Download - English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal ...severnestuarycoastalgroup.org.uk/files/2016/03/... · 21.10.2014 · Flood and Coastal Committee Tuesday, 21 October 2014 . We

English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Tuesday, 21 October 2014

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

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

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

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

Published by:

Environment Agency Riversmeet House, Newtown Industrial Estate, Northway Lane, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, GL20 8JG

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

© Environment Agency 2014

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

OFFICIAL

Members of English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

Members of the English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee are invited to attend a meeting of the Committee on Tuesday 21st October 2014 at 10:00 am.

The meeting will be held in the Diamond Rooms at The Council House, Coventry City Council, Earl Street, Coventry, CV1 5RR.

Location plans are provided overleaf. Details are also available on the Coventry City Council website: http://www.coventry.gov.uk/location

The walking route from the railway station to the Council House is shown by an orange line on the first map. The nearest public car park is in Salt Lane. Refreshments will be available from 9:30 am and a buffet lunch will be provided. All members are strongly encouraged to read the papers in advance of the meeting. LLFA members are also encouraged to liaise with their local flood risk management officers to ensure that they are fully briefed on any issues particularly relevant to their area. After lunch, members are invited to join us on a local site visit in Coventry City Centre (on foot).

Dafydd Evans Area Manager Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire

1

http://www.coventry.gov.uk/location

OFFICIAL

2

OFFICIAL

3

OFFICIAL

4

OFFICIAL

Members are reminded of the RFCC purposes and the expectations of RFCCs based on the statutory functions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the RFCC Regulations 2011 RFCC Purposes The RFCC brings together members appointed by Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and independent members with relevant experience to: • Ensure there are coherent plans for identifying, communicating and managing flood and

coastal erosion risks across catchments and shorelines; • Promote efficient, targeted and risk-based investment in flood and coastal erosion risk

management that optimises value for money and benefits for local communities;

• Provide a link between the Environment Agency, LLFAs, other risk management authorities and other relevant bodies to engender mutual understanding of flood and coastal erosion risks in its area.

Statutory Functions and the Role of the RFCC Section 23 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires the Environment Agency to: • Consult with each RFCC about the way it proposes to carry out its flood and coastal erosion

risk management functions in the Committee’s region [S23(1)(a)]; • Take into account representations made by the Committee about the exercise of its flood and

coastal erosion risk management functions in the Committee’s region[S23(1)(b)]; • Obtain the consent of the RFCC before implementing its regional programme for the

Committee’s region [S23(2)]; • Obtain the consent of the RFCC before it can issue a levy under Section 17 of the Act

[S23(3)];

• Obtain the consent of the RFCC to the spending of revenue under Section 118 of the Water Resources Act 1991 in the region where the revenue is raised [S23(4)].

Expectations of RFCCs Defra advises that the RFCC will be expected to “engage constructively with, and offer advice to, the Agency, having developed its own view as to the flood and coastal erosion risk management needs within its region informed by local knowledge, contacts with other risk management authorities and engagement with risk management planning.” Holding Office The RFCC Regulations 2011 state that a member may be removed from office if the member has been absent from meetings of the Committee for a period of 6 consecutive months without the approval of the Committee. [S19 (3)(d).]

5

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

6

OFFICIAL

Agenda English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Diamond Rooms, The Council House, Coventry City Council, Earl Street, Coventry, CV1 5RR Tuesday 21st October 2014, 10:00am to 1:00pm (lunch included) Arrivals – Tea / Coffee from 9:30am Item No. Time Item Lead Page

No.

1 10:00 – 10:15 Welcome to Coventry Cllr Rachel

Lancaster -

2

10:15 – 10:25

Welcome and Introductions RFCC Chair - 3 Apologies for Absence RFCC Chair - 4 Chair’s Announcements RFCC Chair -

5 Declarations of Interest Members to declare interests relating to any of the Agenda items

RFCC Chair -

6 Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd July 2014

RFCC Chair 9

7 Matters Arising from the Minutes RFCC Chair - Items for Approval / Decision

8 10:25 – 10:40

FCRM Programme 2014/15 Update on progress with delivery of the current year’s capital and revenue programmes and approval of variances

Sue McCarthy 25

9 10:40 – 10:55

FCRM Six Year Programme: 2015/16 to 2020/21 To consent the six year programme

Jon Hollis 43

Items for Discussion

10 10:55 – 11:15

Asset Management Plan 6 (2015 to 2020) and Partnership Working

Tim Smith (Severn Trent

Water) 45

11:15 – 11:30 Break

11 11:30 – 11:50 Key Issues Anthony Perry/

Emma Roberts 51

12 11:50 – 12:20

Role of RFCC during Flood Incidents Discussion item Anthony Perry 57

13 12:20 – 12:50

Volunteers in Flood Risk Management Discussion item

Dan Trewin & Sarah Harcombe -

14 12:50 – 13:00

Matters Arising from Information Papers RFCC Chair - 15 Any Other Business RFCC Chair - 16 Closing Remarks RFCC Chair - 13:00 Lunch in St Mary’s Guildhall

13:30 Overview of regeneration and improvement projects in Coventry

Coventry City Council -

13:50 – 15:30

Local site visit in Coventry City Centre (on foot)

Coventry City Council -

7

OFFICIAL

Information Papers

Members are asked to raise any matters arising from the Information Papers under Item 14 on the Agenda or directly with Environment Agency staff.

Item Contact for further details

Page No.

A Increase in Number and Size of High Tides Anthony Perry 63

B Flood Forecasting and Flood Resilience Report Emma Ferguson 67

C Delivering Revenue Projects & Maintenance Programme

Brian Jones John Buckingham 71

D Update on SuDS Anthony Perry Emma Roberts 79

E Event Calendar Susan Russell 81

F Local Levy – National Picture Anthony Perry Emma Roberts 83

Dates of future RFCC Meetings

Date Venue

13th January 2015 Telford – Park Inn by Raddisson

28th April 2015 Venue to be confirmed

21st July 2015 Venue to be confirmed

27th October 2015 Venue to be confirmed Additional Information The following documents are included at the end of the papers:

• Outcome Measure Definitions • List of Abbreviations

Members’ Expenses Members are reminded that expense claims should be submitted within one month of being incurred. Claims covering a period in excess of one month should be avoided. Members’ expense claim forms should be returned to:

Susan Russell, Flood & Coastal Risk Management, Environment Agency, Sapphire East, 550 Streetsbrook Road, Solihull B91 1QT

8

OFFICIAL

Draft minutes for RFCC approval

English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday 2nd July 2014 at

Worcestershire County Council, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester WR5 2NP

Attendees Chair: Dr Anne Wheeler Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Members: Cllr Rachel Lancaster Coventry City Council Cllr Khurshid Ahmed Dudley MBC Cllr Phillip Awford Gloucestershire County Council Cllr Philip Price Herefordshire Council Cllr John Smith OBE Worcestershire County Council (For start of meeting only) Deputies: David Edwards for Cllr Malcolm Price Shropshire Council Steve Hollins for Cllr Richard Overton Telford & Wrekin Council Michael Green for Cllr Chris Williams Warwickshire County Council Matt Maginnis for Cllr Jon Smith Worcestershire County Council Environment Agency (EA) Appointees: Andy Eadon Professor John Moverley OBE Colin Raven Heather Shepherd John Turner Robert Willetts Environment Agency (EA) Officers in attendance: David Rooke Executive Director Flood and Coastal Risk Management Dafydd Evans Area Manager for Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and

Gloucestershire Emma Roberts Area Flood Risk Manager for Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West

Midlands Anthony Perry Area Flood Risk Manager for Shropshire, Herefordshire,

Worcestershire and Gloucestershire John Buckingham Area Operations Manager for Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West

Midlands Jon Hollis Programme Manager Sue McCarthy Programme Team Leader Christian Wilcox Partnership & Strategic Overview Team Leader Susan Russell FCRM Advisor / RFCC Support Officer Brian Smith FCRM Avisor Observers: Chris Uttley (Stroud District Council), Cllr Anthony Blagg (Worcestershire County Council), Neal Thomas (Coventry City Council), David Parish (Gloucestershire County Council), Steve Hodges (Herefordshire Council), John Bellis (Telford & Wrekin Council), Danielle Degville, Steve Lambe and Martyn Wilson (Worcestershire County Council), Tim Smith, Nagen Nagendran and Gary Kinley (Severn Trent Water), Lucy Freeman, Will Groves, Sarah Harcombe, John Hindle, Hardeep Kalsi, Adrian Martyn and Rhys McCarthy (EA).

9

OFFICIAL


1. Welcome and Introductions 1.1 The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked Cllr John Smith and the

team at Worcestershire County Council for hosting this meeting. 1.2 She introduced David Rooke, Executive Director FCRM at the Environment Agency

and welcomed him to the meeting.

1.3 The Chair also introduced the other Environment Agency staff in attendance and welcomed all the observers.

2. Welcome / Overview of Flood Risk in Worcestershire 2.1 Cllr John Smith (Worcestershire) welcomed everyone to the meeting. He apologised

that he wasn’t able to stay for the rest of the meeting due to another commitment. He introduced Cllr Adrian Hardman Leader of Worcestershire County Council to give a short overview of flood risk in Worcestershire

2.2 Cllr Hardman was delighted to welcome the English Severn and Wye RFCC to

Worcestershire County Council. He commented that the climate did seem to be changing, for example, the River Avon was responding to rainfall much more quickly than previously. He mentioned the impact of the recent flooding on villages in the county – not just the flooding but the traffic diverted due to floods elsewhere. Parts of Worcestershire had a long history of flooding from the three major rivers in the county (Severn, Avon and Teme) and their tributaries, as well as major surface water flood events. The floods in 2007 were a major emergency for the area.

2.3 Worcestershire County Council has excellent relationships with district councils and

other partner organisations. Joint working with partners had been a great success. Cllr Hardman stressed the importance of managing whole catchments and he felt that the whole of the River Severn catchment should be overseen by a single organisation rather than being split between England and Wales.

2.4 There had been major investment in flood risk management in Worcestershire by the

EA, county council and district councils. An example of this was the successful new defences in Upton upon Severn. He emphasised the need to not become complacent as there was still a lot to do. He mentioned SuDS, surface water, land management, new development, and maintenance. All of these needed to be considered in the current, challenging financial climate. He anticipated that there would be significant changes ahead.

2.5 The Chair thanked Cllr Hardman for his informative presentation. 3. Apologies for Absence 3.1 Apologies were received from:

Cllr Malcolm Price - Shropshire Council Cllr Richard Overton - Telford & Wrekin Council Cllr Chris Williams - Warwickshire County Council

Richard McDonald - EA Board Member Lisa Pinney - Area Manager for Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West Midlands Dave Harris - Chair of Severn Estuary Coastal Group

10

OFFICIAL


4. Chair’s Announcements 4.1 The Chair had circulated a summary document to inform members of topics of

interest and the meetings she had attended since the last RFCC meeting. This included a RFCC Chairs meeting in Ipswich which was followed by site visits to local flood defence schemes in Ipswich and Clacton on Sea.

4.2 Members were also recommended to read the recently published House of Commons

(EFRA) report on the winter floods 2013/14. 4.3 Members were also informed of a forthcoming event in Worcester – SOS Fest 2014 -

on Saturday12 July. The event was being held to celebrate the county’s ability to bounce back after the devastating floods.

4.4 The Chair advised that the date of the January 2015 meeting being held in Telford

had been changed to 13th January 2015. She commented that a contingency date for this meeting, when the local levy is set, will probably be required in case of bad weather.

4.5 The Chair commented that after the January meeting, RFCC meetings will have

been held in all of the constituent LLFAs areas. She requested that members submit suggestions for future locations of the quarterly meetings.

Action: Members to contact the Chair with suggestions for future venues for

RFCC meetings 5. Declarations of Interest 5.1 The Chair reported that there were two declarations of interest still pending. She

asked those Members to return their forms to the RFCC Support Officer as soon as possible.

Action: Members who had not yet done so to submit Declarations of Interest

forms to Susan Russell. 5.2 The Chair asked Members to declare any interests in advance of the relevant item

during the meeting. 6. Minutes of Previous Meeting (8th April 2014) and Matters Arising from the

Minutes 6.1 The Chair asked if there were any comments or matters arising from the minutes of

the meeting held on 8th April 2014. 6.2 Minute 3.4 The reference to Susan Kramer MP was incorrect - it should be Baroness Kramer. Action: Susan Russell to amend minutes accordingly. 6.3 Minute 8.11 The Chair thanked members for the information they had sent her regarding the

problems being encountered due to the delay in implementing SABs. She had fed this into the national RFCC chairs meeting with Defra.

11

OFFICIAL


6.4 Minute 9.1 Dafydd Evans (EA) provided a further update on the organisational change underway

at the Environment Agency. He reminded the committee that one of the main drivers for change was affordability. However, the extra funding announced by the government in April meant that there was no longer a need to reduce the size of the organisation as much as had been planned in flood and coastal risk management, although other parts of the business would still be affected. The staff consultation period was due to commence the following week and it was hoped that all the changes would be completed by October. There were a lot of challenges for staff and he praised their professional commitment during this period of change.

6.5 Minute 10.24 As requested at the previous meeting, John Buckingham (EA) provided an update on

asset inspections. He advised that the inspections carried out by military personnel had been completed in 4 weeks. They had identified some failing assets, but fewer than found in other parts of the country. Repairs were underway helped by the extra funding. This had been a good opportunity to review inspection regimes to improve efficiency and provide a good basis for moving forward and working with partners to improve assets.

6.6 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 8th April 2014 were approved as

accurate subject to the change required in 6.2 above. 7. David Rooke, Executive Director, Flood Risk and Coastal Risk Management 7.1 David Rooke (EA) explained that this was his first visit to the English Severn and Wye

RFCC. He was very conscious of the effects of the winter weather and thanked EA staff, other bodies, military personnel, volunteers and elected members for their work during this difficult time.

7.2 He had two key messages that he had learnt from the English Severn and Wye area:

investment works and is worthwhile; and partnerships work. The difference between 2007 and 2014 here was the success of investment in the catchment.

7.3 Looking ahead he predicted that there would be great opportunities with the 6 year

programme. The Environment Agency’s Investment Strategy published in 2009 was in the process of being updated to provide better information for the government.

7.4 He advised that the case for increased maintenance funding was being made at the

national level. The government had recently made an extra £240 million available to repair damaged defences. RFCCs have a crucial part to play in this.

7.5 John Turner (EA Appointee) thanked David Rooke for attending the meeting. He

explained that he was the longest serving member and was interested in the constitutional basis of the RFCC. He believed that the RFCC purposes were no longer fit for purpose. They didn’t include partnership working and local issues. The focus of RFCCs is changing and they need more and better guidance from Defra and the EA about their purpose and functions.

Action: David Rooke agreed to look into this matter.

12

OFFICIAL


8. FCRM Programme 2013/14 and 2014/15 8.1 The Committee received an update on the 2013/14 year end final outturn positions for

the capital and revenue programmes as well as the current ‘in year’ position for 2014/15.

8.2 Sue McCarthy (EA) reported that the final outturn figure for 2013/14 was just over

£5.6 million across the whole programme. This was £0.5 million above the GiA budget and £0.4 million below the local levy allocation. The local levy position was a combination of projects being re-profiled into 2014/15 and that fact that £0.2 million of levy was capitalised at year end. As a result, the Committee carried forward approximately £1.2 million of local levy into 2014/15. She advised that these balances were already being utilised in the current year’s programme in accordance with the principles agreed by the RFCC in November 2013.

8.3 Revenue expenditure was overspent by approximately £0.4 million in 2013/14 due to

operational staff being diverted to incident response in the last quarter. 8.4 For the current year programme (2014/15), Sue McCarthy (EA) advised that there

had been a number of changes with the programme forecasts since the paper had been written. The programme was currently forecasting £1 million above the affordable GiA budget due to the need to accommodate additional spend on ongoing projects which were carried forward from last year. The situation will be continually monitored in order to maximise outcome measure delivery with the available funding.

8.5 Members were referred to Appendix 2 of the paper (Item 9) which gave details of

projects out of tolerance by more than 15% and above £10k. 8.6 John Moverley (EA Appointee) queried the increased expenditure required for

Kempsey. Anthony Perry (EA) explained that this was for upgrading and improving the scheme. It was FDGiA funding so it would not impact on the local levy. He would update the RFCC further when the ongoing contractual and legal issues have been resolved.

Action: Anthony Perry to provide RFCC with an update on the Kempsey

scheme at a future meeting. 8.7 John Moverley requested that the Committee be provided with more detailed

information on the variances in future. Action: Emma Roberts and Anthony Perry to ensure that an appropriate level of

detail is included in future requests for project variances. 8.8 The Committee was asked to approve the project variances listed in Appendix 2. Decision: The Committee approved the project variances listed in Appendix 2. 8.9 Members were also referred to Appendix 3 to note progress with the projects listed. 8.10 Sue McCarthy moved on to discuss the revenue position for 2014/15. She explained

that revenue funding included salaries and overheads, revenue projects as well as the maintenance programme. The overall funding for the current year was just over £7.5 million. Asset maintenance made up 51% of the programme. A breakdown of all the individual elements was included in Section 8 of the paper.

13

OFFICIAL


8.11 Sue McCarthy (EA) advised that asset management targets were now being

measured on an Area basis (previously regional). The current position was included in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 of the paper. The targets for 2014/15 would not be set until the output from the State of the Nation work had been evaluated nationally.

8.12 Andy Eadon (EA Appointee) asked what ‘frequent maintenance’ covered. John

Buckingham (EA) explained that it included routinely scheduled maintenance such as tree maintenance, grass cutting and inspections to identify if any further works were required.

8.13 Cllr Philip Price (Herefordshire) asked why in Table 9.2, the number of households at

risk in Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire & Gloucestershire Area was shown as zero as there were many properties at risk in Herefordshire alone.

8.14 John Moverley was also concerned that data in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 was incorrect. 8.15 Dafydd Evans (EA) explained that the number of households at risk in both tables

only included those at risk due to a failing asset and not the numbers at overall risk. 8.16 Anthony Perry (EA) undertook to provide more information on properties at risk at the

next meeting. Action: Anthony Perry to provide details on properties at risk and failing assets

at the next meeting. 8.17 David Edwards (Shropshire) referred to Table 9.2 which gave details on the condition

of third party assets. He asked whether the EA was likely to designate any of them in future. Emma Roberts (EA) explained that a national pilot study was still ongoing and that they were waiting for the outcome of this before progressing. David Edwards said that he would be very interested to know the outcome of the pilot project as they were considering whether to do this in Shropshire.

8.18 John Turner (EA Appointee) requested that a paper on riparian assets be included as

a future agenda item as he thought this would become increasingly significant. The Chair supported this request.

Action: Anthony Perry / Emma Roberts to include item on riparian assets on

future agenda. 8.19 Michael Green (Warwickshire) questioned how effective planning was covered and

requested an indication of this separately. Emma Roberts(EA) advised that it might be possible to provide an average figure if this would be helpful.

Action: Emma Roberts to provide information on planning at the next meeting. 9. FCRM Six Year Programme: 2015/16 to 2020/21 9.1 The Committee received an update on the 6 year investment needs programme for

FDGiA capital works. 9.2 Sue McCarthy (EA) reminded the Committee that they had received the initial

investment needs returns from all risk management authorities at the April 2014 meeting. These needs were quality assured and submitted for the national allocation

14

OFFICIAL


in May 2014. Details of the projects submitted in the bid were included in Appendices 1 to 3 of the paper (Item 10).

9.3 Sue McCarthy explained that in April it had been thought that the indicative allocation

would be available for the July meeting, enabling the Committee to consider their local choices. However, this had not been possible for the reasons outlined in the supplementary paper, Item 10A. This paper asked the Committee to:

(i) Hold either an additional full Committee meeting or a sub-group meeting

between 25th August and 5th September 2014 to make their ‘local choice’ adjustments. These had to be submitted to the national Allocation Team by 8th September; and

(ii) Consider bringing the local levy vote forward from the January meeting to the October meeting.

The Committee were informed that a meeting had been arranged for Thursday 4th

September 2014 at the Environment Agency offices in Tewkesbury. 9.4 The Chair apologised that the local choices meeting originally planned for June had

had to be postponed. She explained that developing a 6 year programme is much more challenging than an annual programme. Moving to a 6 year programme will enable better planning for the future but inevitably takes longer as it is a more complicated process and the right decisions need to be made. She was a little concerned as to how flexible the programme would be in future.

9.5 Jon Hollis (EA) commented that this was the first time that the government had made

a long term commitment on FCRM funding. As part of the local choices, the RFCC will be asked to deliver outcome targets. Local choices are about where to spend the local levy to maintain the required level of outcomes on local priorities.

9.6 The Chair advised that the national RFCC chairs meeting would receive an update,

before September, of how this was working. It was hoped that the indicative FDGiA allocation would be available in mid August. EA officers will liaise with each LLFA to explain the implications for them so that they can make their local choices.

Action: Environment Agency officers to liaise with each LLFA before the

September meeting to discuss the implications of the indicative allocation. 9.7 The Chair asked the members if they were happy about holding a meeting in

September as she felt it would be very useful. She explained that there were two options regarding the constitution of the meeting – either a sub-group where those attending were empowered by the full RFCC to make recommendations on their behalf, or a full RFCC meeting.

9.8 John Turner (EA Appointee) questioned whether the decision could be ratified at the

October RFCC meeting. The Chair responded that this would be too late. 9.9 Cllr Philip Awford (Gloucestershire) was not in favour of a sub-group meeting. He also

asked whether it would be possible to take account of the opportunities that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) might bring with regard to funding. Anthony Perry (EA) explained the Area Partnerships & Strategic Overview (PSO) teams are already linking in with the LEPs and are planning to increase engagement to make the most of any opportunities that might arise.

15

OFFICIAL


9.10 Cllr Rachel Lancaster (Coventry) was in favour of a full RFCC meeting. 9.11 Cllr Philip Price (Herefordshire) expressed a preference for an afternoon meeting. He

also questioned what the ‘E’ stood for in FCERM. He was advised that the acronym stood for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management. Cllr Price requested that a glossary be included in future papers.

Action: Susan Russell to include glossary with all future agenda papers. 9.12 John Moverley commented that the meeting held in November 2013 had been very

good and useful and requested that something similar took place in the current year. 9.13 In view of the discussion that had taken place, members were asked to agree that the

meeting on 4th September 2014 would be a full meeting. Decision: The Committee agreed unanimously that the meeting on 4th

September should be a full Committee meeting. 9.14 There was general agreement that at the September meeting the Committee would

also have an initial discussion about setting the local levy for 2015/16. 9.15 The Chair reminded the meeting that they had also been asked to consider bringing

forward the local levy vote to the October RFCC meeting. Jon Hollis briefly explained the pros and cons of this. He explained that RFCCs around the country had different opinions. Previously most of them held the vote in January but an increasing number were now changing to October as they felt it was advantageous to take the vote earlier. LLFAS need to decide whether it would be better for them to set the levy before or after their own budget setting outcomes.

9.16 Jon Hollis (EA) referred to a question submitted by Warwickshire before the meeting

asking whether it would be possible to retain local levy balances to provide greater flexibility for potential projects that may arise in future years. It may be that new projects could deliver greater outcome measures and benefits than those already in the programme. It would also provide greater flexibility with taking advantage of other sources of partnership funding which may arise in future.

9.17 Jon Hollis (EA) agreed that this would be one of the challenges with the 6 year

programme. He added that schemes in the later year of the programme may prove to be unfeasible or unviable. The Committee makes the decision as to whether it wants to retain balances. He suggested that this be discussed further at the September meeting.

9.18 There was a consensus among LLFA members that they would prefer the local levy

vote to take place in January as this would provide a longer time for them to influence others.

Decision: All LLFA members agreed that the local levy setting vote should take

place at the January 2015 meeting. 9.19 Andy Eadon (EA Appointee) asked whether Severn Trent Water (STW) had any

comments on the 6 year programme. Tim Smith (STW) advised that they were already working with the Environment Agency to align their programmes. He would also be attending the local choices meeting.

16

OFFICIAL


9.20 Jon Hollis commented that the move from an annual to a 6 year programme will mean that there will be a need for longer term commitments with funding in order to make the programme as secure as possible.

9.21 The Chair concluded this item by advising that a contingency date would have to be

arranged for the January meeting in case of bad weather. Action: Susan Russell to make the necessary arrangements and advise

members 10. Key Issues and Forward Look 10.1 Emma Roberts (EA) referred to the Key Issues paper (Item 11) which provided

updates on Flood Risk Management Plans, Rapid Response Catchments and SuDS. Members were asked to raise any queries.

10.2 Anthony Perry (EA) referred members to Information Item A, Forward Look. 10.3 He provided an update on issues relating to IDBs whose areas straddle the

England/Wales border. The Welsh Government had decided to transfer all IDBs in Wales to Natural Resources Wales from April 2015. This would leave much smaller parts of two IDB areas (Lower Wye and Powysland) in England. Discussions are ongoing with local ratepayers as to how these areas should be managed in future.

10.4 One option is that other nearby English IDBs could take on the operational work. This

would mean that Rea IDB could cover the Powysland IDB area and the Lugg IDB could cover the Lower Wye IDB. Anthony Perry (EA) stressed the importance of the ratepayers being involved in the decision. He undertook to provide an update at the next meeting.

Action: Anthony Perry to provide an update on IDB transfers at the October

meeting. 10.5 David Edward (Shropshire) commented that the transfers outlined seemed a good

idea. 10.6 Cllr Philip Price (Herefordshire) agreed that the transfer of duties to neighbouring

IDBs seemed a good idea and didn’t see any problems with the proposal. 10.7 The Committee was generally supportive of the approach being taken as set out in

the paper. 10.8 Anthony Perry highlighted the proposal for recognising volunteers in flood risk

management. He commented that although there were lots of awards available for local communities there wasn’t anything specific for flood risk management. He asked the Committee to consider the ideas proposed in the paper so that this could be discussed further at the October meeting.

10.9 The Chair asked Heather Shepherd (EA Appointee) for her thoughts as to whether

this would be beneficial. She said that it would as long as it was ensured any award was made to an individual who had done something themselves.

10.10 Cllr Phillip Awford (Gloucestershire) commented that across Gloucestershire,

voluntary flood wardens did exceptional work over the winter and that some sort of

17

OFFICIAL


recognition for this would be good. He requested that this be an item on the agenda at the next meeting.

Action: Anthony Perry to table discussion item on recognising volunteers in

flood risk management at the next meeting. 10.11 Anthony Perry (EA) referred to the section in the paper on the role of the RFCC

during flooding incidents. He commented that when people and organisations work in partnership it can have great benefits. Some members already liaise with the media and local communities to provide joined up messages. He asked members whether they would like to have a future discussion item on this topic and whether they would like to get more involved with flooding incidents in the future. He would be happy to discuss this with individual members if they contacted him between meetings.

10.12 Cllr Phillip Awford (Gloucestershire) thought that it was a good idea to link in direct to

incident information as local people expect it. 10.13 Heather Shepherd (EA Appointee) agreed that this was a good idea. She commented

that it would be good to get feedback from communities to provide a reality check and to know how they are doing. There was a need to bring in community stories so that the RFCC know how people are getting on as many are still suffering. She stressed the importance of not forgetting the reality of flooding.

10.14 Michael Green (Warwickshire) reminded the committee about the ongoing Pathfinder

Project in Warwickshire which was developing a community-led approach to flood resilience with the aim of implementing sustainable solutions through local resilience action plans. He suggested that consideration be given to using local levy to fund a person to work with people and communities.

10.15 The Chair agreed that this is something that could be considered once the Committee

knew how much funding was available. 10.16 Cllr Phillip Awford (Gloucestershire) commented that that the RFCC had already

allocated some funds to this type of work as part of the Rapid Response Catchments project. He agreed that this type of activity is the way forward and it would be good to support wider projects if funding was available.

Action: Anthony Perry to table items on incident management at future

meetings 10.17 Anthony Perry asked for feedback from members as to how the RFCC meetings are

structured and the relevance of the topics covered. A few suggestions had been included in the Forward Look paper but he welcomed ideas for other topics to be discovered. This would help the Committee move forward and deliver more.

Action: All members to submit ideas for topics to be discussed at future

meetings to Anthony Perry before the next meeting. Action: Anthony Perry to collate suggestions and report back to the RFCC.

18

OFFICIAL


11. Natural Solutions to Water Management 11.1 John Moverley (EA Appointee) thanked the Chair for the opportunity to discuss this

subject, which was very close to his heart, with the RFCC. He reminded members that he had previously spoken about Woodlands for Water at the April 2013 meeting.

11.2 He remarked that everyone was at last talking about natural solutions and that it was

crucial that an integrated approach was taken with land management. There were still real problems and issues to be overcome and partnership means airing the differences. There was a need to engage more with local communities.

11.3 He explained that the natural approach had so many benefits but they were not quick

wins. We were still suffering from bad decisions made in the past. 11.4 Three presentations followed to illustrate the opportunities and issues involved in

working with natural solutions. 11.5 Brian Smith, FRCM Advisor (EA) went through the background and policy drivers. He

accepted that this was nothing new but that at last it was gaining momentum. He referred to a number of well established pilot projects including those at Pontbren in the upper Severn catchment and Pickering in Yorkshire. These had all influenced Defra’s recent policy guidance on the catchment based approach.

11.6 The Woodlands for Water project had helped identify areas where woodlands could

help reduce flood risk and provide WFD enhancements. 11.7 There were a whole suite of options available with a range of benefits to help not only

flood risk but biodiversity as well. There was a need to look at upper catchments to try and control impacts downstream. There also needed to be more engagement with communities to increase awareness and encourage ownership so that they take schemes over locally in the long term. Evaluating the actual economic benefits of the catchment approach is complex and encompasses direct benefits such as investment through local businesses and indirect benefits such as health, amenity and property values.

11.8 Brian gave brief details of three ongoing projects in the RFCC area: Charlton, Merry

Brook (Near Evesham); Shropshire Slowing the Flow, Upper Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean. He introduced Chris Uttley, Project Officer at Stroud District Council who was leading the rural SuDS pilot study in the River Frome Valleys in Stroud. Local levy was being used to fund this post which will develop demonstration sites and promote natural solutions.

11.9 Chris Uttley explained the background to the rural SuDS project which was a

partnership project with Stroud District Council. There are 5 valleys on the Cotswold escarpment with a long history of flooding and a lot of properties at risk. It is a very complex catchment which is difficult to model and predict.

11.10 There had been a lot of local community pressure to find solutions. The local political

framework was amenable to trying out new measures, as traditional capital schemes were not suitable or cost effective.

11.11 Chris explained the features of rural SuDS and how they worked by increasing

infiltration and attenuation and slowing down flows. A key component of the project was using community and local knowledge. They had been lobbying for something to

19

OFFICIAL


be done for a long time and had a huge wealth of knowledge. There was still a need to raise funding to implement the work further.

11.12 Intervention examples included large woody debris in channels, water storage (eg.

desilting abandoned mill ponds) and targeted tree planting to intercept overland flows. 11.13 Chris outlined his short term priorities which included working with the National Trust,

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, landowners and local communities to foster partnership working and joint outcomes. Priorities for the medium and longer term included obtaining funding for wider implementation and seeking opportunities for partnership funding from other sources.

11.14 Colin Raven (EA Appointee) explained that his normal job was Director of the

Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and that he was involved with a number of partnerships working to deliver integrated catchment management.

11.15 Colin provided details of a number of local projects. The Magnificent Severn was a

project with a lot of local partnerships at both the strategic and delivery levels. Bow Brook Living Landscape project include retrofitting measures to a private flood defence scheme built after the 2007 floods. The Vale of Evesham had been identified as a key area of development for food and horticulture by the Local Enterprise Partnership. The Worcestershire Local Nature Partnership also sees the Vale as a priority area. Water resources and flood risk management are crucial to the objectives of both partnerships so there should be opportunities for both to work together to deliver RFCC objectives and by matching other funding sources.

11.16 Members were challenged to consider what opportunities there might be in their own

areas and how they could be taken forward. 11.17 John Moverley (EA Appointee) concluded by stressing the need to think ‘outside the

box’ with getting funding, but that this should not be a constraint. 11.18 The Chair strongly supported this approach to flood risk management. She

commented that the English Severn and Wye RFCC had been fortunate with the level of funding it had received in recent years but it was unlikely that this would continue in future. There would therefore be a need to think differently. She thought it was important to work with communities from the beginning, especially those that don’t receive FCRMGiA. She requested that this topic be included on the agenda on a regular basis.

11.19 Heather Shepherd (EA Appointee) enthusiastically supported the approaches

outlined in the presentations. She knew lots of communities where these types of measures would be appropriate, particularly when other options were not viable. She advised that local groups often managed to find cheaper, viable solutions and that there was a need to get communities to challenge back as to what they would like to see. She felt that the upper Severn was an ideal catchment for this type of work.

11.20 Andy Eadon (EA Appointee) explained that he was a great believer in this type of

approach and that the problems of today were a result of previous decisions and actions. He had had concerns that recent changes to funding mechanisms would mean that local schemes would take priority over larger catchment-wide schemes. He suggested that schemes should be grouped together for the EA to oversee. He requested regular updates on the area of woodland in the RFCC area so that the impacts and trends can be seen.

20

OFFICIAL


11.21 Cllr Philip Price (Herefordshire) stated that he was not in agreement with this type of

approach being adopted everywhere. His view was that it would not be appropriate in the middle of catchments. Upstream attenuation could help to stop erosion but further downstream more dredging was required to improve conveyance. He commented that local communities often don’t know the area they live in, however, this was a much bigger issue.

11.22 Cllr Phillip Awford (Gloucestershire) said that any projects which would help to reduce

the pressure in the Gloucestershire area would be very welcome. He felt that there were probably more opportunities along the Severn to reconfigure the river to attenuate more.

11.23 John Turner (EA Appointee) thanked John Moverley and the presenters for raising

this interesting subject. He welcomed the imaginative approach and reflected that there would need to be a change in approach in future. As a light-hearted aside, he referred to the use of woody debris to hold water back and wondered whether beavers could be introduced to provide a low cost and sustainable solution!

11.24 John Moverley (EA Appointee) thanked the Committee for their time and suggested

that it would be good if the English Severn and Wye RFCC could lead the way with this type of approach.

11.25 The Chair thanked John Moverley and all those involved with the presentations. She

asked the Committee to endorse the use of these types of initiatives. Decision: The Committee unanimously endorsed the initiatives currently being

developed and implemented wherever they were appropriate. 11.26 The Chair re-iterated the need for the Committee to receive regular agenda items to

update the members on the use of natural solutions which should include evidence and figures so that any trends could be demonstrated.

Action: AFRMS to provide the RFCC with twice yearly updates on the

implementation of working with natural solutions, including data evidence. 11.27 The Chair referred to the need for joined up thinking for the Severn and Wye

catchments in Wales. She undertook to follow this up. Action: Chair to liaise with Chair of Flood and Coastal Risk Management Wales

Committee regarding the need for catchment based approach for the Severn and Wye.

12. Matters Arising from Information Papers 12.1 The Chair drew member’s attention to the following information papers which were

circulated before the meeting and asked if there were any matters arising: A Forward Look B Flood Forecasting and Flood Resilience Report C Event Calendar 12.2 There were no matters arising.

21

OFFICIAL


13. Any Other Business 13.1 There was no other business. 14. Closing Remarks 14.1 David Rooke (EA) thanked the Committee for their hospitality. He had found the item

on natural solutions very interesting and said that working with nature had to be the way forward for future flood risk management.

14.2 The Chair thanked everyone for attending and for their contributions to the meeting.

She asked members to email her between meetings if any issues arose. 15. Site Visit The meeting was followed by a site visit into Worcester to hear about the impact of

the winter floods on the city, see existing flood defences and learn about other ongoing issues.

16. Dates of Future Meetings 16.1 An additional full RFCC meeting will be held on Thursday 4th September 2014 from

10:00am to 1:00pm at the Environment Agency Offices, Riversmeet House, Newtown Industrial Estate, Northway Lane, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire GL20 8JG

16.2 The next routine quarterly meeting will be held on Tuesday 21st October 2014 from

10:00am to 1:00pm at Coventry City Council. 16.3 Meeting dates for 2015 are as follows:

• 13th January 2015 at Park Inn, Telford • 21st January 2015 – contingency date in case meeting on 13th January has to

be cancelled due to bad weather. • 28th April 2015 (venue to be confirmed) • 21st July 2015 (venue to be confirmed) • 27th October 2015 (venue to be confirmed)

22

OFFICIAL


SUMMARY OF ACTIONS – 2nd JULY 2014 Minute

No. Subject Action Outcome

4.5 Venue for future RFCC meetings

Members to contact Chair with suggestions for future venues for RFCC meetings as soon as possible.

5.1 Declarations of Interest (DoI)

Members who had not yet done so to submit DoI forms to Susan Russell as soon as possible.

A number are still outstanding

6.2 Correction required to minute 3.4 of meeting held on 8th April 2014

Susan Russell to amend minutes. Minutes amended

7.5 Update of RFCC purposes and functions

David Rooke to look into this matter.

Ongoing

8.6 Increased expenditure on Kempsey scheme

Anthony Perry to provide RFCC with an update on the Kempsey scheme at a future meeting.

Update will be provided when contractually able to do so

8.7 Lack of information on project variances included in Appendix 2

Emma Roberts & Anthony Perry to ensure that an appropriate level of detail is included in future requests for project variances. For October 2014 meeting and all meetings thereafter.

Included in papers for meeting on 21st October 2014

8.16 Lack of clarity regarding properties at risk data

Anthony Perry to provide details on properties at risk and failing assets at October 2014 meeting.

Included in papers for meeting on 21st October 2014

8.18 Riparian assets Anthony Perry & Emma Roberts to include item on riparian assets at a future meeting.

Recommend that this be discussed at April 2015 meeting

8.19 Planning data Emma Roberts to provide information on planning data at October 2014 meeting.

To be discussed further with Warwickshire CC

9.6 Circulation of indicative allocation information

EA Officers to liaise with each LLFA before September 2014 meeting to discuss implications of the indicative allocation.

Complete

9.11 Acronyms used in papers

Susan Russell to include glossary with all future agenda papers.

Included with papers

9.21 Contingency date for January meeting

Susan Russell to make arrangements and advise members.

21st January 2014, venue tbc

10.4 Transfer of cross-border IDBs to NRW and arrangements for those areas remaining in England

Anthony Perry to provide update on IDB transfers at the October 2014 meeting.

Included in Key Issues paper for meeting on 21st October 2014

10.10 Recognition of volunteers in flood risk management

Anthony Perry to table discussion item on recognising volunteers in flood risk management at October

Included on Agenda for meeting on 21st

23

OFFICIAL


Minute No. Subject Action Outcome

2014 meeting. October 2014 10.16 Incident management Anthony Perry to table items on

incident management at future meetings.

Included on Agenda for meeting on 21st October 2014

10.17 Feedback from members for topics to be discussed at future meetings

All members to submit ideas for topics to be discussed at future meetings to Anthony Perry as soon as possible.

Ongoing

Anthony Perry to collate suggestions and report back to RFCC.

Ongoing

11.26 Working with natural solutions

Anthony Perry & Emma Roberts to provide RFCC with twice yearly updates on the implementation of working with natural solutions, including data evidence at January and July 2015 meetings.

Update will be provided at January 2015 meeting

11.27 Catchment management across England/Wales border

Anne Wheeler (Chair) to liaise with Chair of Flood & Coastal Risk Management Wales Committee regarding the need for catchment based approach for the Severn and Wye.

24

OFFICIAL

English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Meeting date: 21st October 2014

Item no. 8

Appendix 1: 2014/15 Programme

Appendix 2: Project Variations Appendix 3: Project Updates

Paper by: FCRM Programme Manager Subject: FCRM Programme 2014/15

1.0 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to update the Committee on the in-year position

for the 2014/15 capital and revenue programme. It presents the latest information provided by project teams at the end of August 2014.

2.0 2014/15 Capital Programme 2.1 Since the RFCC meeting in July, the EA FCRM GiA capital budget has been

increased to £5.5m. This includes £4.2m flood recovery funding and £1.3m for salaries and the EA capital programme. The programme will be managed to this throughout the year. The Local Authority budget has not altered.

2.2 The budget breakdown for 2014/15 is summarised in Table 2.1 below and

Appendix 1 shows the associated programme of works.

Recommendations The English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to: 1. Note and comment on the 2014/15 capital programme. 2. Approve project variances listed in Appendix 2. 3. Note and comment on the revenue position and KPI delivery. 4. Note and comment on verbal updates presented at the meeting.

25

OFFICIAL

ES&W

Budget (£k) ES&W

Forecast (£k)

ES&W Variance

from Budget (£k)

FCRM GiA Capital

Salaries 674 674 0 EA 772 1520 748 LA 161 134 -27 Total 1,607 2,328 721

Local Levy 2,124 2,045 -79 Contributions 1,258 1,152 -106 Recovery 4,211 3,426 -785 Total 9,200 8,951 -249

Table 2.1: Capital Programme for 2014/15 2.3 We are currently forecasting £0.7m above the FCRM GiA budget for the

English Severn & Wye programme. This is to accommodate Measures in the Interest of Safety on the West Reservoir Works, the Severn Critical Eel Tide Flaps and as previously reported, improvements at Kempsey. National are comfortable that the RFCC is utilising the flexibility within the programme at this stage.

2.4 This position has been provided to national as part of the mid-year review.

The national capital programme is being assessed to look at opportunities to rebalance the funding between RFCCs. A verbal update of the outcome of this review will be provided at the meeting.

2.5 Appendix 2 lists projects that are out of tolerance by more than 15% and have

variances of more than £10k. The RFCC is asked to approve the formal requests to amend budgets.

3.0 RFCC contribution to national Outcome Measure delivery 3.1 The suite of Outcome Measures (OM) is used nationally to highlight the

benefits achieved by carrying out capital projects. Nationally, the commitment to government is that we reduce flood risk to 145,000 households between April 2010 and 2015. This Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) period is the key target for all Risk Management Authorities and, to provide confidence in achieving this target, figures are split down into individual years and RFCCs.

3.2 Figure 3.1 below charts progress against the 2014/15 Outcome Measure

ambitions for the English Severn & Wye RFCC. The target is illustrated by the red line. OM forecasts currently exceed targets, this is due to Dinglewell, Sudbrook and Cubbington re-profiling into this year.

26

OFFICIAL

Figure 3.1: 2014/15 Outcome Measure position

3.3 As we approach the end of the current CSR, we are reviewing all of our

contributing schemes to ensure they will deliver on time and are looking for opportunities to mitigate any risk.

4.0 Efficiencies 4.1 The English Severn & Wye RFCC efficiency target has been set as £59k.

Although we look to find efficiencies on all of our work, the target only relates to the FCRM GiA capital funding that we receive on Environment Agency led schemes.

4.2 The current proposal is to achieve the target by gaining small efficiencies over

a number of projects in the programme, rather than larger efficiencies on set projects. We feel that this target is achievable, and will update the committee on progress at the January meeting.

5.0 Revenue 5.1 The overall FCRM GiA position including staff costs, maintenance and

revenue projects for the English Severn & Wye RFCC is highlighted in Figure 5.1 below and shows year to date actual spend versus year end forecast and budget.

Figure 5.1: Total FCRM GiA position for English Severn & Wye RFCC

27

OFFICIAL

5.2 Using the August data, we are currently forecasting less than the budget on the total FCRM GiA revenue. This is a result of holding vacancies for the SRRP change programme.

5.3 Figure 5.2 below provides further details on the revenue maintenance

programme, revenue projects and IDB precepts. The green line indicates the budget.

Figure 5.2: Revenue Breakdown for English Severn & Wye RFCC

5.4 The maintenance forecasts indicate that we are currently forecasting higher

than the budget. This is a strong position to be in at this time of year and shows we are planning to deliver more than originally planned at the start of the year. This leaves us in a good position for potential bad weather limiting work on the ground over the winter period. Further details on delivering the maintenance programme for the English Severn & Wye RFCC are included in Information Item C of these papers.

5.5 We are currently forecasting to budget for revenue projects and IDB precepts. 6.0 Asset Management 6.1 Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) were previously measured regionally.

Following transition to a two-tier organisation they are now measured on an area basis.

6.2 KPI 962 reports the number of assets that are at required condition. The KPI

962 position for the English Severn & Wye RFCC at the end of August is presented in Figure 6.1 below.

28

OFFICIAL

Figure 6.1: 2014/15 KPI 962 position for English Severn & Wye RFCC

6.3 At the end of August, 96.8% of high consequence EA assets were at required

condition and 96.0% of high consequence 3rd party assets were at required condition, only slightly less than the full year target. We are therefore confident that these targets will be achieved.

6.4 KPI 965 is measured as the number of residential properties at additional risk

due to assets below required condition. The KPI 965 position for the English Severn & Wye RFCC at the end of August is presented in Figure 6.2 below.

Figure 6.2: 2014 /15 KPI 965 position for English Severn & Wye RFCC

EA High C Assets 3rd Party High C Assets Target 97.7% 96.2% Actual 96.8% 96.0%

95.0%

95.5%

96.0%

96.5%

97.0%

97.5%

98.0% Pa

ssin

g As

sets

Target Actual Households at Risk 493 798

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Add

ition

al H

ouse

hold

s at

Ris

k

29

OFFICIAL

6.5 At the end of August, 798 additional households were at risk due to assets

below required condition. As we work towards improving our asset condition we expect this number to reduce by the end of the year and therefore have confidence in achieving the target.

6.6 As a result of last winter’s coastal and fluvial flooding Defra have allocated

more funding for maintenance and repairs of assets affected during these floods. We have been successful in securing more funding for the English Severn and Wye RFCC. This will enable us to bring many more of our assets up to the required target condition this year.

7.0 Recommendations 7.1 The Committee is asked to:

1. Note and comment on the 2014/15 capital programme.

2. Approve project variances listed in Appendix 2.

3. Note and comment on the revenue position and KPI delivery.

4. Note and comment on verbal updates presented at the meeting.

Sue McCarthy Programming Team Leader September 2014

30

Appendix 1 ESW RFCC 2014/15 Programme

SHWG Area - FCRM Capital Salaries Environment Agency 0 506.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 506.0 506.0 0Abbey Mill, Mill Avon Sluice Works Environment Agency 0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0Alney Island FAS 2012 Floods Recovery Repairs Environment Agency 0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 14.2 14.2Alney Island Improvements, River Severn Environment Agency 0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.5

Badsey Brook (Broadway, Childswickham and Murcot) FAS Environment Agency 0 0.0 590.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 590.5 680.2 125.6Barbourne Brook Culvert Improvements Worcester City 0 0.0 120.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 0Bewdley PLP Scheme Environment Agency 0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 104.0 0Brockworth, Gloucestershire Surface Water Scheme Gloucester City Council 0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 55.0 0Cambridge, Gloucestershire Flood Alleviation Scheme Lower severn IDB 0 0.0 23.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 33.0 33Charlton FRM Scheme- Merry Brook Environment Agency 0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0Chelt CWC (Ph4, 5, 6 and 7) Environment Agency 13703 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 55.2 6.4Cherry Brook, Hope Under Dinmore, FAS Herefordshire 76 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0Coal Brook, Coalbrookdale, Flood Relief Works Telford and Wrekin 0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0Contribution to Deerhurst Walton Tewkesbury Borough Council 0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 0Cradley Brook, Cradley, Flood Alleviation Scheme Herefordshire Council 0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0Daniels Brook Environment Agency 946 6.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 25.9 17.3Eardisland, Flood Alleviation Feasibility Environment Agency 0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 10East Waterside near Ryall, Malvern Hills, PLP Scheme Malvern Hills 0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 35.0 6.7Folly Brook, Eardisley, FAS Herefordshire Council 70 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0Horsbere Brook Environment Agency 2246 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 198.5 15.5Kempsey Environment Agency 1832 396.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 396.0 395.7 6Ketley Town, Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme Telford and Wrekin 0 0.0 55.0 550.0 0.0 0.0 605.0 605.0 250

Northway Oak Drive, Tewkesbury Flood Alleviation Scheme Gloucestershire County Council 92.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Powick FAS Environment Agency 869 4.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 29.3 1.7Prestbury FAS Environment Agency 2337 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 11.9 1.7Puxton & Stourvale Marshes, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, WLMP Environment Agency 217 50.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 49.9 11.8River Lugg, Leominster Flood Alleviation Scheme Improvements Environment Agency 0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 16.5River Severn, Hempsted and Rea, Gloucester, Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 3020 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 20.9River Severn, Minsterworth FAS Erosion Protection Environment Agency 0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0Rural SuDS Pilot - River Frome Stroud Valleys Stroud DC 0 0.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 45.0 30Severn Vale Water Management Plan Environment Agency 1538 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 12.8 2.6Shropshire PLP Schemes Shropshire County Council 0 0.0 75.2 25.3 19.8 0.0 120.3 120.3 0Sudbrook, Gloucester, PLP Gloucester City Council 90 0.0 45.0 120.0 0.0 0.0 165.0 165.0 15The Grove, Minsterley, Shropshire, FAS Shropshire County Council 0 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 34.0 34Uckinghall Environment Agency 0 41.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.8 41.8 0.2Whaddon, Cheltenham FAS Gloucestershire County Council 1761 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0Wick, Worcestershire, PLP Scheme Wychavon District Council 0 0.0 31.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 40.0 0Bromsgrove Channel Improvements Environment Agency 15 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0Buildwas Sidelooker ADVP Environment Agency 23.5 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 23.5 0Communities at Risk for Flood Resilience Environment Agency 20 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 8.8 0Deerhurst Ultrasonic flow gauge repairs Environment Agency 7 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 0Ewyas Harold Flood Map Study Environment Agency 15 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 0Gauge Programme Severn Environment Agency 30 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 25.7 5.7Heat Light Renewable Severn Environment Agency 19 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 19.0 0Hereford H&S Environment Agency 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -27.9 -27.9Highcross Ditch Outfall Access Environment Agency 45 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 45.0 0Kidderminster GS ADCP flowgauge Environment Agency 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 15.5 0Kinver Conveyence Works Environment Agency 15 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0Midlands West Reservoir Works 2 Environment Agency 390 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.0 141.2 97Orphan Reservoirs Severn Environment Agency 25 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0Pudding Brook Flood Study Environment Agency 22 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 21.0 5Rapid Response Catchments 2014/2015 Environment Agency 0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0Severn Critical Eel Tide Flaps Environment Agency 50 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 249.3 0.6Severn Eel Pass Weddenburn Environment Agency 10 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 30.0 0Severn NAFRA Improvements Environment Agency 15 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0Severn Performance Measures Environment Agency 15 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 6.8 1.6Severn Rating Review Environment Agency 20 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 15.0 0Severn Stoke Culvert Repair Environment Agency 35 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 35.0 20Severn Survey in-house modelling Environment Agency 10 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.0 0ShARC boat (revised full-size ARC boat) Environment Agency 7 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 0Tredworth Grills Environment Agency 40 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0West Blockage Modelling Environment Agency 45 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 18.0 3Winch and Access for Ashelworth Quay Outfall Environment Agency 20 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire Flood Alleviation Scheme Tewkesbury District Council 0 0.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 95.0 95.0 0Churchdown Tewkesbury District Council 0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 0Hearne Brook, Flood Relief Works, Cheltenham Environment Agency 0 0.0 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 31.5 31.4 21.3North East Bomere Heath Shropshire County Council 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 25.0 0.0 30.0 4.0 4

Cambridge Fish Pass Environment Agency 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 -5.9Hasfield Outfall Repair Environment Agency 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6Pershore FAS 2012 Floods Recovery Repairs Environment Agency 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5

29697.4 1291.0 1384.2 1034.8 44.8 0.0 3754.8 4089.2 754.6

SWWM Area (Severn) - FCRM Capital Salaries Environment Agency 0 168.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 168.0 168.0 0Aston Cantlow Warwickshire County Council - 0.0 100.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 140.0 83.8 0Cubbington Flood Alleviation Scheme, Warwickshire Warwick District Council 850 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 74Fenny Compton Warwickshire County Council - 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 35.0 10Kinver, River Stour, PLP Scheme Staffordshire County Council 0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 5.0 0Marlcliff FAS Environment Agency 537 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 16Mushroom Green Dam Dudley MBC 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0Pooley Lane, Moreton, Surface Water FAS Staffordshire County Council 0 0.0 8.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 0Princethorpe, Rugby, Property Level Protection Scheme Warwickshire County Council 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 11.0 12.0 0.5Snitterfield Environment Agency - 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 10.0 0The Beck, Mousesweet Brook, Dudley Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 500 210.0 227.0 0.0 65.0 0.0 502.0 501.7 35.7

Rugby Hazard Mapping - Swift, Sow Brook and Clifton Brook Environment Agency 40 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 27.1 8.1SWWM Gauge Programme Severn Environment Agency 13 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 0Cherington, Shipston-on-Stour, FAS Warwickshire County Council 0 0.0 0.0 33.9 0.0 0.0 33.9 33.9 11.9Kites Hardwick, Rugby, River Leam, PLP Warwickshire County Council 0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0Ladbroke Warwickshire County Council 0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0

SWWM Totals 1940.2 350.0 508.5 143.9 78.0 0.0 1080.4 990.5 156.2

ESW Totals 31637.6 1641.0 1892.7 1178.7 122.8 0.0 4835.2 5079.7 910.8

Expenditure to date (£k)

Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire

Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West Midlands

2014/15 Privately Funded

contribution (£k)

Funding from other EA Functions

(£k)

2014/15 Budget (£k)

Forecast 2014/15

Expenditure (£k)

Total Project Cost (£k)

2014/15 Current

FCRM GiA Allocation

(£k)

2014/15 Current Local

Levy Allocation

(£k)

2014/15 Publicly funded

Contribution (£k)

Project Name RMA

31

OFFICIAL

Item 8, Appendix 2

English Severn & Wye RFCC, 21st October 2014: Project Variances +/-15% or £10k or resulting in a change in project outcomes

Project Name AFRM / Ops Manager Project Variation Explanation Request to RFCC

Alney Island FAS (2012 Flood Recovery Repairs)

Anthony Perry Project added on to 2014/15 programme with £14k FCRM GiA.

Additional funding is required for this financial year for additional work. Scope changes were introduced during the construction phase and have increased the costs and length of the construction programme.

Approve £14k FCRM GiA.

Bewdley PLP Scheme

Anthony Perry Reduction in local levy from £104k to £40k in 2014/15 and carry forward £64k local levy into 2015/16.

Delays due to the February 2014 flooding. £40k local levy will be required this financial year for business case development and property surveys, with £64k local levy being carried over and construction taking place in 2015/16 and 2016/17.

Approve reduction in levy for 2014/15 & £64k local levy carry over to 2015/16.

Brockworth, Gloucestershire Surface Water Scheme

Anthony Perry Re-profile £15k local levy from 2014/15 to 2015/16.

Gloucestershire County Council is using its own contributions to take this project to the approval stage. The local levy in 2015/16 will support post approval design.

Approve carry over of £15k local levy into 2015/16.

Charlton FRM Scheme – Merry Brook

Anthony Perry Reduction of local levy from £18k to £5k in 2014/15, and carry forward £13k local levy into 2015/16.

PLP Scheme. Land owner negotiations are taking longer than expected. This has delayed project delivery dates into 2015/16.

Approve reduction in levy for 2014/15 & £13k local levy carry over into 2015/16.

Dinglewell, Gloucestershire

Anthony Perry Requesting £7k local levy in 2014/15. Additional 7 properties have been identified that can be protected from PLP scheme.

Approve £7k local levy funding in 2014/15.

East Waterside near Ryall, Malvern Hills, PLP Scheme

Anthony Perry Reduce the local levy by £15k in 2014/15. Increase public contributions from £25k to £60k.

The total cost rose from £40k to £60k. However following flooding in February 2014, the Repair and Renew Grant is now being used to fund the works. The project is handing back £15k of local levy.

Approve hand back of £15k local levy in 2014/15.

Ewyas Harold Flood Map Study

Anthony Perry Reduction of £10k local levy from £15k to £5k in 2014/15.

Temporary gauging of the watercourse is to be undertaken to improve data collection. This changes the scope of the project and reduces the budget required.

Approve £10k local levy reduction in 2014/15.

Hearne Brook Anthony Perry Increase £31.5k of public contributions for 2014/15.

Cheltenham Borough Council is using its own contribution this year to carry out landscaping.

Approve £31.5k public contribution funding in 2014/15.

Midlands West Reservoir Works

Anthony Perry Increase of FCRM GiA required from £1k to £54k in 2014/15.

Recommendations outlined in the inspection reports for Kidderminster and Cox’s Meadow, carried out under Section 10 (6) of the Reservoirs Act 1975, have highlighted work relating to Measures In The Interests of Safety (MITIOS). These works are statutory requirements of the Reservoirs Act and as owners and undertakers for these reservoirs we must comply.

Approve £53k FCRM GiA funding increase in 2014/15.

33

OFFICIAL


Prestbury FAS Anthony Perry Project added on to 2014/15 programme with £12k FCRM GiA.

The project developed post completion defects which require rectification to ensure that the works are fit for purpose. The funding will allow NCPMS staff to establish liability for the defects and manage effective solutions. Any subsequent costs of the works are expected to be recoverable from the supply chain.

Approve £12k FCRM GiA funding in 2014/15.

Pudding Brook Flood Study

Anthony Perry Reduction of local levy from £22k to £5k in 2014/15.

Temporary gauging of the watercourse is to be undertaken to gain a better understanding of flows for the catchment. This changes the scope of the project and reduces the budget required.


Puxton and Stourvale Marshes

Anthony Perry Reduction of local levy from £64k to £6k in 2014/15 and carry over of £58k to 2015/16.

Further feasibility assessments are required before taking forward to detailed design and construction. As a result funding has reduced in 2014/15 to £56k local levy. The remaining £58k will be carried forward to 2015/16 to support detailed design and construction.

Approve reduction in levy in 2014/15 and carry over of £58k local levy into 2015/16.

Rapid Response Anthony Perry Reducing local levy to £15k in 2014/15. Reducing local levy allocation to £15k as additional funding from another source has been identified to support delivery of the project in 2014/15.


Severn Critical Eel Tide Flaps

Anthony Perry Reduction from £50k to £6k FCRM GiA in 2014/15.

Project paused. The team would only be able to deliver one of 7 sites with the allocated budget for 2014/15. Overhead costs would be disproportionately high making it an inefficient way to deliver the project. We have requested additional funding from National as part of the mid-year review to deliver the 7 sites as a package.

Approve £44k FCRM GiA reduction in 2014/15.

Severn Stoke Culvert Repair

Anthony Perry Increase FCRM GiA from £35k to £80k in 2014/15.

Increase in overall costs for Severn Stoke as project scope has changed. Parts of the culvert will need replacing rather than patching of the joints as originally estimated.


Southfield FAS, Cheltenham BC

Anthony Perry Requesting £50k local levy in 2014/15. The Project Appraisal report was approved in July for the total project cost of £435k. Require £50k local levy in 2014/15 to support the detailed design.

Approve £50k local levy for 2014/15.

Tredworth Grills Anthony Perry Added to 2014/15 programme with £1.7k FCRM GiA funding.

The increase to the final account value was due to late changes on the project.

Approve £1.7k FCRM GiA funding.

Whaddon, Cheltenham FAS

Anthony Perry Using £50k public contributions this year and requesting to carry over £50k local levy to 2015/16.

Gloucestershire County Council will use its own contribution this financial year to develop the Project Appraisal Report. The £50k local levy in 2015/16 will allow the detailed design to be completed.

Approve carry over of £50k local levy to 2015/16.

34

OFFICIAL


Wick, Worcestershire PLP Scheme

Anthony Perry Requesting an additional £10k local levy in 2014/15.

Two additional properties have been identified as qualifying for grant aid under this scheme and should be included.

Approve £10k local levy funding increase in 2014/15.

Cherington, Shipston-on-Stour

Emma Roberts Adding £33.9k of public contributions for 2014/15.

Local authority using their own contribution this year to develop the scheme.

Approve £33.9k public contribution funding.

Fenny Compton Emma Roberts Requesting to carry over £30k of local levy into 2015/16. £40k of public contributions has been carried over into 2015/16.

Private contribution from a developer using a Section 106 agreement is expected in 2015/16. The project programme and £30K local levy funding has been aligned with this contribution.

Approve £30k local levy carry over to 2015/16.

Kites Hardwick, Rugby

Emma Roberts Adding £10k of public contributions for 2014/15.

Local authority using their own contribution this year to develop the scheme.

Approve £10k public contribution funding in 2014/15.

Marcliff FAS Emma Roberts Increased from £12k to £18k local levy in 2014/15.

To accommodate re-instatement and compensation for the scheme an additional £6k local levy is required this financial year.

Approve £6k local levy increase in 2014/15.

Rugby Hazard Mapping

Emma Roberts Reduced FCRM GiA from £40k to £27k in 2014/15.

Tender costs were lower than expected. Approve £13k FCRM GiA decrease in 2014/15.

The Beck, Mousesweet Brook

Emma Roberts Increased FCRM GiA from £170k to £210k.

The cost of the detailed design of the preferred solution has increased. The detailed design will fully explore any possibilities for value engineering and to bring increased confidence in the cost of the scheme.


35

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

36

OFFICIAL


Item No: 8, Appendix 3

Project Updates, September 2014

1. Shropshire Property Level Protection • This scheme is to deliver property level protection across Shropshire to 13

properties in locations where a permanent defence is not viable. Engagement work has already been undertaken with these communities, who have agreed to the works.

• Delivery and completion of this project will be during Q2-Q3 of 2014/15. The total cost of the scheme is £120k including a £75k local levy contribution from the English Severn & Wye RFCC, along with contributions from Shropshire Council and affected property owners.

• The scheme was approved in July 2014, and Shropshire Council is currently implementing the measures.

2. The Grove, Minsterley, Flood Alleviation Scheme (Shropshire)

• The proposals are to improve the highway drainage and deliver property level protection. Engagement with the Parish Council and impacted residents has already taken place and they are supportive of the proposals.

• The scheme is to be delivered over 3 years, due to the availability of FCRM GiA. Shropshire Council has had approval for the scheme and some works will commence this year. The scheme has £34k levy and £27k contributions from Shropshire Council.

• Shropshire Council are progressing part of the scheme using their own contribution and local levy funding. However, FCRM GIA is not likely to be available until 2015/16 which means not all of the property level protection measures will be implemented this year.

3. Coal brook, Coalbrookdale, Flood Relief Works (Telford & Wrekin)

• This is a £235k project to undertake feasibility work, design, and delivery of a flood relief culvert to reduce flooding. The scheme is programmed over several years. However, the aim this year is to undertake modelling and site investigation work and determine whether a scheme is viable.

• Approval for undertaking the modelling and feasibility work has had approval and Telford and Wrekin Council have appointed a consultant to undertake this work.

4. Ketley Town Surface Water Scheme (Telford & Wrekin)

• This is a project mainly funded by Severn Trent Water with additional works to be undertaken by Telford and Wrekin Council. An additional 15 properties will benefit from a reduction in flood risk.

• The works undertaken by Severn Trent Water are to improve the capacity of the surface water sewers in the area with an estimated cost of £500k. The additional works to be undertaken by Telford and Wrekin Council will improve the capacity of some of the ditches and drains in the area, and enable an existing pond to be used to provide additional surface water attenuation. The element of Telford and Wrekin's work will be funded by a £55K contribution from the local levy.

37

OFFICIAL

• Construction and completion of the scheme is for Autumn 2014. Telford and Wrekin Council are in the process of obtaining formal approval for funding.

5. Wick, Worcestershire Property Level Protection Scheme (Worcestershire)

• This is a Wychavon District Council, property level protection scheme near Pershore for 14 properties.

• The scheme has been extended to include 2 further properties at Wyre Piddle following the agreement of the RFCC to provide an additional £10k of local levy. Total cost is now £77k (£31k levy, £8k public contributions this year and £38k grant in aid next year).

6. Barbourne Brook Culvert Improvements (Worcestershire)

• Worcester City Council project managed by Worcestershire County Council. Relining of damaged culvert to prevent excessive future costs and reduce flood risk to industrial units. Total cost £480k over two years (£95k GiA, £160k Worcester City and £225k levy).

• Consultant appointed CH2M Hill, currently working on detailed design, and PAR to be undertaken for November Project Assurance Board meeting.

• Culvert relining works planned for this financial year. 7. East Waterside near Ryall, Property Level Protection Scheme (Worcestershire)

• Malvern Hills District Council (MHDC), property level protection scheme for 8 properties.

• Total cost of scheme is now around £60k (having had detailed surveys of all properties).

• Defra have confirmed that MHDC can use Repair and Renew Grant. £15k local levy no longer required as cost of scheme can be sourced from Repair and Renew Grant and Malvern Hills District Council contributions.

• 3 out of 8 properties are now complete. 8. Callow Brook (Worcestershire)

• North Worcestershire Water Management flood storage Scheme for 7 properties near Rubery, costing £75k.

• £33k levy secured from Trent RFCC, the scheme has been approved. • Construction this financial year.

9. Folly Brook Eardisley, Flood Alleviation Scheme (Herefordshire)

• This project is being led by Herefordshire Council. • The RFCC have agreed to provide £30k local levy over two years (£15k in

2014/15) to assess the technical, environmental and economic viability of a scheme to divert flood water from an ordinary watercourse away from 60 properties.

• Herefordshire Council have appointed Parsons Brinkerhoff to carry out the study and will be seeking formal approval for the project in the near future.

10. Hope under Dinmore (Herefordshire)

• This project is being led by Herefordshire Council. • The RFCC have agreed to provide £15k local levy in 2014/15 to assess the

technical, environmental and economic viability of a scheme to reduce the risk of flooding to 26 properties from ordinary watercourse and surface water.

• Herefordshire Council have appointed Parsons Brinkerhoff to carry out the study and will be seeking formal approval for the project in the near future.

38

OFFICIAL

11. Cradley Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme (Herefordshire) • This is a property level protection scheme for one property, estimated cost £5.7k. • £500 local levy funding has been allocated 2014/15 for a property level survey to

understand the measures that will be required to reduce flood risk. £5.2k has been allocated in 2015/16 towards carrying out measures.

• Herefordshire Council have appointed Parsons Brinkerhoff to carry out the survey and will be seeking formal approval for the project in the near future.

12. Eardisland Flood Alleviation Feasibility (Herefordshire)

• £15k local levy has been allocated to produce a feasibility study which assesses the risk of flooding from all sources in Eardisland, Herefordshire and identifies ways of managing this risk.

• The project is being led by Eardisland Parish Council. Herefordshire Council is managing the finance of the study, ensuring the local levy contribution is spent to meet the objectives. The Environment Agency is offering technical advice and information to assist with the study.

• Eardisland Parish Council has invited consultants to tender to carry out the study, and a consultant is anticipated to be appointed in October 2014. The study is expected to be completed this financial year.

• Formal approval of the project is imminent. 13. Sudbrook, Gloucester

• This is a property level protection scheme that was originally for 20 properties but is now for 40 around the Lampreys and Cheyney Close area of Gloucester.

• Original project cost was £90k but additional money to deliver protection to the extra 20 properties has been secured from Gloucestershire County Council (£95K), Gloucester City Homes (£5K) and a further £5k from Gloucester City Council.

• Completion of the scheme is being pushed back from March 2014 to March 2015. Gloucester City Council has undertaken drop in sessions during the summer with potential property owners that would receive property level protection.

14. Dinglewell, Gloucester

• This is a property level protection scheme that was originally for 6 properties at risk of flooding from the Wotton Brook, but is now for 13 properties. Total project cost has risen from £23k to £30k.

• Due to the additional properties the scheme has been delayed by several months but it is still hoped it will be delivered by the end of this year.

• Gloucester City Council has prepared a variation report requesting a further £7k levy funding for the additional 7 properties.

• An exception report for the additional £7k has been approved in principle but subject to the English Severn and Wye RFCC approving the additional funding. This will be decided during this committee meeting.

15. Whaddon, Cheltenham Flood Alleviation Scheme (Gloucestershire)

• This is a Gloucestershire County Council led scheme to reduce the risk of surface water flooding from the Cotswold escarpment for approximately 150 properties in Whaddon, Lynworth and Prestbury. The proposals involve channel diversions and flood storage areas in order to manage exceedence.

• Total project cost is £1,761k, with £243k contribution from Gloucestershire County Council.

• Construction of the project is subject to the allocation of FCRM GiA in the 6 year capital programme. Gloucestershire County Council is using part of their contribution to the scheme to take the project to the approval stage (anticipated

39

OFFICIAL

2015/16). They intend to commission CH2M HILL. Following the RFCC local choices meeting held in September 2014, £50k local levy is allocated in 2016/17 to progress design.

16. Brockworth, Gloucestershire

• Gloucestershire County Council led surface water scheme to protect approximately 40 properties in Brockworth.

• Total cost of scheme £197k, with £40k contribution from Gloucestershire County Council.

• Gloucestershire County Council is using their contribution to the scheme to take the project to the approval stage (anticipated 2015/16). They have commissioned CH2M HILL, using their own Framework. Following the RFCC local choices meeting held in September 2014, £15k local levy is allocated in 2015/16 to progress post-approval design.

17. Southfield, Cheltenham Flood Alleviation Scheme (Gloucestershire)

• Cheltenham Borough Council led scheme to reduce the risk of ordinary watercourse and surface water flooding to 25 properties on the southern urban edge of Cheltenham. This scheme has received formal approval.

• The total scheme cost is £435k, with construction cost £350k. Construction of this project is subject to allocation of £200k FCRM GiA in the 6 year capital programme. £150k local authority contributions have been secured.

• The scheme was allocated £80k local levy and £5k FCRM GiA in 2013/14 (£35k to take to approval stage, £50k for design). The project was formally approved in April 2014 and £35k claimed. Design will now be carried out with £50k local levy re-allocated to 2014/15.

18. Rural SuDS River Frome Stroud Valleys

• Hosted by Stroud District Council, with multi agency support. • This is an ongoing project started in 2014/15 to carry out Rural Sustainable

Drainage Systems in the Stroud Valleys. This will help reduce flood risk and provide Water Framework Directive benefits by controlling sedimentation and improving water quality.

• The RFCC have allocated local levy funding for 3 years for a Project Officer to work with the local community to identify and implement projects. The purpose of this is to act as a catalyst to encourage others to take forward rural SuDS measures in the future.

• Individual measures are currently being progressed with National Trust, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and private landowners. The total cost of these is £40k, funded with £30k contribution from Gloucestershire County Council and contributions from National Trust, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and Stroud District Council.

• Additional measures and funding mechanisms are being pursued. 19. Cambridge, Gloucestershire Flood Alleviation Scheme

• This is a project being undertaken by the Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board for delivery and completion in 2014/15. Construction to start Autumn 2014. Total project costs are £33k.

• The project will move 8 properties that are currently at significant flood risk to moderate flood risk. The scope of the works will be the upsizing of approximately 30 metres of culvert. A section of pipe is to be removed and an open ditch improved for conveyance and storage.

• The IDB will be seeking formal approval for the project in the very near future.

40

OFFICIAL

20. Deerhurst Walton, Gloucestershire • Deerhurst Parish Council led community flood risk management scheme to

reduce flood risk to properties in Deerhurst Walton, Gloucestershire. • The RFCC is contributing £40k towards construction. This is in addition to the

£20k made available in August 2011 towards the planning stages of the scheme. • Tewkesbury Borough Council is managing the local levy contribution to ensure it

is spent appropriately for flood risk management purposes and it is anticipated that the contribution will be claimed this autumn.

21. Alney Island, Gloucester

• £5k of local levy funding has been allocated to carry out a preliminary assessment of the methods, cost and practicality of improving the standard of protection to properties at Alney Island, by increasing the height and extending existing flood defence walls and earthen embankments into high ground.

• The investigation is to include Early Contractor Involvement, together with a proportional level of topographic survey and site investigation works sufficient enough to understand the potential costs of a scheme and whether these are likely to be below the economic benefits.

• This will inform whether there is potential for an economically viable scheme and whether funding should be sought to carry out further assessment.

41

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

42

OFFICIAL

English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Meeting Date: 21st October 2014

Item no: 9

Subject: FCRM Six Year Programme 2015/16 to 2020/21 Unfortunately this paper was not available at the time of printing. It will be forwarded to members as soon as it is available.

43

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

44

OFFICIAL


Item no: 10

Paper by: Severn Trent Water Subject: Asset Management Plan 6 (2015 to 2020) and

Partnership Working

1.0 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of Severn Trent Water’s

plans for Asset Management Plan 6 (2015 to 2020). In particular, the paper gives an overview of proposed approaches to invest in measures to manage and reduce flood risk from sewers in partnership with other Risk Management Authorities (RMAs).

2.0 Background 2.1 We provide clean, safe and reliable drinking water to around 8 million people

throughout the Midlands and mid-Wales. We then take away and clean their waste water before returning it to the region’s rivers. We are one of the largest water and sewerage companies in England and Wales. As a Water and Sewerage Company (WaSC) we are regulated by our economic regulator, OFWAT, through 5 year Asset Management Plan (AMP) cycles. We are currently in AMP 5 (2010 – 2015).

Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 1. Note the progress of Severn Trent Water’s plans and objectives for AMP 6. 2. In particular note the proposed partnership working proposals and

partnership scheme target to deliver 21 partnership schemes by 2020. 3. Note the current activities being undertaken with other Risk Management

Authorities to define, identify and develop partnership schemes. 4. (Optional) Provide feedback on how the RFCC see joint initiatives on

flooding / partnership schemes being delivered by Risk Management Authorities in the Trent RFCC region.

45

OFFICIAL

3.0 Developing our plan and OFWAT determination 3.1 In late 2011, we started developing our plan for AMP 6. The plan was

submitted to OFWAT in December 2013. The plan has been shaped by extensive customer and stakeholder engagement, including a series of consultations, workshops, presentations, customer surveys as well as on-going scrutiny from our customer challenge group (The Water Forum). A bespoke Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) workshop was held in September 2012.

3.2 A summary of our plan can be found at www.severntrent.com/2020-plan.

Information about our customer challenge group including an audit report on our plan can be found at www.severntrent.com/waterforum.

3.3 Since December 2013, we have been discussing the detail of the plan with

OFWAT and providing additional evidence. On 29th August 2014, OFWAT issued a draft determination of the plan. See www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pr14/draftdet/ for the 154 page report outlining OFWAT’s decisions for further details.

3.4 OFWAT’s final decision (termed ‘final determination’) will come in December

2014, but the feedback contained in the draft determination report is that our plans to reduce flood risk from sewers have provisionally been accepted. We believe this is good news for our customers and our stakeholders.

Severn Trent Water Summary Plan December 2013

The Customer Challenge Group

(Water Forum) report November 2013

OFWAT draft determination report

August 2014

46

http://www.severntrent.com/2020-plan

http://www.severntrent.com/waterforum

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pr14/draftdet/

OFFICIAL

4.0 Overview of AMP6 4.1 The 5 year plan has 10 objectives. These are based on our customers’

priorities, our regulatory and legal obligations and our assessment of the long term challenges we face. These objectives are as follows:-

4.2 Each objective has a number of associated ‘measures of success’ with

targets. There are 27 measures of success in total. The objective ‘We will safely take your waste water away’ is the most relevant to the work of this RFCC.

4.3 A key change for AMP 6 is the move away from an outputs approach to an

outcomes approach, which is more aligned with other RMAs outcome measures. For many years, water industry investment in schemes to reduce flood risk from sewers has been driven by a register of properties and areas known to have suffered from rainfall related sewer flooding (known as the DG5 register) i.e. the output is that a property is removed from this register. In AMP 6, investments will be focussed on reducing risk with the outcome measured in terms of overall number sewer flooding incidents. Another key change for AMP6 is how capital and revenue expenditure will be accounted for, giving water companies increased flexibility to use both capital (CAPEX) and revenue (OPEX) to deliver the best outcome for customers.

4.4 The measures for success for ‘We will safely take your wastewater away’

are:- o Internal sewer flooding incidents. o External sewer flooding incidents. o Partnership working initiatives. o Asset stewardship – sewer blockages. o Section 101a first time sewerage schemes.

5.0 Partnership Working in AMP 6 5.1 We believe that working with other organisations can help us deliver our

objectives and therefore we have included various measures in our plan associated with working in partnership. With respect to flooding, we have a target of delivering 21 partnership schemes or joint initiatives to reduce flood risk by 2020.

47

OFFICIAL

5.2 Partnership working is also underpinned by legislation and it was clear from the extensive consultations that partnership approaches are supported by our customers and stakeholders.

5.3 We have already been developing partnership initiatives this AMP. For

example, we have been comparing the Medium Term Plan with our sewer flooding programme, sharing information and working with Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) on developing integrated models and surface water management plans. We have also been working with some RMAs on joint flooding schemes that have combined funding from Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGIA) with our investment from our sewer flooding programme.

5.4 We recognise the benefits of working in partnership and are looking to identify

and develop more partnership working opportunities for delivery in AMP 6. We are reviewing all potential AMP 6 sewer flooding schemes to identify opportunities to work with other RMAs. For instance, we are comparing our programmes to the proposed 6 year Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) investment programme, and to the fluvial and surface water flood risk maps.

6.0 Examples 6.1 An example of a completed partnership scheme to reduce flood risk is Ketley,

Telford. Properties on Waterloo Road and Orchard Close have suffered flooding since the 1970’s. The cause of flooding is complex and from multiple sources. Work to address the flooding has been carried out work in the past but flooding still occurs. Severn Trent Water and Telford have therefore been working together to fully understand this complex problem and develop a joint solution to reduce the risk of flooding from all sources. The proposals include major upgrades to the foul sewerage system and pumping station, increasing the size of the surface water sewer system, as well as improvements to the highway drainage and land drainage systems. The proposals also include sustainable drainage systems (SuDs) making this a good example of an integrated and sustainable solution to flooding. The partnership scheme is being funding from Severn Trent Water’s sewer flooding investment programme, Telford and Wrekin Council funding and Flood Defence Grant in Aid. The scheme is current on site.

6.2 The following plan illustrates the problem and proposed solution.

48

OFFICIAL

Severn Trent Water and Telford & Wrekin Council partnership scheme to reduce flood risk in

Ketley,

SuDS features (swale, micro pools, detention pond) included in the overall solution to flooding in Ketley

49

OFFICIAL

7.0 Benefits 7.1 We believe partnership working can help deliver sustainable and integrated

solutions to managing flood risk from all sources and has the potential to reduce costs, achieve efficiency saving and deliver wider multiple benefits.

7.2 Specifically, we believe that by aligning our AMP 6 sewer flooding programme

with the FCERM investment programme (6 year plan), we can help deliver the national objectives of 300,000 homes protected, 10% efficiency and 15% external contributions, whilst at the same time delivering our objectives.

8.0 Challenges 8.1 There are a number of challenges to working in partnership. Some are a

function of the current institutional, legislative and regulatory structure of the water industry and flood risk management organisations. For instance:- funding sources, investment planning, investment timing, and standards of protection are different for water companies compared to other RMAs. There are also challenges associated with current practices, tools and methods used within flood risk management. However, we believe that these can be overcome or successfully navigated to deliver our respective objectives.

8.2 Some specific immediate challenges are as follows:-

A) Defining a partnership scheme / joint initiative – We are working with Environment Agency Partnership and Strategic Overview teams to agree how to define a partnership scheme and what partnership working should consist of. We will be seeking input from LLFAs once a first draft has been produced.

B) Aligning programmes and funding bids - We are working with

Environment Agency Partnership and Strategic Overview teams and individual LLFAs on identifying opportunities to align programmes of work and also identifying new locations where we could work in partnership.


1. Note the progress of Severn Trent Water’s plans and objectives for AMP 6.

2. In particular note the proposed partnership working proposals and

partnership scheme target to deliver 21 partnership schemes by 2020. 3. Note the current activities being undertaken with other Risk

Management Authorities to define, identify and develop partnership schemes.

4. (Optional) Provide feedback on how the RFCC see joint initiatives on

flooding / partnership schemes being delivered by Risk Management Authorities in the Trent RFCC region.

Tim Smith, Infrastructure Strategy, Waste Water, Severn Trent Water

50

OFFICIAL


Item no: 11

Paper by: Area Flood and Coastal Risk Managers Subject: Key Issues

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This paper identifies key issues that are of interest to the RFCC and progress

with addressing them. 2.0 Internal Drainage Board (IDB) Update 2.1 Members will remember the update at the July 2014 meeting regarding the

proposed changes to IDBs in Wales from 1st April 2015, with their functions transferring to Natural Resource Wales (NRW). Members indicated their support for the proposal.

2.2 Both Lower Wye and Powysland IDBs have the majority of their land in Wales

with small areas in England. The English sections of these IDBs will not transfer to NRW.

2.3 The Environment Agency is currently working in partnership with Welsh

Government, Defra, NRW and all relevant IDBs to make sure arrangements are in place post 1st April 2015 on the English side of the border. The work in England is limited to maintenance of a small number of ditches and streams. There are no fixed assets.

2.4 The preferred option for the Lower Wye IDB area in England is to transfer to

the River Lugg IDB. This will mean that the ditches (or reens) which are in England, and are currently managed by the Lower Wye IDB, will in future be

Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 1. Note progress in proposals to transfer the English side of the Lower Wye to

the River Lugg IDB. 2. Indicate their support for the outcome of the consultation with rate payers

in the English section of Powysland IDB. 3. Note the progress with delivery of flood recovery projects. 4. Support and champion the Severn FRMP and, where possible, promote

the consultation. 5. Note the outcome of the temporary barrier trial at Bewdley

51

OFFICIAL

managed by the River Lugg IDB. The River Lugg IDB will also be responsible for raising and collecting rates. Discussions with the River Lugg IDB have been positive and there has been discussion with the Lower Wye rate payers in England that will be affected by the proposed changes.

2.5 In preliminary consultation, Powysland IDB ratepayers in England have had

two options put forward. The first is that the area in England currently managed by Powysland IDB transfers to a nearby English IDB and early discussions have been held with the Rea IDB. The second option is that the small section in England is abolished. In this scenario individual landowners or tenants would be responsible for maintaining the watercourses and ditches on their land and rates would cease to be charged.

2.6 There are no proposed changes to the main river network. The Environment

Agency in England and NRW in Wales will continue to have the same permissive powers to maintain or improve the main rivers, as they do now.

2.7 The RFCC is asked to note progress in proposals to transfer the English side

of the Lower Wye to the River Lugg IDB. They are also asked to indicate their support for the outcome of the consultation with rate payers in the English section of Powysland IDB.

3.0 Delivery of National Recovery and State of the Nation Projects 3.1 Following the tidal events and the high fluvial flooding earlier this year

throughout January and February, we identified projects to temporarily and permanently fix and inspect assets and survey flood assets damaged in the winter. In Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire & Gloucestershire Area, 36 projects have been approved; 35 of these are Environment Agency led projects and one project is being led by Worcestershire County Council (to repair a damaged trash screen in Redditch). We have a maximum budget of £4.3 million to deliver all these projects, which are targeted for completion before 31 October 2014 to be ready for winter.

3.2 Many projects have already been successfully delivered by our field services

workforce, taking advantage of the good summer weather. Included in these were three projects to repair floodbanks on the Rivers Wye and Lugg in the Hampton Bishop/Mordiford area of Herefordshire.

3.3 A package of 9 of the larger projects in Gloucestershire was given to one of

our WEM framework suppliers, a joint venture of Galliford Try (contractor) with Black & Veatch (consultant) to deliver. This included the three largest projects, which are the rebuilding of the flood banks at Rea and Minsterworth and the outfall at Lapper Ditch. Each of these repairs is expected to cost in excess of £500k. As these projects required more detailed design, landowner consultation and approvals, it was not possible to start these on site until mid-September. However, the contractor’s programme is in place to complete the works to restore the standard of protection by the end of October deadline.

3.4 The table below gives details of the recovery projects completed in 2014/15

that have a forecast cost of over £50k.

52

OFFICIAL

Project title Description of work Estimated cost

Cornham flood bank repairs

This flood bank was realigned away from a bank that had overtopped and been damaged by badgers.

£70k

Severn Estuary wrack removal

Removal of wrack deposited in January and February, to prevent damage to flood banks. £70k

Noards flood bank

Repair to the landward face of outfall, damaged by overtopping in January. £61k

The Strand, Westbury repair

Filling of a large scour hole in the riverbank with block stone. £135k

Epney Wall repair

The wall leaked during the high tides. The joint seals will be replaced and the riverside of the wall will be waterproofed.

£118k

Lapper Ditch Outfall

The outfall structure has developed large cracks down the face. It will be treated with sprayed concrete to repair and additional toe protection installed.

£569k

Ashleworth Quay flood bank repairs

This flood bank was leaking during the prolonged high river levels. Plastic sheet piles have been installed to block leakage paths caused by tree roots and vermin.

£72k

Urban Minsterworth

This flood bank overtopped in the high tides in January and February and a crack over 50m long appeared. The works will restore the standard of protection with a small wall and reduce the overburden on the flood bank.

£768k

Estuary Outfall Inspections

A structural inspection of 26 outfalls on the Severn Estuary to check that there has been no damage caused by the high tides.

£55k

Rea Bank Repair of this flood bank which overtopped and leaked due to badger damage. £839k

3.5 In February there was a request from the government that all flood defence

assets in England should be inspected urgently. This element of work has been termed “State of the Nation“. From 28th February, the Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire Asset Performance team was supplemented by seven military inspectors and a major to inspect all flood defence assets in the area. By 2nd April, 9,977 assets were inspected. Additional work has been identified to fix assets that are in poor condition in high consequence systems. An additional £200k has been allocated from the National Recovery Budget to repair 3 assets to their design standard of protection by 31st March 2015, with most of the work expected to start in October 2014. These 3 projects are in the Minsterworth area, on assets nearby to the location of one of the WEM package recovery projects. For efficiency, two walls at the slaughterhouse in Minsterworth, which constitute the majority of the funding, will be repaired by the WEM framework suppliers.

53

OFFICIAL

3.6 Throughout the recovery programme, we have taken opportunities to

publicise, through social media, the progress we have made on the repairs. We have uploaded many photos showing the construction work. We have also provided information for articles in the local media.

4.0 Consultation on Draft Flood Risk Management Plans 4.1 Members will remember the update from previous RFCC meetings regarding

the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). 4.2 Under the Flood Risk Regulations, the Environment Agency throughout all of

England and Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) where the risk of flooding from local sources is greater than 30,000 people, need to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by December 2015. The FRMPs are important because they will set out the approach to managing potential adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity.

4.3 The Environment Agency has led on the production of the Severn River Basin

District FRMP in partnership with Natural Resources Wales as a significant proportion of the Severn FRMP falls on the Welsh side of the border. There was no obligation for LLFAs within the English Severn and Wye RFCC area to contribute and there will be opportunities in future rounds for their involvement.

4.4 The development of the FRMPs is being co-ordinated with the updated River

Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) prepared under the Water Framework Directive. This will help join up and develop plans for both flood risk and the water environment in a way that delivers multiple benefits.

4.5 The Environment Agency is consulting on the draft Severn River Basin

District FRMP for 3 months this autumn, alongside the consultation on the draft updated River Basin Management Plans which will run for 6 months.

4.6 Ongoing and agreed measures within the FRMP have been taken from

existing plans and strategies which have already been consulted on. The consultation will specifically be seeking views on new proposed measures which have not been consulted on previously.

4.7 The English Severn and Wye RFCC is asked to support and champion the

Severn FRMP and, where possible, promote the consultation. The RFCC will be informed at the start of the consultation.

5.0 Temporary Barrier Trial and Future Flood Risk Management in Bewdley,

Worcestershire 5.1 In spring 2003, the Environment Agency was allocated funding from the

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to purchase plant and equipment that would facilitate the trials of temporary flood defences. Several types of temporary flood defence barriers were purchased and joint action plans were established with local authorities and other professional partners such as Severn Trent Water.

54

OFFICIAL

5.2 Three locations along the River Severn were initially identified as suitable for the trials including Beales Corner in Bewdley.

5.3 However, following the floods of 2007, Sir Michael Pitt carried out a review

and recommended that there should be a national policy on the use of temporary flood defences. This policy states that we will consider providing temporary flood defences as a short-term measure against flooding from main rivers where:

• the location for their use and the time available to deploy them in normal

conditions are suitable; • there is support from the local authority, partner organisations and the

community; • they are economically viable; • they are not used as a long term alternative to permanent schemes.

5.4 In September 2014 we completed our review of the use of temporary flood

defence barriers for Beales Corner/ Wribbenhall. It focused on a technical assessment, economic viability, effectiveness and risks associated with the temporary barriers over a 100 year period. Our findings show the preferred long term solution to flood risk management for the community in this location, giving consideration to the best use of public money.

5.5 We would like to acknowledge our thanks to the local people who have been

involved in the trial, and for those who have provided feedback into the technical review through the community survey.

5.6 The review has assessed the performance and costs of the temporary

barriers. Future flood risk management options have been considered on technical, environmental and economic grounds. As we invest taxpayers' money on flood risk management we are required to ensure that the economic benefits of any option outweighs the costs.

5.7 The temporary flood defence barriers provide low level and limited flood

protection to 19 properties. In a larger flood event, water will exceed barriers and flood properties at this location. Additional risks identified with the use of temporary barriers in this location are failure to deploy the barriers in time; operational failure; barrier sliding and seepage.

5.8 The assessment has shown that providing property level protection (PLP) is

the only technical, environmental and publicly-funded viable option. 6.0 Recommendations 6.1 The Committee is asked to:

1. Note progress in proposals to transfer the English side of the Lower Wye to the River Lugg IDB.

2. Indicate their support for the outcome of the consultation with rate

payers in the English section of Powysland IDB. 3. Note the progress with delivery of flood recovery projects.

55

OFFICIAL

4. Support and champion the Severn FRMP and, where possible, promote the consultation.

5. Note the outcome of the temporary barrier trial at Bewdley

Anthony Perry Area FCRM Manager Emma Roberts Area FCRM Manager September 2014

56

OFFICIAL


Item no: 12

Paper by: Flood Resilience Team Leader and Customers and Engagement Team Leader

Subject: Role of RFCC during Flood Incidents

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Members will recall the information item ‘Role of RFCC in Flooding Incidents’

presented at the meeting on 2nd July 2014. At the October 2014 RFCC meeting, a discussion session is planned around how Committee members might like to contribute to responding to flood incidents to complement Environment Agency, Local Authority, Local Resilience Forum (LRF) and local community response.

1.2 The discussion will also cover how Committee members would like to be

communicated with during flood incidents. 1.3 This paper provides a background to some of the roles available to help

during flood incidents. 2.0 Background to Environment Agency activities in a flood incident 2.1 The Environment Agency, as part of its role under the Civil Contingencies Act

2004, is a category one responder. During flooding incidents we maintain and operate our flood defences, issue flood warnings, work as part of a multi-agency group to plan and carry out response to flooding and provide information to the public, professional partners and media.

2.2 We are often out at key sites in communities giving information to local

people. We also have a role to play in recovery, checking our assets are in good condition and working with local communities on flood plans.

Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 1. Discuss how they would like to be involved in flood incidents. 2. Discuss how they would like to be communicated with during flood

incidents.

57

OFFICIAL

3.0 Outline of command and control structure 3.1 During incidents the Environment Agency operates under a command and

control structure and individuals move into incident roles which are often different from their job.

3.2 The Environment Agency response to flood incidents is co-ordinated from the

incident room. Some roles require operating from the office and some are field based, however the incident room is the hub where information flows to and from and is where decisions are made on the type of response required.

3.3 When Local Resilience Forum (LRF) tactical and strategic command groups

are activated, representatives from the Environment Agency attend and feed into these groups and operate as part of the LRF command and control.

4.0 Details of roles 4.1 The following are some of the roles the Environment Agency undertakes

during flooding:

• Area Duty Manager formulates and puts in place strategic direction of the response to the incident.

• Area Base Controller takes strategic direction from the Area Duty Manager and organises the tactical response to the incident.

• Flood Warning Duty Officer monitors river levels and issues flood warnings. Provides information on predicted water levels to LRF partners and public.

• Flood Incident Duty Officer monitors flood risk management assets and schemes to ensure they are operating as designed. Also directs field teams on the ground to clear grills, remove blockages, deploy barriers and pumps.

• Field Team member provides the on the ground response to flooding operating flood defences, checking they are in good working order and responding to blockages.

• Monitoring and Forecasting Duty Officer links in with flood forecasting centre and provides flood forecasts for key areas.

• Communications and Engagement Officers ensure social media, key stakeholders and staff are updated with flooding information. Works with LRF partners to help co-ordinate communications to communities from the LRF.

• Media Spokesperson carries out radio and television interviews to describe current and forecast flooding situations.

• Ambassador visits communities that are or could be affected by flooding to liaise with community about current and predicted flooding situation.

• Data Collector collects photos and water levels as directed by the incident room to help guide Environment Agency and LRF response to flooding and inform future studies.

5.0 Communications 5.1 During flood incidents the Environment Agency will update key stakeholders

and the public via social media and radio and television interviews, with the

58

OFFICIAL

current and predicted flooding situation. Between 29th January and 19th February 2014 fluvial flood and high astronomical tides we:

• carried out 76 TV interviews and 111 radio interviews with regional and

national media outlets. • issued over 500 tweets from @EnvAgencyMids to warn, inform and

signpost people to flood information on our website. Our tweets were shared over 2,000 times.

• directed 9,000 people to our website for flood updates from @EnvAgencyMids.

6.0 Recommendations 6.1 Through this paper, and for those who have visited the Tewkesbury Incident

Room, Committee members will have an appreciation of the Environment Agency’s work during flood incidents. The Committee is asked to hold a discussion on:

1. How they would like to be involved in flood incidents. 2. How they would like to be communicated with during flood incidents.

.

Dan Trewin Flood Resilience Team Leader Sarah Harcombe Customers and Engagement Team Leader September 2014

59

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

60

OFFICIAL

INFORMATION ITEMS

Members are asked to raise any matters arising from the Information Items at the meeting or directly with Environment Agency staff.

61

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

62

OFFICIAL


INFORMATION ITEM: A

Paper by: Flood Resilience Team Leader Subject: Increase in Number and Size of High Tides

1.0 Introduction 1.1 High astronomic tides (also known as "spring tides") will be at their greatest

over the next 18 months. This is because September 2015 is the point in a natural 19 year cycle when the sun, moon and earth align to exert the greatest force on the tides in the UK.

1.2 The increase in the size and number of high natural tides this coming winter

means that there is a small, but elevated, increase in risk of coastal flooding this winter.

1.3 However, the weather conditions that generate a tidal surge, or extreme

waves on the west and south coasts, will continue to be the dominant factors influencing coastal flood risk.

1.4 The Environment Agency uses the surge forecasts from the Flood

Forecasting Centre (Met Office). This surge data is run in the Environment Agency’s tidal models, to produce predictions of total water levels at coastal ports around the country.

2.0 Why are the tides so high this winter? 2.1 An astronomic tide is the regular and predictable movement of water caused

by the way that the earth, sun and moon move in relation to each other. The astronomic tides are notably high during 2014 and 2015 because we are reaching the peak of the 18.6 year tidal cycle in September 2015. This peak sees the position of the earth, sun and moon align such that they combine to create a greater than average force over the tides. This means they are higher than the average for the 18.6 year period.

Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 1. Note the increase in size and number of high tides in 2014 and 2015. 2. Understand that future updates on forthcoming high tides will be provided

for 2015 as information becomes available.

63

OFFICIAL

3.0 When are the tides notably high this winter? 3.1 Over the course of autumn and winter 2014/15, notable high natural tides will

occur along all parts of the UK coastline, but particularly on:

• October 9th and 10th 2014 • January 22nd and 23rd 2015 • February 20th and 21st 2015 • March 21st and 22nd 2015

3.2 High astronomic tides alone do not cause a significant coastal flood risk.

Significant coastal flooding is dependent on the combined effect of high natural tides and weather generated tidal surge and wave conditions.

3.3 High astronomic tides can pass without incident, but even a moderately high

astronomic tide when combined with a large coastal storm can result in severe widespread flooding. This was the case on 5th December 2013 on the East Coast and on the West Coast on 3rd January 2014. The highest natural tide of 2013 occurred between 21st and 23rd August and passed without incident.

4.0 How do the tides compare to last winter and other years? 4.1 The table below shows tide levels for 2013 to 2015.

Maximum natural high tide levels (tide level in mAOD without weather generated surge)

Site Highest tide 2013

3 January 2014

Highest tide 2014

Highest tide 2015

Avonmouth 14.4 14.2

(15.06 observed)

14.7 14.65

Sharpness 10.1 9.9

(10.63 observed)

10.4

Newport 7.19 7.16 (8.01

observed) 7.54 7.55

4.2 It shows that the highest natural tide in 2015 is about 25cm higher than that

experienced in 2013 at Avonmouth. This increase in the difference in the underlying astronomic tide is important but less significant than weather effects on tide levels. All tide levels are either increased or decreased by the effects of the weather creating a tidal surge. Typically the difference in water level caused by the weather can be between 20-30cm. On 3rd January 2014 the tidal surge increased the water level by 0.86m at Avonmouth. On the 5th December the tidal surge increased the water level by up to 2m on the East Coast.

4.3 Of greater significance in preparing for possible coastal flooding in the coming

winter is the frequency of higher than normal tides rather than the height of the highest tide of each year, which is illustrated in the table below.

64

OFFICIAL

No. times Sharpness was forecast to exceed 10.2m in 2013 0

No. times Sharpness exceeded 10.2m in 2013 1

No. times Sharpness is forecast to exceed 10.2m in 2014 9 No. times Sharpness was forecast to exceed 9.8m in 2013 10

No. times Sharpness exceeded 9.8m in 2013 10

No. times Sharpness is forecast to exceed 9.8m in 2014 33 No. times Newport was forecast to exceed 7.2m in 2013 10

No. times Newport exceeded 7.2m in 2013 7

No. times Newport is forecast to exceed 7.2m in 2014 17 4.4 The increased frequency of high tides does not mean that widespread or

frequent coastal flooding will occur over 2014/15. The weather conditions that create a coastal surge or extreme wave conditions will remain the dominant factor.

5.0 What was the scale of tidal flooding in 2014? 5.1 On 3rd January 2014, 27 properties were flooded from the high tide and tidal

surge on the Severn and Wye Estuaries. Some locations in the upper Severn Estuary were affected due to high tides meeting high fluvial water. The map below shows the area that could be flooded from a 0.1% or 1 in 1000 chance of occurring in any one year flood and the communities that were affected on 3rd January.

65

OFFICIAL

5.2 Tidal flooding on the Severn and Wye Estuaries also occurred on 1st February

and 2nd March 2014. The UK was subject to a conveyor-belt of Atlantic low pressure systems during Winter 2013/14 which increased the chance of a surge coinciding with a high tide.

6.0 How do multi-agency partners work together on tidal flooding? 6.1 We briefed our Local Resilience Forum (LRF) partners in 2013 on the

predicted high tides during which we agreed a multi-agency approach for high tides in 2014 and 2015. We also wrote to every property at risk of flooding on the Severn and Wye estuaries to explain the series of high tides and give further information on their times.

6.2 We convene a flood advisory teleconference up to 5 days in advance of a

high tide to discuss if there is signal for a surge coinciding with the high tide. We will then have another teleconference should a surge be forecast 1 or 2 days in advance of a high tide to discuss the multi-agency response needed.

6.3 In advance of a high tide our field teams routinely carry out tidal patrols

ensuring that flaps and grills are operational and clear and defences are in good working order.

6.4 During the tidal event multi-agency partners will work together to co-ordinate

the response and minimise flood risk to people and property. Examples of this work include, closing roads during high tides, ensuring the public remain away from the river bank during high tide, providing sandbags to at risk properties and providing updates through social media on tidal levels and impacts.

7.0 Recommendations 7.1 The Committee is asked to: 1. Note the increase in size and number of high tides in 2014 and 2015.

2. Understand that future updates on forthcoming high tides will be provided for 2015 as information becomes available.

Dan Trewin Flood Resilience Team Leader September 2014

66

OFFICIAL


INFORMATION ITEM: B

Paper by: Regional Forecasting Team Leader (Solihull) Subject: Flood Forecasting and Flood Resilience Report –

July to September 2014

1.0 Flood Summary Report 1.1 July 2014

On the evening of Friday 18th July into Saturday 19th July, a Spanish plume affected the area. This brought moist, warm air from the continent and produced widespread thunderstorms travelling from south to north across the area.

Shropshire and the far south of Gloucestershire were worst affected, where spot totals of up to 60mm were recorded at a few rain gauges. However, most locations received in the region of 20mm.

There were 5 Flood Alerts issued, including some precautionary ones on fast reacting locations. There were two Flood Warnings issued, also precautionary based on forecast rain in the area. These were issued on the River Chelt in Gloucestershire. There was no property flooding reported, however there were reports of surface water flooding of main roads in Worcestershire and Shropshire.

Recommendations The Committee is asked to note the contents of this report.

67

OFFICIAL

24hr rainfall accumulations over Midlands from 2am 19th July 2014. A vertical band on the borders of Shropshire and West Midlands received the most rainfall during the

event. 1.2 August 2014

On 10th August the remnants of Ex- Tropical Storm Bertha crossed the region from the South-West, travelling in a North-Eastwards direction. This led to widespread rainfall with up to 40mm recorded in the south of the Severn catchment. Due to the dry catchments and largely rural nature of the catchments there were no Flood Alerts required due to the rainfall.

Remnants of Ex-Tropical Storm Bertha, rainfall accumulations over the

Midlands 10th August 2014

However, there was a small positive tidal surge on the West coast associated with this storm, which coincided with the high tides. This meant the Wye Estuary Flood Alert was issued on the 10th August and left in force until 14th

68

OFFICIAL

August. The Wye Estuary Flood Warning was required on the evening tide of 11th August, and in force until 14th August. This resulted in garages and gardens flooding in Brockweir, Gloucestershire.

The Severn Estuary Flood Alert was required on 11th August and left in force until 14th August. The Flood Warning at Sharpness was issued for the evening tide on 12th August. This tide was the second highest tide this year in the Severn Estuary and the highest tide for 19 years. There were two properties reported flooded at Longley, Gloucester due to the high tides and a blockage at an outfall.

1.3 September 2014

On the 9th and 10th September there were high astronomical tides. The Flood Warning for Newport (Wye Estuary) was issued on 10th September evening tide, and left in force until Friday 12th September. Reports suggest the high tides caused garages and outbuildings to flood, although no actual property flooding was reported. There was also localised minor road flooding in the Wye Estuary area. The Flood Alert for the Wye Estuary was in force from 9th – 12th September.

The high tides also caused the issue of the Flood Alert at Sharpness on the Severn Estuary. This was in force from 10th – 11th September. There was no reports of property flooding, but there was localised flooding of minor roads and transport disruption.

High pressure, persistent throughout the high tides period, meant there was zero tidal surge and a very static situation in terms of weather impact on the tides. Therefore this avoided any extreme levels, and there was no rainfall to cause any elevated fluvial levels.

2.0 Drought Report 2.1 River Severn Regulation

Regulation releases from Llyn Clywedog to support flows on the River Severn commenced on 25th July, due to low flows in the River Severn and a dry weather forecast. Due to the weather becoming increasingly unsettled into August, with frequent showery activity, there weren’t many regulation days required in this quarter. At the time of writing (16th Sept) there had only been 16 days where regulation releases had been made so far this year. However the Regulation Alert is still in force and low flows are still being monitored at Bewdley, so regulation releases will continue to be required, until the weather becomes more unsettled.

3.0 Community Engagement and Flood Resilience 3.1 As part of our work to install CCTV cameras on some of our assets, including

trash screens and flood defences, we launched a camera with the Illey Brook Flood Action Group, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council and James Morris MP. The flood group have been working closely with us to improve their local flood resilience and being able to access the camera will give them another method of being aware of potential flooding. By following the camera on Twitter residents can receive a high water level alert and a picture of the

69

OFFICIAL

current level in the brook. This tweet along with our flood warning service will be the starting point for residents to begin their flood action plans.

3.2 In Welford on Avon we held a community drop in session with Warwickshire

County Council for local residents concerned about flooding. We explained what we are doing to manage flood risk in the village and also what steps residents can take to protect themselves. Approximately 30 local residents attended and we received positive feedback that they now have a better understanding of our role. Welford Parish Council is now establishing a flood action group and we look forward to working closely with the group to improve community resilience.

3.3 We are continuing to work in partnership with Warwickshire County Council

and the National Flood Forum in supporting the Warwickshire Pathfinder Project. As the project develops its links with the chosen communities we will provide advice and guidance on establishing local flood action groups and ensuring those communities are prepared for flooding.

3.4 In Shipston on Stour (Warwickshire) the community are keen to investigate

options for future schemes. We are providing them with our previous scheme reports so they can see what we have already investigated and then we can work with them to raise awareness of the opportunities from partnership funding contributions. We are holding a site meeting in late September when we will visit possible locations for debris dams and explain what potential options are available for innovative solutions to reduce flood risk. We will also contact the flood action group and seek their assistance when we are starting work in the village to make improvements to the river channel. This is part of some increased maintenance work that we have received additional funding for this year.

3.5 The sunny weather brought people out to talk to us about flooding on 28th and

29th July. Our FCRM staff visited three different locations in Gloucestershire and spoke to over 80 residents. Our partners, Tewkesbury Borough Council and the National Flood Forum, were also on hand to help residents. The team were helping residents apply for a £5,000 repair and renew grant available to those who flooded earlier this year, as well as to talk about flood planning and preparation.

3.6 Gloucester City Council are managing a project to provide Individual Property

Protection (IPP) to properties in the Lampreys and Cheyney Close – areas that were severely affected by flooding in 2007. On 2nd August we attended a community engagement event with them and spoke to around 50 residents about flood resilience and installing IPP to their property.

4.0 Recommendation 4.1 The Committee is asked to note the contents of this report. Emma Ferguson Flood Forecasting Team Leader September 2014

70

OFFICIAL


INFORMATION ITEM: C

Paper by: Area Operations Managers Subject: Delivering Revenue Projects and the Maintenance

Programme

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This paper updates the Committee on progress with the delivery of projects

and works within its revenue programme. 2.0 Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire & Gloucestershire Area 2.1 Routine Maintenance Progress up to 31st August 2014 All routine maintenance works (mowing, spraying, structure repairs) are

progressing well. Across the area we have completed 1 or 2 grass cuts with the final cut either due to start this month or already commenced. Blockage clearance is up to date in high and medium risk systems. We are on programme with channel weed cuts. Progress with tree and bush work will pick up following completion of the recovery works. All teams have also been involved in achieving the asset recovery works following the winter storms. To date we have spent £842k in the Area on routine maintenance work.

In addition to the maintenance work carried out in 2013/14 we have been able to extend or are planning to carry out additional maintenance to the following locations prioritised to reduce flooding to the greatest numbers of properties:

Location Task

River Severn, right bank – Beauchamp Court to Pixham.

Floodbank maintenance. Filling in low spots in the River Severn floodbank south of Worcester to provide a consistent level of protection to the properties behind the bank

Middle Marsh Outfall access and health and safety requirements improvements (in planning)

Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 1. Note the progress in delivering projects and works within its revenue

programme.

71

OFFICIAL

Location Task

Leominster Outfall access and health and safety requirements improvements (in planning)

Gateway Outfall Outfall access works (handrailing, winch installation) and health and safety improvements (in planning)

Hereford and Shropshire

Approximately 70 outfalls in Herefordshire / Shropshire require de-silting following the floods. Additional tree work and bush maintenance will be carried out to give access to the structures (underway)

Melverley 300m crest re-profiling (completed)

Stroud Tree work along the River Frome to ensure that woody debris falling into the river is reduced.

Rooks Mill, Nailsworth Tree work by the Mill to reduce the risk of blockages (targeted tree work at hotspots)

River Swilgate Grass cutting of defences along the River Swilgate (Completed)

River Severn Outfalls Approximately 30 outfalls from Gloucester down to Sharpness require de-silting following the recent high tides (underway)

Elmore Back tree work Tree work on top of the Severn defences to reduce the risk of banks being damaged by falling trees (Planned)

River Leadon Channel Maintenance

Targeted channel maintenance along this reach to reduce risk of blockages and support flow of water. (This is a one off due to increase in maintenance funding this year) (Planned)

2.2 Recondition Projects As well as the above routine maintenance funding, we have the following

recondition projects. These are managed under more rigorous project management guidance as required by FSoD rules:

Title Allocation

(£k) Spend to Date (£k) Description

Bromsgrove Channel Improvements

15 0

Tree and bush work to 2.5km of Spadesbourne Brook at Buntsford Industrial Estate, Bromsgrove to improve conveyance and prevent blockage (programmed start November 2014)

Highcross Ditch Outfall Access 45 0

Provide winch and improved access to front apron for safe working access (programmed start December 2014)

72

OFFICIAL

Title Allocation (£k)

Spend to Date (£k) Description

Kinver Conveyance Works

15 0

Tree and bush work to 12km of River Stour from Kinver to Kidderminster FAS to improve conveyance and prevent blockage (programmed start November 2014)

Severn Stoke Culvert Repair 35 85

Repair and replacement of collapsed culverts at Severn Stoke to prevent damage to flood defence and improve conveyance.

Winch and Access for Ashelworth Quay Outfall

20 0

Provide winch and improved access to front apron for safe working access (programmed start December 2014)

Severn Stoke culvert replacement: Work involves the removal and replacement of 2 culverts. Severn Stoke No.3

and Severn Stoke No.4. These culverts run under the floodbank and their replacement restores its integrity. Work is in progress with completion expected by the end of September 2014.

Existing culvert showing distortion and severe cracking along its full length. (No.4 Culvert).

Excavation with existing culvert Replacement pipes being connected broken out. River side headwall to headwall. (No.3 Culvert) shown at the far end. (No.4 Culvert)

73

OFFICIAL

Melverley Bank Works Works completed to repair 300m of low spots in the flood embankments near

Melverley. 2.3 Summary We are on track to maximise our maintenance spend in the English Severn &

Wye committee area. The year to date has been a challenging one due to the uncertainty in maintenance budget at the beginning of the financial year and the requirement to ensure recovery works are complete before the end of October 2014. Plans to maximise the amount of maintenance we can undertake this year are in place with our internal workforce and contractors.

3.0 Staffordshire, Warwickshire & West Midlands Area (SWMM) 3.1 Routine Maintenance Progress up to 31st August 2014

All routine maintenance work (mowing, spraying, structure repairs) is up to date. Two of the three cuts have been carried out with the third pencilled in for late September. To date we have spent £86k on routine maintenance work.

We received an increase in government funding to carry out additional maintenance activities on main rivers during 2014/15. We have identified a number of sites and have prioritised them so that we reduce the risk of flooding to the greatest number of properties. We are planning to undertake the following additional maintenance works within the English Severn Wye RFCC area.

Location Task

Tanyard Stream (Kenilworth) - Cherry Way to Finham Brook

Vegetation clearance on the Tanyard Stream in Kenilworth from Cherry Way to Finham Brook which includes the removal of weeds and other encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

Pingle Brook (Cubbington) - Offchurch Road to Storage Area

Vegetation clearance on the Pingle Brook in Cubbington from Offchurch Road to the storage area which includes the removal of weeds and other encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

74

OFFICIAL

Location Task

Hospital Brook (Warwick) - Green Lane to Vine Lane

Vegetation clearance on the Hospital Brook in Warwick from Green Lane to Vine Lane which includes the removal of weeds and other encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

St. Johns Brook (Warwick) - Millers Road to Primrose Hill

Vegetation clearance on the St. John's Brook in Warwick from Millers Road to Primrose Hill which includes the removal of weeds and other encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Avon (Rugby) - Broughton Road to Parkfield Road

Tree and bush management on the River Avon in Rugby from Broughton Road to Parkfield Road which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Avon (Welford) - upstream and downstream of Welford Road

Tree and bush management on the River Avon in Welford upstream and downstream of Welford Road which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Leam (Eathorpe) - upstream and downstream of the Wappenbury Road

Tree and bush management on the River Leam in Eathorpe upstream and downstream of Wappenbury Road which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Sherbourne (Coventry) - London Road to A45

Tree and bush management on the River Sherbourne in Coventry near London Road which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Dene (Wellesbourne) - Bypass (A429) to Charlecote Park

Tree and bush management on the River Dene in Wellesbourne near the A429 at Charlecoat Park which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Leam (Leamington Spa) - Adelaide Road to Avon Confluence

Tree and bush management on the River Leam in Leamington Spa from Adelaide Road to the Avon confluence which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

River Stour (Shipston) - Downstream of Mill Street Bridge

Tree and bush management on the River Stour in Shipston downstream of Mill Street Bridge which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

Shottery Brook (Stratford) - Evesham Road to Avon Confluence

Tree and bush management on the Shottery Brook in Stratford from Evesham Road to the Avon confluence which includes removing fallen trees and encroaching vegetation to enable conveyance through the middle of the channel.

75

OFFICIAL

3.2 Revenue Projects

As well as the above routine maintenance funding, we also have several revenue projects and intermittent projects. This approach is seen as best practice so that FSoD and project management principles can be applied.

Title Allocation (£k)

Spend to Date (£k) Description

SWMM MEICA Minimum Need Severn

50 2 Maintenance of Clay Coton and Barton Pumping Station.

SWWM Asset Management Severn

8 9 CCTV Surveys of confined spaces

SWWM AP Severn Intermittent*

106 16 Maintenance works a various locations, see details below.

*The SWWM AP Severn Intermittent package works include:

• Access improvements at Henley in Arden which will enable us to maintain the channel and remove overgrown vegetation.

• Various works at Wellesbourne, which will include repairs to a flood bank, tree and bush management and a localised dredge of silt built up at the bridge.

• Improvement works and localised dredge around Shipston on Stour Bridge.

• Dredging works on River Avon relief channel in Rugby. • Improvement to a trash screen in Kenilworth.

3.3 Summary

We are on track to maximise our maintenance spend in the English Severn & Wye RFCC area. There has been a slow start to the year in terms of spend, which is down to the uncertainty in maintenance budget in Quarter 1. We now have plans in place with our internal workforce and contractors to maximise the amount of maintenance we can undertake this year. Conveyance improvements on the Finham Brook at Kenilworth Ford:

76

OFFICIAL

Access improvements on the Mousesweet Brook at Mushroom Green Dam:


1. Note the progress in delivering projects and works within its revenue programme.

Brian Jones Area Operations Manager John Buckingham Area Operations Manager September 2014

77

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

78

OFFICIAL


INFORMATION ITEM: D

Paper by: Pete Fox, Head of Strategy and Investment Subject: Update on SuDS

1.0 Background 1.1 Defra and DCLG have been working together to examine implementation

options for sustainable drainage systems. One of the proposals they are considering is to make better use of the planning system to meet Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations on sustainable drainage.

1.2 A Written Ministerial Statement and associated consultation document have

been issued. The proposals set out a possible alternative approach to the one envisaged in the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 for implementing sustainable drainage systems and mechanisms for ensuring their long term maintenance. The consultation invites comments on:

• Proposals for a strengthening of the planning regime for sustainable

drainage systems by amending planning guidance, planning conditions; • How local planning authorities could receive technical advice; • Options of sustainable drainage system maintenance and funding

options; • The thresholds for development size that could be exempt from the

application of SuDS. 1.3 No formal announcement on the implementation of Sustainable Drainage

Approval Bodies (SABs) has been made and we understand that Government is awaiting the results of the current consultation before making a final decision.

Recommendations The Committee is asked to: 1. Note Defra and DCLG consultation on Sustainable Drainage. 2. Note proposed Environment Agency role on surface water drainage.

79

OFFICIAL

2.0 Impact on the Environment Agency 2.1 The Environment Agency is listed along with a number of other organisations

as a non statutory advisor, where appropriate. 2.2 The consultation, which is due to finish on 24th October, may influence the

manner and speed at which the Environment Agency will become involved less in the technical assessment of Sustainable Drainage Schemes. We are currently considering how to respond.

3.0 Recommendations 3.1 The Committee is asked to: 1. Note Defra and DCLG consultation on Sustainable Drainage.

2. Note proposed Environment Agency role on surface water drainage.

Johnathan Austin FCRM Advisor September 2014

80

OFFICIAL


INFORMATION ITEM: E Subject: Events Calendar 2015 Members are asked to note the dates of future meetings:

• 13th January 2015 RFCC meeting, Telford • 21st January 2015 Contingency date in case meeting on 13th January has to be

cancelled due to bad weather – venue to be confirmed

• 28th April 2015 RFCC meeting – venue to be confirmed

• 21st July 2015 RFCC meeting – venue to be confirmed

• 27th October 2015 RFCC meeting – venue to be confirmed

81

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

82

OFFICIAL


INFORMATION ITEM: F Subject: Local Levy – National Picture 1.0 RFCC Local Levy Changes

RFCC 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Anglian Central 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% Anglian Eastern 3% 0% 0% 2.7% 2.7% Anglian Northern 0% 0% 0% 5% 3.5% English Severn & Wye 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Northumbria 3% 4% 4% 0% 3.2% North West 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% Southern 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% South West 2.5% 10% 10% 20% +£75k Thames 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% Trent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Wessex 2.5% 0% 0% 0% 5% Yorkshire 30% 0% 16% 14% 0%

2.0 Local Levy Income 2014/15

RFCC Local Levy Income 2014/15

Anglian Central £1,021k Anglian Eastern £2,486k Anglian Northern £1,547k English Severn & Wye £1,064k Northumbria £1,982k North West £3,638k Southern £1,177k South West £606k Thames £10,000k Trent £1,936k Wessex £3,167k Yorkshire £1,500k Total Local Levy Income £30,124k

83

OFFICIAL

BLANK PAGE

84

OUTCOME MEASURE DEFINITIONS

2011/12 TO 2014/15

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 The proportion of residential units within planning decisions where the application has been refused or has been amended in line with Agency advice

85

BLANK PAGE

86

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABI Association of British Insurers ADA Association of Drainage Authorities AEP Annual Exceedance Probability AFRCM Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager AIMS Asset Information Management System AMP Asset Management Plan AOD Above Ordnance Datum AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AP Asset Performance BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BCR Benefit Cost Ratio CAMC Creating Asset Management Capacity C@R Communities at Risk CDM Construction & Design Management Regulations CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CIWEM Chartered Institution of Water & Environmental Management CLA Country Land and Business Association CSR Comprehensive Spending Review DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government Defra Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs DN&L Area Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire & Leicestershire Area DoI Declaration of Interest EA Environment Agency EFRA Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Eel Management Plan FAS Flood Alleviation Scheme FCERM Flood & Coastal Risk Management FCRM GiA Flood & Coastal Risk Management Grant in Aid FRA Flood Risk Assessment FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan FSoD Financial Scheme of Delegation FWD Flood Warnings Direct FWMA Flood & Water Management Act GiA Grant in Aid IDB Internal Drainage Board KPI Key Performance Indicator LA Local Authority LDF Local Development Framework LEP Local Enterprise Partnership LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority

87

LPA Local Planning Authority LPRG Large Project Review Group LRF Local Resilience Forum LTIS Long Term Investment Strategy mAOD Metres Above Ordnance Datum MEICA Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation MTP Medium Term Plan NAO National Audit Office NaFRA National Flood Risk Assessment NCPMS National Capital Programme Management Service NFU National Farmers Union NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NRW National Resources Wales OM Outcome Measure PAB Project Approval Board PAG Programme of Acceleration & Growth PF Partnership Funding PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment PLP Property Level Protection PSO Partnerships and Strategic Overview RBMP River Basin Management Plan RFCC Regional Flood & Coastal Committee RMA Risk Management Authority SAB SuDS Approval Body SAC Special Area of Conservation SAMP System Asset Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SHW&G Area Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire & Gloucestershire Area SLA Service Level Agreement SMP Shoreline Management Plan SoP Standard of Protection SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest STW Severn Trent Water SuDS Sustainable Drainage System SWMP Surface Water Management Plan SW&WM Area Staffordshire, Warwickshire & West Midlands Area WEM Water and Environmental Management WFD Water Framework Directive WLMP Water Level Management Plan

88

Download - English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal ...severnestuarycoastalgroup.org.uk/files/2016/03/... · 21.10.2014 · Flood and Coastal Committee Tuesday, 21 October 2014 . We

Top Related