-maining pilots are now complete. From the initial 5 pilots, we have been successful in transferring watercourses, land and assets in 3 of the pilot locations: South Forty Foot in Lincolnshire, River Stour in Kent and the Snow Sewer on the Isle of Axholme. The 3 pilots resulted in the re-designation of 63.8 km of main river, and the transfer of 28 assets and 178 acres of land to Internal Drainage Boards. There were a number of watercourses that we did not de-main during the pilot because the proposals were either not supported locally, or where action by partners was needed that did not meet the pilot timescales. The pilots have provided valuable learning, including the importance of strong functioning local relationships, clear lines of communication and ways of working, a local strategy for long term maintenance, and the need to streamline and make the process of de-mainment less resource intensive. We are writing up a full evaluation of the pilots, which we will share with pilot partners, Association of Drainage Authorities, Local Authorities through the Local Government Association (LGA) and RFCCs. Contact: [email protected] Apprenticeships The Water Environment Worker Apprenticeship Standard has now been approved for delivery by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. We appointed Bridgwater and Taunton College to deliver the apprenticeship on our behalf. Our first 120 apprentices in Field Operations teams are in the process of being enrolled. You can find more information here: https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/water-environment-worker/

We are planning to recruit our first intake of 20 young, career entry-level apprentices. They will start with us in September 2020. These will be mainly science and engineering degree-level apprenticeships, targeting A-level and college students in the main. The posts will have a structured training programme in the form of an apprenticeship, supplemented by technical learning. This is part of work to diversify our ‘grow-your-own’ skills initiatives, which currently includes the Graduate Training Scheme for civil, mechanical and electrical engineering graduates, as well as the Flood and Coastal Engineering programme with Brunel University and also the Quest Scholarship programme with the Institute for Civil Engineers. All of these are important channels to draw in young, promising talent into the flood sector and into our workforce.

Looking ahead, we intend to put in place a specific apprenticeship programme to take advantage of the new Environment Practitioner Degree-level (BSc) Apprenticeship Standard. The aim is for 40 new starters in September 2021.


Education to Profession: Engaging with Children and Young People In step with our draft FCERM Strategy, we have actively engaged thousands of children and young people over the past 6-9 months, through a structured approach we call the ‘3C’s of STEM engagement’. These are Curriculum, Career and Conversation. Recent highlights include:

Curriculum - On the 7 October, we launched a range of geography resources at the PiXL conference, which will be available to around 2000 schools and colleges in the network.

Careers - We attended New Scientist Live and Careers Live where we spoke to hundreds of young people about potential careers in the environment and flood sector and explained the range of jobs we do in the Environment Agency, from flood risk management to nuclear industry regulation. We gave out literature on apprenticeship opportunities, the Flood and Coastal Engineering Degree Programme and promoted the Environment Agency as a career choice for young people who want to make a difference and tackle the climate emergency.

Conversation – Across the Environment Agency, staff are engaging with children and young people in schools and on-site visits, having conversations about our work in flood risk management. We are equipping staff with materials and training staff to deliver meaningful and captivating conversations with young people on environmental issues.

And finally… We have a number of initiatives in the pipeline including a ‘Climate Champions’ competition for primary school aged children. We released an Engineering Project that we wrote for Level 2 students. Ayo Sokale,

52

one of our Graduate Engineers did a live read (https://learnliveuk.com/) to schools and colleges around the country (and possibly the world) of ‘Alba the 100 Year Old Fish’ by on 6 November. We are told the live online audience was over a thousand children from 40+ schools in the UK, with many more likely to listen to the recorded story in the weeks ahead.


53


54

Programme Glossary

RFCC Reference Paper

EA South East Areas

KSL – Kent South London and East Sussex

HNL – Hertfordshire and North London

SSD - Solent and South Downs

T - Thames

Principles National Refresh

Deliver the consented programme as previously agreed

Accelerate schemes from the consented programme within the RFCC boundary to meet RFCC GiA bottom line

Re-allocate potential under spend to other Areas to deliver the consented programme within the RFCC boundary

Accept new projects into the consented programme

RFCC Local Choices will be applied once National prioritisation has been finalised Programme updates

Acceleration or deceleration of schemes to take advantage of contributions or efficiency opportunities, including packaging.

Re-profiling of schemes to allow continuity of delivery, smoothing out resource requirements.

Strengthening opportunities to mitigate risk in the form of spend and outcomes.

Long term planning and approaches to develop the future pipeline of schemes.

Enable both steady investment in small and medium projects and progress on larger schemes,

Balancing FCERM Grant in Aid (GiA) and contributions across the six year programme budget to enable delivery

55

Local Levy

Levy should be used to deliver the greatest benefit through the programme and would look to support the following types of project:

Small schemes with balanced geographic spread.

Pipeline and project development work (irrespective of RMA) of single and packaged works.

Detailed design to get projects spade ready.

Projects that lead directly to risk reduction.

Ensure that levy is not over committed into the future.

Ensure a mix of schemes on the programme that deliver both high outcomes and address lower scoring Risk Management Authority local priorities that would otherwise remain unfunded without significant contributions.

Not be allocated to Capital Maintenance of existing assets.

Prioritise schemes with previous spend so as not to waste previous levy investment.

Plan for a six year programme of levy investment assuming the maximum available levy income option for the six year planning period.

The proposed Local Levy bidding timetable would be twice annually in April and October to allow bi-annual refreshes of the levy programme. This would keep the programme up to date and allow flexibility of funding to meet emerging risks. The committee also agreed to a revised procedure for bidding for local levy, as follows:-

All RMA’s complete a Project Mandate & Partnership Funding calculator for all levy bids and think about project outcomes/benefits.

Projects are Peer reviewed at Officers Working Group before being put forward to RFCC Sub Committee for Review and Full Committee for funding approval.

Should there be insufficient funding available to fund all new projects in a year then prioritisation would be through PF score or moderation evidence.

Approved projects are initially placed into year 7 of the SRFCC programme unless emergency works and will be looked to be accelerated forward in the programme as funding permits.

In Feb/March Officers Working Group will check all projects for deliverability for the coming financial year.

Projects that haven’t spent their allocated levy in the previous financial year will need new approval to spend in the next year rather than being automatically rolled over, starting from 2017.

There would be development of a reserve list of on the shelf projects developed for each year, to replace those that for whatever reason are unlikely to be delivered as planned. Approval of these projects into the programme would be determined by RFCC subcommittee and full committee approval.

Emergency levy funding could be allocated at any of the normal committee meetings or by a specially organised virtual meeting should the need arise.

In year there would be an expectation of each project reporting quarterly to the Officers working group, RFCC sub committees and full committee on; spend, progress and any issues or successes.

56

Project Status This refers to the Gateway that a project has achieved so far. As part of good project management, we identify key milestones within a projects lifecycle and track the progress of each project as they achieve them to ensure that they are progressing as planned. The key milestones or Gateways are:

Gateway 0 (GW0)

Before a project can be put onto the Capital Programme to bid for allocation, it must be

approved by the Regional Programme Manager who assesses whether the scheme is

a viable project from a very simple form that identifies the need for a scheme to be

implemented that would reduce flood or erosion risk in an area.

Gateway 1 (GW1) Business Case and Financial Approval

This is a review point, that after some initial assessment of the scheme and the

identification of preferred options, the business case of the scheme is assessed by the

Project Review Board (PAB) or the Large Projects Review Board (LPRG). If the

business case is approved then the scheme receives approval to spend Flood Defence

Grant in Aid (FDGiA). A scheme at this point can then start to spend funds that have

been allocated to it.

Gateway 2 (GW2) Detailed Design

When a project has reached this stage then the preferred option for alleviating the flood

risk has been thoroughly designed in accordance with the business case. The scheme

cannot progress from this stage without the approval of the Senior User who is

ultimately accountable for delivery of the scheme.

Gateway 3 (GW3) Contract Award

Before the contract for building or delivery of the scheme can be awarded to the

contractor, we ensure that everything is in place so that the Environment Agency will

receive value for money. The scheme will not progress unless we can assure this.

Gateway 4 (GW4) Readiness for Service

This is essentially the point at which the construction phase has been complete and at

which defences are deemed as "watertight" and fully operational.

Gateway 5 (GW5) Contract Complete

This stage is reached when we are happy with the scheme that has been constructed

to the standard set out in the Business Case. Any defects found would have been

resolved and we are happy for the contractor to send us the final bill.

Gateway 6 (GW6) Project Closure

This stage is reached when we have finalised all financial and contractual issues. The

project can then be formally closed.

57

Funding Codes Funding codes help us to understand the type of works that the project is undertaking.

BRG - works to bridges that enable FCRM activities, such as widening to increase flow

rates etc.

CFMP – Preparation of Catchment Flood Management Plans that are used to support

Coastal Flooding and Erosion projects and /or strategies (EA only)

CM – Capital Maintenance. These works reinstate the Standard of Service of a Flood

Defence asset in full, and preserve its design life. It returns the asset to its original

design performance and does not increase or decrease the standard of service of

the asset. It includes:

o the refurbishment at the end of the asset’s design life

o the complete replacement at the end of the asset’s design life or

o where the cost of the work is greater than 20% of the current replacement cost of the asset.

CR - Carbon reductions

DEF – Works to change (usually improve) the current standard of service/protection of

a Flood Defence asset or to create a new Flood Defence asset.

ENV – Environmental projects not delivering SSSI remedies or net BAP habitat gain.

FFIM – Flood Forecasting and Flood Incident Management projects.

FISH – Projects to provide fish or eel passage or screening provision

GW – Ground water projects

HAB – Habitat Creation

HT – Hydrometry and telemetry

MAP – These works produce Flood Risk Maps that are used to identify/support other

works/strategies. (EA only)

OR – Orphan reservoirs

PLP – Property level protection

REC – Recondition work. These projects maintain the standard of protection of existing

assets as CM projects but are only corrective infrequent and one-off activities that

restore the Standard of Service of failing Flood Defence assets. It includes:

o infrequent planned and recurring activities identified when the asset was commissioned as being required within its design life and which are undertaken at greater than five-yearly intervals

58

o activities where the cost of the works is no more than £100k (above this it is CM)

o activities where the cost of the works is no more than 20% of the overall current replacement cost of the asset; (above this it is CM)

o activities where the cumulative estimate of repair costs over a five-year period does not exceed 30% of the current replacement cost of the asset

o where small value assets are part of a large asset group (a major asset), the replacement cost of the asset group is considered against the cost of the individual works.

SMP – The production Shoreline Management Plans and Coastal Monitoring

Programmes that are used to support Coastal Flooding and Erosion projects and

/or strategies.

SRO – Surface run-off (surface water flooding) projects

STR – Strategies. Strategies are only required for complex flood or coastal erosion risk

situations where problems and potential solutions may relate to a series of

interconnecting compartments or frontages. They look to the long term in more

detail than a CFMP or SMP which may recommend further development of a

strategy.

STU – Stand alone Studies. Studies are only for essential stand alone work which does

not lead to or generate further work or projects.

THMS – Capital Costs for Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100), Thames Gateway,

Olympics projects (EA only)

WFD – Water framework directive

WLMP - Water Level Management Plans

WR – FCRM contributions to Water Resources-led projects within the Agency (EA only)

59

Outcome Measures

OM1 The ratio of the whole life present value benefits (Pvb) to the whole life present

value costs (PVc) from projects in the FDGiA capital investment programme.

OM2 Number of households moved out of any flood probability category to a lower probability category.

OM2b The number of households moved from the very significant or significant probability category to the moderate or low probability category.

OM2c The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas moved out of the significant or very significant probability categories to the moderate or low probability category.

OM3 The number of households with reduced risk of coastal erosion.

OM3b The number of households protected against loss in 20 yrs from coastal erosion.

OM3c The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas protected against loss in 20 yrs from coastal erosion.

OM4a Hectares of water dependent habitat created or improved to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

OM4b Hectares of intertidal habitat created to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive for areas protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive.

OM4c Kilometres of rivers protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive improved to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

OM5 The proportion of households and businesses in highest risk areas that receive the Floodline Warnings Direct (FWD) service.

OM6 Proportion of residential units within planning decisions where the application has been refused or has been amended in line with Agency advice.

60

KPI Measures

Measure Ref Description

870 We determine land drainage consents and byelaw applications within standard of service (Management Information)

880 We undertake the risk-based programme of visual inspection of flood defence assets

885 We complete our required public safety re-inspections on time

891 NFCDD holds up to date event and modelling data and metadata is recorded

902 (National Ops only)

More properties (homes and businesses) at high risk of flooding (Flood Zone 3) are registered to receive our flood warnings[OM6]

905 The proportion of communities that received an appropriate warning

912 Our flood and coastal risk management programme delivers economic benefit [OM1]

930 More households built or converted before January 2009 will have moved out of any flood probability category to a lower one

931 More households built or converted before January 2009 will have moved from very significant or significant flood probability category to the moderate or low category

932 More deprived households will have moved from very significant or significant flood probability category to the moderate or low category

933 More households built or converted before January 2009 are better protected against coastal erosion

934 More households built or converted before January 2009 at risk of coastal erosion within twenty years are better protected

61

935 More deprived households built or converted before January 2009 at risk of coastal erosion within twenty years are better protected.

950 BAP Habitats and species that we lead on are recovering or increasing [OM5]

961 More of our 'high consequence' flood risk management systems are at or above the target condition (Business Information)

962 We maintain our flood and coastal risk management assets at the required condition

965 We increase the number of households benefiting from flood risk management assets and channels that are at their required condition.

Maintenance Terms

True Commitment

Legislative requirements that could result in a challenge of the Environment Agency which would incur substantial costs if they are not undertaken during the financial year in which the funding is requested. Contractual obligations, supported by suitable documentation, entered into in good faith by all parties at the behest of the Environment Agency or one of its partners. These may or may not result is significant penalties arising should funding be withdrawn.

Deliverable Need

The funding needed by the Region to achieve their targets as identified in the Corporate Strategy and the Service Levels, and The funding required to meet the other demands of the Region (where these exceed the above) The sum of the above must equate to an amount of work and activity that can be delivered by the Region with the effective and efficient use of their resources (including any temporary manpower) during the financial year in which the funding is requested. The sum must also be aligned to the requirements of the Corporate Strategy and contribute to the reduction or management of flood risk within the Region.

62

Minimum Need

The lowest unavoidable cost to maintain a system in the short term accepting that the standard of service may decline as a result. This need does not assume step changes in current standards of service arising from the system being abandonment or ceasing operation.

Identified Need

The lowest whole life cost to provide the required Standard of Service. This will reflect: the best balance of maintenance and replacement over the whole life period best practice adopted in compliance with health, safety and environmental (HS&E) requirements The appearance and operation of the site should reflect best practice for a public organisation and positively contribute to the site’s social and recreational impact

Frequent Maintenance

Activities that support the Standard of Service of an asset by reducing the rate of deterioration. Frequent Maintenance provides for efficient, effective and safe operation in a cost-effective manner. It includes annual and recurring planned activities undertaken every 5 years or less such as: regular work to sustain the asset’s Standard of Service annual operation and maintenance of FRM assets routine activities to comply with statutory obligations

Intermittent Maintenance

Infrequent and one-off activities and projects that support the standard of service. This covers: infrequent planned and recurring activities identified when the asset was commissioned as being within its design life and which are undertaken at greater than five-yearly intervals activities where the cost of the works is no more than 20% of the overall current replacement cost of the asset activities where the cumulative estimate of repair costs over a five-year period does not exceed 30% of current asset replacement cost of the asset

Refurbishment

Reinstate the Standard of Service of the asset in full and its design life. Refurbishment returns the asset to its original design performance. It does not increase or decrease the Standard of Service of the asset. This includes: refurbishment at the end of the asset’s design life complete replacement at the end of the asset’s design life activities where the cost of the works is greater that 20% of the current overall replacement cost of the asset

63

Flood Zones Flood zones are divided areas of the natural floodplain presented in map format. They divide the floodplain into 3 areas / zones that represent different levels of flood risk, not taking into account the presence of flood defences. The zones are shown as shaded areas on a map and are used by the local planning authorities when considering planning applications.

Zone 1 - is un-shaded and shows areas with the lowest probability of flooding from

rivers and the sea, where the chance of flooding in any one year is less than 0.1%

(i.e. a 1000 to 1 chance).

Zone 2 - is shaded light blue and shows the area between zone 1 and zone 3. This

represents an area with the chance of flooding in any one year between 0.1% and

1% fluvial or 0.5% tidal (i.e. between a 1000 to 1 and a 100 to 1 fluvial or 200 to 1

tidal chance). The outer edge of this zone is referred to as the 'Extreme Flood

Outline' (EFO).

Zone 3 - is shaded dark blue and shows areas with the highest probability of flooding.

The chance of flooding in any one year is greater than or equal to 1% (i.e. a 100 to

1 chance) for river flooding and greater or equal to 0.5% (i.e. a 200 to 1 chance)

for coastal and tidal flooding.

Risk Bandings and NaFRA Data NaFRA shows the likelihood of flooding across England and Wales and can be combined with property data to determine the economic damages from flooding, therefore giving us a picture of flood risk. It is one of the Environment Agency's key datasets. It works out the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea, considering the location, type and condition of defences and maps these on a 50m x 50m grid in three probability bandings:

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 greater.

Unlike the Flood Map, NaFRA takes into account the presence and condition of flood defences and their effect on flooding. The Flood Map is an example of deterministic flood mapping: giving a 'yes or no' answer to the question 'Am I at risk of flooding?'. NaFRA is an example of probabilistic flood mapping, describing the overall risk, rather than the risk associated with a specific event or scenario.

64

General Glossary

Term Definition

AMP Asset Management Plan - water company

AMP5 Asset Management Plan 2010/2015

AStSWF Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding

ALEHM Assoc of London Environmental Health Managers

BEE Best Estimate of Expenditure

CDA Critical Drainage Area

CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan

CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association

CIL Community Infrastructure levy

CLG Government Department for Communities and Local Government

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

DG5 Register Register of properties which have experienced sewer flooding or those which are 'at risk' of sewer flooding more frequently than 1:20 yr event

EA Environment Agency

FBC Full Business Case

FCERM Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

FCERM FDGiA Flood Defence Grant in Aid

Flood Risk Area An area determined as having a significant risk of flooding in accordance with guidance published by Defra and WAG.

Flood Risk Regulations

Transposition of the EU Floods Directive into UK law. The EU Floods Directive is a piece of European Community (EC) legislation to specifically address flood risk by prescribing a common framework for its measurement and management.

Fluvial Flooding Flooding resulting from water levels exceeding the bank level of a main river

FMfSW Flood Map for Surface Water

FRMS Flood Risk Management Systems

FRR Flood Risk Regulations

FWMA Floods and Water Management Act

GLA Greater London Authority

HWC Highland Water Contributions

IBA Indicative Baseline Allocation

IDB Internal Drainage Board

ITA Indicative Tailored Allocation

65

IUA Indicative Unscheduled Allocation

IUD Integrated Urban Drainage

LB London Borough

LDF Local Development Framework

LFRZ Local Flood Risk Zone

LFRMS Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

LFRP's Local flood risk partnerships

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging - Airborne laser scanning of topography

LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority

LRF Local Resilience Forum

MLE Most Likely Expenditure

MTP Medium Term plan

NaFRA National Flood Risk Assessment

NFRMS National Flood Risk Management Strategy

NRD National Receptor Dataset – a collection of risk receptors produced by the Environment Agency

OBC Outline Business Case

OWG Southern RFCC Officer’s Working Group

OMs Outcome Measures

PR14 Price Review 14

PA Policy Area

PAB Project Assurance Board

PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

PPS25 Planning and Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk

PLP Property Level Protection

PR09 Price review 09

PSO Environment Agency Partnership & Strategic Overview

RHCP Regional Habitat Creation Programme

RMA Risk Management Authority

RPIA Revenue Projects Indicative Allocation

RFCC Regional Flood & Coastal Committee

SAB SUDS approval body

SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SOC Strategic Outline Case

SoP Standard of Protection (NB water utilities - standard of service)

SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems

SW Southern Water Company

SWMP Surface Water Management Plan

TfL Transport for London

66

TWUL Thames Water Utilities Ltd

WaSC Water and Sewerage Company

WFD Water Framework Directive

Project management roles

Project Executive A Project Executive is accountable for successfully delivering a project. This person usually:

controls the resources allocated to a project;

receives progress reports from the Project Manager;

escalates issues for resolution.

The Project Executive usually chairs the Project Board.

Project Board A Project Board is a group of people who collectively monitor and control a project’s overall progress.

Senior supplier A senior supplier is a member of the Project Board. This person:

provides knowledge and experience of the main disciplines involved in producing a

project’s deliverables;

represents the suppliers’ interests within a project;

provides supplier resources.

Senior user A senior user is a member of the Project Board. This person is accountable for:

ensuring that users’ needs are correctly specified;

the solution meets the users’ needs.

Project Manager A Project Manager has the authority and responsibility to manage a project day-to-day. This person must deliver the required products, within the constraints agreed with the Project Board.

67

Project Office A Project Office provides central resources for a project and works for the Project Manager. They control the project management process, including:

managing the plans; managing the risks and issues;servicing the Project Board.

Project team A Project team is a group of people with appropriate and complementary professional, technical or specialist skills. This team, managed by the Project Manager, is responsible for carrying out the work detailed in the project plan. The size of a Project team depends on the type of work required for a project.

68

Date post:	08-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee...Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Main...

Documents