Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee

  

   Friday 17 January 2020 at 09.30am     Suffolk County Council, Landmark House, Ipswich, Suffolk      

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

                  

Published by:  

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

 Tel: 03708 506506 Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency

 

© Environment Agency 2011  

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

Statutory Functions and the Role of the RFCC

Section 23 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires the Environment Agency (the 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 the Agency can implement its regional programme for the Committee’s region[s23(2)].

obtain the consent of the RFCC before the Agency can issue a levy under Section 17 of the Act [s23(3)].

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;

to promote efficient, targeted and risk-based investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management that optimises value for money and benefits to local communities;

to 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.

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.

Regulations: Holding Office

19. – (3) The conditions for removal from office are –

(d) the member has been absent from meetings of the Committee for a period of 6 consecutive months without the approval of the Committee.

Members are reminded of the RFCC purposes, and the expectations of RFCCs based on the statutory functions in the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act, and the 2011 Regulations.

BLANK PAGE

Mareth Bassett 0203 02 58443 mareth.bassett@environment-agency.gov.uk

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

Friday 17 January 2020

Venue: Suffolk County Council, Landmark House, Ipswich

Time: 09:30 to 13:00 (lunch provided) Agenda Lead Page Timing

1. Apologies for absence and greetings to visitors PH - 09:30

2. Declarations of members’ interests All -

3. Chairman’s announcements PH - 09:35

4. Environment Agency announcements SH - 09:45

5. Approval of minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2019 All 1 09:55

6. Matters arising from previous meeting All 13 10:00

7. Members’ slot All - 10:10 Main Items

8.

Review and seek RFCC consent to FCERM GiA final indicative allocation for revenue maintenance and capital programmes 2020/21 (EFCC 20/01) Review and seek consent for FCERM Local Levy Programme 2020/21 (EFCC 20/02)

PD / AD 15

25

10:25

9. Future Maintenance in Broadland LT / MJ - 10:50

Tea and Coffee 11:15 10. Horsey Island Beach Recharge Proposal (EFCC 20/03) KA / MJ 29 11:30 11. East Marine Plan GS - 11:50 12. Update from Suffolk County Council MH - 12:10

General Business

13. Forward look (EFCC 20/04) All 31 12:30 14. Key Items from Information Papers All 33 12:40 15. Any other business All - 12:50

Lunch 13:00 Date of Next Meeting

Friday 17 April 2020, Norfolk County Council – County Hall, Norwich, Norfolk

Information Papers (for noting only)

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF20/01)

Delivering Professional Asset Management for the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC - Programme 2019/20 (INF 20/02)

Developing and Delivering the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan & Team 2100 Programme 2019/20 (INF 20/03)

Engagement Update (INF 20/04)

FCERM Program Update 2019/20 Quarter 3 – Current in-year position (INF 20/05)

National paper – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Update, December 2019 (INF 20/06)

Coastal Partnership East Update (INF 20/07) Attendees

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

Environment Agency: Simon Hawkins (SH) Area Manager Peta Denham (PD) Area Flood Risk Manager Mark Johnson (MJ) Area Coastal Manager Graham Verrier (GV) Operations Manager (Norfolk & Suffolk) Dave Knagg Operations Manager (Essex) Aaron Dixey (AD) Programme Team Leader Mareth Bassett Eastern RFCC Secretariat Louise Taylor (LT) Asset Performance Team Leaver (Broadland) LLFAs and Coastal Authorities: Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council John Meehan Essex County Council Matt Hullis (MH) Suffolk County Council Mark Ogden Norfolk County Council Neil Hoskins Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Justin Styles Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Navtej Tung Thurrock Council Rob Goodliffe EACG, North Norfolk District Council and CPE Paul Mackie Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Council Georgie Sutton (GS) MMO Kieran Alexander (KA) RSPB If you are experiencing difficulties in getting to the meeting on the day or have to give last minute apologies, please call 07775 008305 and leave a message which will be passed on to the Chairman.

Mareth Bassett 0203 02 58443 mareth.bassett@environment-agency.gov.uk

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

Minutes of the Anglian Eastern RFCC Meeting held on Friday 18 October 2019 at Norfolk County Council Offices, Norwich, Norfolk Present: Paul Hayden Chairman Cllr Simon Walsh Essex County Council Cllr Mark Platt Essex County Council Cllr Mark Durham Essex County Council Cllr John Moran Essex County Council Navtej Tung Thurrock Council Matt Phipps Southend Council Matt Hullis Suffolk County Council Cllr Judy Oliver Norfolk County Council Cllr Andy Grant Norfolk County Council Jane Burch Environment Agency Appointee Richard Powell Environment Agency Appointee (conservation) Graham Underwood Environment Agency Appointee Andy Smith Environment Agency Appointee (coastal) Rob Wise Environment Agency Appointee June Clare Environment Agency Appointee Kelly Whittington Environment Agency Appointee In attendance

Environment Agency: Mark Johnson Area Coastal Manager Peta Denham FCERM Manager Aaron Dixey Programme Team Leader Mareth Bassett Eastern RFCC Secretariat Marie Coleman Levy Funded Officer LLFAs and Coastal Authorities: Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Mark Ogden Norfolk County Council Marie Pierre-Tighe Broads Authority Observers: Georgie Sutton MMO Graham Verrier Environment Agency Tina Starling Environment Agency Kate Mayo Environment Agency Jon Jarratt Environment Agency Abygail Hadley Norfolk County Council

Nathalie Harris Norfolk County Council

1

1. Apologies for absence and greetings to visitors 1.1 The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming the guests and deputies to the

meeting.

1.2 He then welcomed Mrs Kelly Whittington to her first meeting as an Environment Agency appointed member and invited her to introduce herself. Ms Whittington explained that she worked at Aviva as a Director of Property and Speciality Claims.

1.3 The Committee received apologies from Cllr Mike Steptoe, Cllr Gerard Rice, Cllr Peter Wexham, Cllr Richard Rout, Cllr John Aldridge, Cllr Keith Patience, Mr Simon Hawkins and Mr Dave Knagg.

1.4 The following people were noted and welcomed as deputies for the elected members

from the LLFAs for the purpose of the Levy vote, Cllr Keith Moran, Cllr Mark Durham, Mr Matt Phips, Mr Matt Hullis, Mr Navtej Tung and Mrs Jane Burch.

2. Declarations of Members’ Interests 2.1 Members were reminded to return their 2020/21 Declarations of Interest forms to Mrs

Bassett, if they had not already done so.

2.2 No further declarations were made. 3. Chairman’s announcements 3.1 The Chairman opened his section by mentioning the afternoon workshop.

3.2 The Chairman informed the Committee that due to legislative changes to the local

authorities the Anglian (Central) RFCC had altered its composition and changed its name to the Anglian (Great Ouse) RFCC. The Chairman mentioned the proposed changes to partnership funding which would be discussed later in the meeting.

4. Environment Agency announcements 4.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that Mr Hawkins was not able to attend the

meeting and Mr Johnson would give the Environment Agency updates in his behalf.

4.2 Mr Johnson updated the Committee on four points. First late September had seen the first high tides of the year which had resulted in coastal flood warnings and alerts being issued. They were the highest recorded tide levels in the Thames for 20 years with water overtopping the secondary defences at Coalhouse Fort. Mr Smith asked about the height of the tide and why this was higher in the Thames when compared to other areas. Mr Johnson answered that he could provide Mr Smith with further information after the meeting.

Action

4.3 Mr Johnson agreed to contact Mr Smith outside of the meeting to discuss this matter.

4.4 Mr Johnson went on to explain that more high tides were forecast in the next couple of weeks. On the 5 and 6 October there had been fluvial and surface water flooding with 68mm of rain falling in Norfolk and Suffolk.

4.5 Mr Johnson highlighted the sea level rise projections from the UK Climate Change

Projections 2018 (UKCP18). There is an A4 summary available here

2

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp/index which shows different potential rates of sea level rise.

4.6 Mr Johnson went on to speak about the Bacton sea scaping project which is now

complete and the outcome measures can be claimed.

4.7 Mr Johnson concluded by informing the Committee that the EA’s FCERM Strategy was due to be put before Parliament in 2020.

5. Approval of minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2019 5.1 The Chairman asked invited members to make any corrections to the minutes. No

amendments were received and the minutes were approved. 5.2

Resolution 5.3 The minutes of 19 July 2019 were approved as a correct record. 6. Matters arising from previous meeting

6.1 All actions from the previous meeting were completed with the exception of the

following.

6.2 The action regarding RMAs having shovel ready projects was discussed, it was agreed this is now business as usual and the action was closed.

Action 10.4

6.3 Mrs Bassett notified the Committee that she was working with the EA’s Flood Digital team on this action and would share any information received about the Flood Digital tool with Committee members.

7. Member’s Slot 7.1 The Chairman invited all Committee members at the table to introduce themselves and

give an update on any important meetings they had attended.

7.2 Cllr Grant spoke about the recent flooding and his frustration that the same places had been flooded again. The Chairman asked about the Norfolk Strategic Group and how the Council was getting on with restarting the group. Mr Ogden answered that the Council had moved back to a cabinet system and was working to get the Strategic Group re-started by the January RFCC meeting. The Chairman welcomed this news as the RFCC engage with similar groups across the area and find it extremely beneficial.

7.3 Cllr Walsh informed the Committee that Essex County Council was continuing with its

capital programme with support from the Committee. He reported that the Council’s SUDS plan was due to be published soon and he would inform the Committee when this plan was available.

7.4 Mr Powell had been to several meetings to discuss the Norfolk and Suffolk

Environment Strategy and refresh the Suffolk Nature Strategy. They looked at the Governments 25yr Environment Plan and Agriculture Bill, in order to see how they would impact the two counties via the LEP. The Chairman added that this was joining several strategies from different areas together and asked how soon this work would be complete. Mr Powell answered that the draft was at least six months away and he would update the Committee when he had more information. Action

3

7.5 Mrs Bassett to add this to the forward look for Mr Powell to report to the Committee in July 2020.

7.6 Mr Phipps mentioned that the Southend Borough Council’s shoreline strategy had been

signed off and would give new schemes for the programme. The strategy contained more up to date data which included information on overtopping.

7.7 Mr Tung reported that unfortunately he had been unable to recruit anyone to the post

mentioned at the July meeting. He was hoping to recruit in the near future.

7.8 Prof Underwood informed the members that in January 2019 the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) had approved up to £4m for work on the risks associated with coastal landfills. Two consortia of Universities in the S.E. of England had each submitted a bid for funding, supported by the EA, which would have worked on East Anglia locations, but they had both been unsuccessful. He did not know if any bids had been successful. He was disappointed that the research was not going to go ahead as he was aware that this was an issue for the EA nationally and said he would update the Committee when he heard anything about this matter. Action

7.9 Prof Underwood to provide an update to the Committee.

7.10 Mr Wise spoke about the Government’s 25yr Environment Plan and that the NFU had announced its plan to have net zero carbon from agriculture by 2030. The plans to achieve this target would be drawn up over the coming year.

7.11 Mrs Burch informed the Committee that she had attended the Water Resources East

meeting. This was a meeting primarily led by the water companies to make links with NFM and water management as a whole. She would be attending future meetings and would keep the RFCC members updated with news. The Chairman added that there had been a presentation on this subject at the recent ADA meeting and that there was a need to have a holistic view on the planning and management of water in the future. He agreed with Mrs Burch that the RFCC and EA should be represented and Mrs Burch agreed to make that recommendation to the group.

7.12 Mr Hullis stated that the Council was under pressure with industrial and residential

development coming forward. The Council was cultivating a more collaborative approach with developers to address existing and future flooding problems. He commented on significant national infrastructure plans being developed with offshore energy companies.

7.13 Mrs Clare noted that she had stayed at a location adjacent to the River Bure and was

pleased to see that a local business had bought a commercial water pump to ensure that a road that regularly floods was kept accessible. The actions of that business had enabled three further businesses, a pub, numerous holiday lets and a marina to remain operational. She said it was positive to see a community taking action.

7.14 Mrs Whittington explained her role at Aviva, managing property claims. Ms Whittington

was staying for the afternoon workshop to see how the insurance industry can prepare for climate change and make sure that customers get the cover they need for the future.

7.15 Mrs Whittington went on to answer a question raised by Mrs Clare at the July meeting on (page 11 of the paper pack, at 17.2 in the minutes) about how property flood resilience would affect people’s ability to get home insurance. Ms Whittington explained how the insurance company calculates individual customers’ rates. She reassured Mrs

4

Clare that everyone would be eligible for home insurance. Flood Re is available for many. Flood Re is a joint initiative between the Government and insurers. Its aim is to make the flood cover part of household insurance policies more affordable for those people who live in areas at the greatest risk of flooding.

8. Feedback from the Local Choices meeting (EFCC 19/09) 8.1 The Chairman reminded members about the annual allocation process for capital and

revenue funding. He stated that the Local Choices meeting, held in September, was an opportunity for discussion before the final programme was approved at the main RFCC meeting in January

8.2 The Chairman added that there were two main points from the Local Choices meeting which needed to be agreed at the October meeting. Firstly the Committee members need to make local decisions about how to make the Local Levy programme affordable in the future. Secondly they need to agree the newly updated principles as set out on page 16 para 2.5 of the paper pack and copied below:

8.3 ‘It is assumed that all levy projects conform to the levy principles already established. In addition, when local levy is oversubscribed, preference should be given to:

a. Projects that deliver outcomes sooner (including environmental outcomes); b. Projects where there is greater confidence in the outcomes and timescales

identified; c. Projects that contribute to the longer term sustainability of the programme - the

levy funded posts were given as an example of this; d. Whether the project is standalone and could easily be delayed, or whether levy

was essential to secure other time-limited funding which will be lost if the project is delayed.’

8.4 The Chairman directed Committee members’ attention to the table on page 20

Appendix C which showed the equity of Levy spend over a five year period for Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk; and a ten year period for Havering, Cambs, Southend and Thurrock. There had been more Levy money spent in Norfolk because of the Great Yarmouth project. Less Levy money had been spent in Suffolk because although money had been allocated, the programme for the Lowestoft scheme had slipped. Mr Dixey stated that Committee members had discussed the Levy programme in detail at the Local Choices meeting. It was agreed that the Committee needed a way to make the Levy programme affordable. One suggestion was to reduce the allocation set aside for emergencies. The Chairman explained the background to this allocation. In the aftermath of the 2013 tidal surge, emergency repairs to coastal assets were needed. Consequently the Committee agreed to allocate £450k of Levy each year for emergencies, to be used if needed. In addition to this emergency fund, the Committee had agreed that in each year 10% (~£300k) of the total Levy money raised would be set aside to fund any in-year opportunities. The Chairman explained the proposal was to merge these two allocations and halve the amount of the overall provision, on the basis that the two reserves had never been fully used since they were agreed. The Chairman asked the members to agree the amount of the overall provision at £375k per year for both in-year opportunities and emergency revenue maintenance support. It was agreed.

8.5 Mrs Burch reminded Mr Dixey about an action for him to seek some clarity on the Partnership Funding Calculator (PFC) with regard to funding of environmental outcomes. The IDB had expressed a concern that some GiA, for which its project was eligible, had been held back in lieu of a partnership funding contribution to the project.

5

Mr Dixey clarified this misunderstanding and confirmed that all GiA could be claimed for environmental outcomes, but that all projects had to demonstrate efficiencies. Mrs Burch thanked Mr Dixey for clarifying that point.

8.6 Prof Underwood asked if the principles were in a particular order of preference Mr

Dixey confirmed they are not.

8.7 Mr Smith commented that it was not the intention of the Committee, nor was it necessary, to create a formal priority list. He felt that all the principles should be considered together. Mr Powell agreed all the principles should be given equal consideration. The Chairman agreed and felt it was not the place of the Committee to say in what order they needed to be considered. Officers needed good direction and guidance to ensure they knew which principles should be applied.

8.8 Mr Smith mentioned that the information provided prior to the Local Choices meeting

had been limited and insufficient to have an informed discussion. He asked in future that any presentations and/or supporting information be provided to Committee members before meetings so they had time to study the data prior to any discussions. It was agreed that for future meetings, papers and information would be shared with all Committee members in advance.

Action

8.9 For future Local Choices meetings all Committee members will be sent the information they need for an informed discussion.

8.10 Resolution

The Committee voted and A. Noted the discussions and recommendations from the Local Choices

meeting B. Approved the amended principles proposed at the Local Choices meeting

to bring Local Levy requests back to an affordable position in the short term (paragraph 2.5).

C. Approved the reduction in the annual ‘in year’ risk pot to a total of £375k as proposed at the Local Choices meeting to cover both in-year opportunities and emergency revenue maintenance support.

9. Levy/GDC/IDB precept setting and vote (EFCC 19/10) 9.1 The Chairman introduced this section of the meeting by reminding long standing

members and explaining to new members that only LLFA appointees were eligible to vote for Levy, but that all Committee members were eligible to vote for GDC and IDB Precept.

9.2 Mr Dixey gave some examples of new projects and was pleased to report that we now have projects from Thurrock and Southend in the programme. This had been helped by having Ms Rosie Ryan working with those two councils as a Levy funded officer.

9.3 The Chairman then drew the Committee members’ attention to the table on page 26 of

the paper pack. The table illustrated what the difference of a 1%-4% increase in Levy would be like for each authority. He then invited the LLFA representatives to discuss the options for the 2020/21 Levy, and make their recommendations.

9.4 Cllr Grant opened by proposing a 3% increase as this was above inflation and enabled

constant investment moving forward and he emphasised that flooding will continue to be an issue. He felt that a smaller constant increase was more affordable overall. Cllr

6

Walsh agreed that Essex would support a 3% increase. Mr Phipps and Mr Tung also both agreed in a 3% increase.

9.5 Mr Hullis explained that he had been asked to request a 2% increase on this occasion.

9.6 The Chairman asked the LLFA members to vote on the two increases suggested with

the following results: 2% increase – 2 votes for and 8 votes against 3% increase – 10 votes for and 0 against.

The Levy will therefore be increased by 3% in 2020/21.

9.7 The Chairman then asked all Committee members to vote to continue to raise GDC in 2020/21. The Committee voted unanimously in favour of continuing to raise GDC.

9.8 The Chairman introduced the vote on IDB precepts. Firstly, he invited Ms Denham to relay the representation she had received from the Water Management Alliance (WMA).

9.9 Ms Denham explained that the EA has powers under Section 139 of the Water

Resources Act to raise a precept from the IDBs to contribute to the EA’s flood risk management expenses. She went onto explain that the EA had been advised by Defra that Mr Phil Camamile from the WMA, on behalf of three IDBs; the Broads, Norfolk Rivers and East Suffolk IDBs, had appealed the precept charges for 2019/20 on the following grounds:

i. The amount demanded by the EA was unfair; ii. The EA had not prepared a detailed statement on where and how the money

was to be spent; and iii. The EA had not detailed how the charge was calculated.

9.10 In addition Mr Camamile made representation to the EA with respect to next year’s

(2020/21) precept charges as follows: ‘On the basis that there is not an agreed work programme in place with the EA, which clearly shows where and how the IDBs will derive benefit from the precept charges, he asked for a 0% increase for 2020/21’ Mr Camamile was not available to attend the RFCC meeting but had asked Ms Denham to make the representation on his behalf.

9.11 Ms Denham explained that the appeal was ongoing and that she and Mr Verrier were continuing to work with the WMA to try and resolve it at a local level.

9.12 The Chairman summed up and stated that the IDB wanted a 0% increase in precept for the next financial year. The Chairman reminded members that in recent year’s questions about fairness of Levy expenditure has been raised and as a result a set of Levy principles had been agreed. The Chairman also mentioned that it was for the Committee to decide what money was raised at that October meeting and not what the programme looked like i.e. how it was spent, as this would be agreed in January 2020.

9.13 The Chairman then asked Mr Verrier to clarify whether the risks of flooding in the IDB areas had decreased this year and whether the EA costs had gone down or stayed the same. Mr Verrier answered that the risks had not changed and that the IDB precept still made an important contribution to the maintenance programme. Mr Verrier agreed that there were challenges in developing a programme which satisfied all the IDBs, but he would continue to meet regularly with them to understand their needs.

9.14 Mr Smith commented that he had previously sat on the East Suffolk IDB, and asked the

members to remember that the IDBs have unconstrained powers to raise precepts from

7

local authorities. He was therefore not sympathetic to the representation made by the WMA.

9.15 Prof Underwood expressed concern about moving away from the current integrated model, linking Levy, GDC and IDB precept increases. He did not want to set a precedent by singling out IDBs for a 0% increase. He stated that a 0% increase was net negative overall.

9.16 Mr Wise asked why the IDBs have changed their position from 2018. Ms Denham

answered that the EA has had constructive conversations with the WMA about the maintenance programme and where the precept is being spent, but that some individual IDBs increasingly want to see a very detailed programme. Ms Denham added that the level of detail that the IDB would like to see is not always available so many months in advance of programme delivery.

9.17 Mr Powell mentioned that in any one year there will always be fluctuations in budgets. He felt that the Committee should vote for the 3% increase along with the Levy and GDC keeping to the current model for the time being and until there had been a decision made on the appeal.

9.18 Cllr Grant requested that both sides try to sort out their differences and speak to each

other, be courteous and listen to one another as this was the only way to move forward. The Chairman echoed Cllr Grant’s request and encouraged the EA and IDB to continue to work together. Ms Denham reassured the Committee that the EA do meet regularly with the WMA and was trying to find a way forward by working with them.

9.19 Mr Wise asked whether there’d been any challenge about how the money was spent and whether the precept was spent on ‘boots on the ground’ or if it went on other staff costs. Ms Denham answered that this had not been raised as part of the appeal.

9.20 The Chairman reaffirmed that the WMA had asked for a 0% increase in precept

following representation. and thanked the Committee members for their discussion and asked them to vote on the two options with the following results: 0% increase in IDB precept all voted against – with one abstention 3% increase in IDB precept all voted for – with one abstention

9.21 Resolution

A. The Committee agreed a Local Levy increase of 3% to be raised on local authorities in the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC area for 2020/21.

B. The Committee approved the Environment Agency in the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC area to continue to raise General Drainage Charges and increase them by 3% for the year ending 31 March 2021. The Committee agreed to increase precepts on Internal Drainage Boards by 3% for the year ending 31 March 2021.

10. Review of 2020/21 FCRM Grant in Aid (GiA) indicative allocation for capital and revenue funding (EFCC 19/11)

10.1 Mr Dixey introduced the paper. He directed the Committee members’ attention to page 29 of the paper pack and explained how the capital allocation for our area had been calculated. The area had been allocated £32m for the 2020/21 financial year which was as requested. This included an additional allocation of £14m for Tilbury, which had been recognised as a nationally important asset.

10.2 With regards to revenue funding he was pleased to note that we were in a good place. The detail of the whole programme would be provided to the Committee in January.

8

10.3 Mr Wise observed that the picture on capital programmes was positive. However,

Appendix C showed that there was a skew of revenue maintenance funding towards the more heavily populated areas like Thames and the northern powerhouse. He felt that this imbalance needed addressing. He also commented on the importance of raising GDC so that the rural areas could be better protected.

10.4 The Committee noted the allocation and was pleased that the area had received the

money it had requested.

11. Broadland Futures Initiative

11.1 The Chairman introduced Mr Johnson and Ms Pierre-Tighe and asked them to update the Committee. They gave a presentation which was shared after the meeting.

11.2 Ms Pierre-Tighe offered Committee members the opportunity to be on the mailing list to receive newsletters and updates. Members were encouraged to contact Mrs Bassett who would pass on their details.

Action

11.3 Members to contact Mrs Bassett and let her know if they would like to be added to the mailing list.

11.4 Mrs Burch asked about the value of the Broads and asked how the figure had been

calculated and what was included in the calculations. Mr Johnson answered that the figure came from a high level review which pulled information together from other studies. He added that there were plans to do further economic analysis.

11.5 Mr Wise added that the figures in the report were low in modern terms and noted that some of the studies used were 10yrs old.

11.6 Prof Underwood spoke about the value of the Broads and wondered if in 50-100yrs

time it would have to be increasingly defended in order to remain a fresh water system. Mr Johnson said that this question would be considered as part of the project.

11.7 The Chairman said it was interesting to consider what the area will look like in the future, but emphasised that the decision making responsibility sat with all the agencies and we would need to work together to agree how any work will be funded for the future.

11.8 Prof Underwood asked how the Broadland Flood Alleviation Project fits in with the

Broadland Futures Initiative. Mr Verrier answered that the EA was currently assessing the options for maintaining Broadland assets in the future, and this might include working with framework contractors. Mr Verrier was working with national EA colleagues to make sure that the Broads continues to get maintenance funding in the future.

12. Coastal update 12.1 The Chairman introduced Mr Johnson and Mr Smith who would be giving this update.

12.2 Mr Johnson explained this was an interim update. A lot is happening regarding how we

manage the coast for the future but nothing is complete. He went on to speak about the Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), these are plans which describe how the coast will be managed over the next 100yrs. They were being refreshed with consultants (Jacobs and Royal Haskoning) checking the plans to make sure that the policies were

9

still fit for purpose. Mr Johnson then invited Mr Smith, as the RFCC Coastal Representative, to talk about his involvement.

12.3 Mr Smith had attended a number of national meetings and noted that every area was

taking a different view on SMPs and how their section of the coast is managed. He had attended two specialised focus groups one looking at planning and the other at adaptation. He recognised that these two subjects were interlinked and a change in planning policy was required to include coastal adaptation.

12.4 Mr Smith had also attended a meeting in Southampton regarding ‘Transitions to a more

resilient coast’, where they looked at SMPs in more detail. Finally, Mr Smith mentioned he had attended various meetings and been involved in focus groups to discuss and give feedback on the new FCERM Strategy.

12.5 The Chairman thanked Mr Johnson and Mr Smith for their update. 13. EA-Defra paper: Partnership Funding (PF) for the future flood and coastal

erosion investment programme (EFCC 19/12) 13.1 The Chairman gave a presentation overview of changes to the PF rules. The

presentation was shared after the meeting. Ms Denham provided some additional information she had received just prior to the Committee meeting with regard to allowances for houses that become at risk on the coast, over the life of the project, and also consideration of B&B premises as homes and not just businesses.

13.2 Cllr Moran informed the Committee that he also sat on the Great Ouse RFCC and had received a presentation about Milton Keynes and surface water flooding. He wondered if it might be useful for the Eastern RFCC to see the presentation.

13.3 Prof Underwood noted that he was happy that OM4 was changing in the right direction.

He asked how we value the environment and how it was difficult to quantify the environment in financial terms. The Chairman answered that he did not know how to set a value to the environment.

13.4 Mr Wise gave an example of the Benacre project which is claiming environmental

outcomes by creating intertidal habitat. However, he was concerned that now more projects would be eligible to claim environmental benefits there would be increased competition for the available funding. Mr Wise went on to highlight the mental health impacts on farmers when their businesses suffered after a flood. He mentioned the Fens project which is assessing the value of farming businesses as well as people and property.

13.5 Cllr Grant and Mr Smith both welcomed the changes to the PF rules, but Mr Smith remained concerned that the allowances for climate change impacts on page 52 didn’t include properties at risk from coastal erosion.

13.6 The Chairman and Ms Denham thanked the members for the discussion and agreed to

send feedback to the national team. Action

13.7 Ms Denham and the Chairman to prepare and send feedback on behalf of the Committee.

10

14. Update from Norfolk County Council 14.1 The Committee received a presentation from Ms Coleman and Mr Ogden, which was

shared after the meeting. 15. Forward Look (EFCC 19/08) – Agree 2020 meeting dates 15.1 The Chairman noted that the January meeting agenda looked full already so they did

not need any more items. He felt that in April we would probably need another coastal update and then in either April or July we would need an environmental update.

15.2 Mrs Bassett mentioned that she was looking for ideas for the Norfolk site visit for April 2020. Bacton had been suggested but if the Committee members had any other ideas, please contact Mrs Bassett.

Action

15.3 All to contact Mrs Bassett with suggestions for a Norfolk site visit for 2020. 16. Key Items from Information Papers 16.1 The Committee noted the content of the information papers.

16.2 Mr Dixey drew the Committee members’ attention to the table on page 101 of the

papers regarding efficiency savings and informed them that none had been reported in this financial year. He asked that all the RMA’s report these to him.

Action

16.3 All RMAs to report efficiency savings to Mr Dixey as soon as possible. 17. Any Other Business 17.1 There was no other business to discuss and the meeting closed at 12:30pm. Date of next meeting: Friday 17 January 2020, Suffolk County Council, Landmark House, Ipswich, Suffolk

11

BLANK PAGE

12

ANGLIAN (EASTERN) RFCC ACTIONS from 18 October 2019 20 September 2018 RFCC Local Choices meeting

Action Required Who by? Ongoing or Completed Further information

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

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

All RMA Officers Complete The forward programme is being developed and is business as usual.

19 July 2019 RFCC Meeting

Action Required Who by? Ongoing or Completed Further information

10.4 Approach to 2nd cycle flood risk management plans and demonstration of the new digital flood plan explorer tool

Mrs Bassett to add this to the Local Choices agenda and invite a member of the Flood Digital team along to the meeting.

Mrs Bassett Complete

Mrs Bassett has chased the team for further information, who have no further information. She has also searched online and not been able to find any information. Will mark this action as complete but continue to try and find out information to pass on to the Committee.

18 October 2019 RFCC Meeting

Action Required Who by? Ongoing or Completed Further information

4.2 Environment Agency Announcements

Mr Johnson to contact Mr Smith regarding the late September high tides in the Thames.

Mr Johnson Complete Information was provided to Mr Smith on 20 December.

7.4 Members Slot – Mr Powell spoke about work happening on the Norfolk and Suffolk Environment Strategy and the Suffolk Nature Strategy.

Mrs Bassett to add this to the forward look for July 2020 so that Mr Powell can provide a report to the Committee.

Mrs Bassett Complete Added to the forward look for July 2020.

7.8 Members Slot – Prof Underwood spoke a bid that two consortia of Universities had submitted for research on the risks of Coastal Landfills. He did not know if any bids had been successful.

Prof Underwood to update the Committee when he heard anything about this matter.

Prof Underwood Complete

Update from Prof Underwood Two bids were funded. One, headed by CEH and involving the University of York, is focusing on the transfer of waste site derived chemical contaminants through coastal marine food chains and the impacts of these exposures for seabird populations, studying the predator bird species, the European shag, in the Firth of Forth, and near Aberdeen. The second, led by Engineering at the University of Newcastle (Leeds, Glasgow, Plymouth, Liverpool John Moores)

13

appears to have a wider focus, and will undertake experiments that test how these wastes behave across a range of experimental scales (e.g. from beaker sized experiments, through skip-sized experiments, to measurements at real sites). It is not clear if that project will address any of the sites in our RFCC region.

8.8 Feedback from the Local Choices meeting – Mr Smith asked for more information to be provided in the future to enable more informed discussion.

EA Officers to provide appropriate and adequate information prior to Local Choices meetings.

EA Officers Ongoing To be kept as an open action until after the September Local Choices meeting as a reminder to EA Officers.

11.2 Broadland Futures Initiative – Ms Pierre-Tighe offered Committee members the opportunity to be added to the mailing list and receive newsletters and updates.

Members to contact Mrs Bassett and let her know if they would like to be added to the mailing list.

All Committee Members Complete Complete all details passed on.

13.7 Partnership funding for the future of FCERM programme – The Committee discussed this item and gave feedback

Ms Denham and Mr Hayden to collate feedback to send to the national team.

Ms Denham / Mr Hayden Complete Feedback sent 22 October

15.3 Forward look. Committee members to contact Mrs Bassett for Norfolk site visit ideas.

All Committee members Complete

Complete – site visit will be Bacton and Mrs Bassett will organise an appropriate meeting venue with Mr Goodliffe and Mr Ogden.

16.3 Key Items from Information Papers

All RMA officers to report efficiency savings to Mr Dixey. All RMA Officers Ongoing

To be kept as an ongoing action until at least the year end in April to remind RMA officers to report efficiencies.

14

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Item no: 8

Report No: EFCC 20/01

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

Subject: 2020/21 FCRM GRANT IN AID (GIA) ALLOCATION FOR CAPITAL AND REVENUE FUNDING

Date

17 January 2020

Officer Responsible:

John Russon, Deputy Director, Allocation and National Programme Management

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to :

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

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

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

Headline messages:

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

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

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

All RFCC local choices submissions which met the criteria have been approved. The most likely outcome, relative to the national 300,000 homes target, is now

315,000 homes better protected by the end of the 6 year programme in March 2021. Delivery of 30,000 homes remains dependent on securing a further £30m-£40m of

partnership funding contributions. 1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 Background

1.1 This paper is the final stage in allocating FCRM GiA for financial year 2020/21. This will be the final year of the current 6 year capital investment programme.

1.2 The detail of this allocation for the Anglian Eastern Committee can be found in Appendix B.

1.3 The Committee is asked to review and consent the final draft indicative allocations for next financial year.

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

15

1.5 As of the end of October 2019 (quarter 2 of this financial year) we have achieved 200,425 homes better protected since the start of the 6 year capital programme in 2015.

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

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

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

Table 1: FCRM GiA capital funding profile, £m

Year 5 2019/20

Year 6 2020/21

Pre-Autumn Budget 2017 £463.0 £451.0

Additional funding to accelerate schemes £18.0 £8.0

Additional funding for deprived communities £20.0 £10.0

Additional funding uplift September 2019 n/a £62.4

Revised profile £501.0 £531.4

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

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

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

exercise which showed that the homes target would best be achieved through retaining, as close to possible, the indicative allocations for 2020/21. These were provided as part of the 2019/20 refresh (shared with RFCC Committees in January 2019) and agreed at the EA Board on 7 February 2019.

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

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

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

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

16

Projects in construction by 1 October 2019 and statutory and legal ‘must do’s’ Projects better protecting homes by 2021, then Projects better protecting homes beyond 2021, prioritised by Partnership

Funding score

Local Choices 2.6 The draft indicative allocation was shared with RFCCs at their October ‘local choices’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we will invest £110m into our Field Operations teams and maintenance programme.

17

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

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

maintenance programmes are provided in Appendix C. At the time of writing the Revenue Maintenance programme for Anglian Eastern RFCC is still being drawn up, in line with the RFCC spending guidelines, to ensure optimal use of available funding. The finished programme will be published on .gov.uk and a detailed breakdown of planned activities can be provided at the April 2020 RFCC meeting if required.

4. Recommendations

4.1 The RFCC Committees are asked to:

A. Note the allocation principles for the 2020/21 FCRM GiA capital allocation

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

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

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

Appendix A: FCRM allocation principles Appendix B: National and Anglian Eastern RFCC area indicative capital allocation Appendix C: Indicative revenue maintenance allocations Appendix D: Annual allocation funding cycles for RFCC’s – a simple guide

18

Appendix A: FCRM allocation principles Protect people and homes Deliver the £2.6bn six year capital programme Increased protection for at least 300,000 homes between 2015/16 and 2020/21 Protect maintenance funding in real terms and re-invest 10% efficiency savings Take a risk-based approach to securing the condition of existing assets including

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

property Support the provision of property scale resistance and resilience measures Working in partnership Provide positive contributions to the recently announced Government-led reviews into

flood risk management Achieve third party, including private, investment in line with the Defra partnership

funding and contributions policy Support community-based solutions that are innovative, cost-effective and affordable Achieve balanced programmes in collaboration with RFCCs Promoting an integrating approach to managing flood risk working with other Risk

Management Authorities We will take a catchment based approach Improve our understanding with partners of all flood and coastal erosion risk data and

support the government’s ‘Open Data’ commitment making our data and information easily accessible to all who want it

Way we work Maintain skills and a pipeline of studies for medium and long-term investment needs Maximise efficiency savings and value for money Continue to promote schemes that meet statutory environmental requirements Promote sustainable development that reduces flood risk Provide appropriate funding toward the essential support services that enable delivery of

flood and coastal risk outcomes We will work collaboratively across the Environment Agency and with external partners

to realise multiple benefits.

19

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

RFCC

2019/20 Opening

Allocation1

2020/21 Current published

programme indicative allocation2

2020/21 Refresh indicative

allocation Post Local Choices3

Difference Post Local Choice vs

indicative allocation for

2020/21

Programme forecast 2020/21

Indicative allocation

for support schemes 2020/214

Total final indicative

allocation for 2020/215

£m Max homes £m Max

homes £m Max homes £m Max

homes Most likely

homes £m £m

Anglian Eastern 35.5 4,620 16.1 2,858 32.0 2,023 15.9 - 815 1,162 1.8 33.8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total 444.3 78,092 401.4 67,915 459.43 88,537 58.0 20,642 66,106 21.9 481.3

1. Includes over-allocation of £15.4m. Budget for 2019/20 was amended in Q1 2019/20 to ensure programme remained affordable. 2. Indicative allocation for 2020/21 given as part of the 2019/20 allocation agreed at EA Board on 7 February 2019. 3. £2m for Adaptive Pathways is yet to be allocated. 4. Support schemes are projects which provide wider FCRM benefits, such as mapping and modelling, incident management, hydrometry and telemetry. 5. Total is 2020/21 Refresh indicative allocation post Local Choices plus final allocation for support schemes.

20

Appendix B ‐ 2020/21 Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Final FCRM GiA indicative allocation

Lead RMA  Project Name 

2020/21‐Final FCRM 

GiA indicative allocation

20/21‐OM2 & 3 forecast

Broads (2006) IDB Haddiscoe Pump Replacement                          238,000                       20 Environment Agency Cockett Wick                       4,000,000                    454 Environment Agency Great Yarmouth Tidal Defences ‐ Epoch 2 ‐ 2016 to 2021                       9,888,000                 1,138 Environment Agency Ipswich Flood Defence Management Strategy: Tidal Barrier                          400,000 Environment Agency Seawick sea defence                       2,500,000                    370 

Environment AgencyThames Estuary Asset Management 2100 Programme (Essex works only)                          874,000                       41 

Environment Agency Tilbury Barrier ‐ Dual Function Lock Gate                    14,000,000 Norfolk CC Dereham Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme                          100,000 

                   32,000,000                 2,023 

21

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

RFCC 2019/20

Allocation, £k

2020/21 Indicative Allocation

£k

2021/22 Indicative Allocation

£k

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

Anglian Eastern 8,698 8,450 7,955

Anglian Northern 10,287 10,755 10,426

North West 10,645 10,950 11,700

Northumbria 2,475 2,549 2,500

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

South West 5,119 5,004 4,630

Southern 11,276 10,964 10,405

Thames 19,399 20,027 21,021

Trent 12,335 12,730 14,164

Wessex 7,729 7,420 6,870

Yorkshire 12,434 12,198 12,198

Total 110,000 110,000 110,000

22

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

 

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

Grant in Aid

Annual process for allocating Capital Funding

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

issued

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

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

August/Sept – EA National team collate all changes and bids for additional/ reduced funding and, 

working within the budget available, 

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

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

increase programmes with further contributions from third parties

Nov/Dec – EA National team collate and review all ‘local choices’ returns and prepare final allocation programme 

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

following year 

March – Approved/ consented programme published on 

gov.uk, final preparations made to deliver work in new financial 

April – planning for next financial year begins, 

agreed programmes and associated outcome targets 

shared with RFCCs for

23

 

Dec – reports generated providing final indicative allocation

 

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

Annual process for allocating Revenue Funding

 April/May – refresh guidance 

issued 

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

review and add additional maintenance activities

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

AIMS

 Sept/Oct – indicative allocation is 

shared with RFCCs for ‘local choices’

Sept‐Nov – EA Area teams undertake programming task 

within AIMS

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

following year 

 

Feb/March – 20/21 programme and 5 year programme prepared 

for publication

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

RFCCs for reference

24

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Item No: 8 Report No: EFCC 20/02

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

Subject: FCERM Local Levy Programme 2020/21

Date 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

Aaron Dixey, FCRM Programme Senior Team Leader

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to : A. Approve requests for Local Levy as per Appendix A.

1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 This report provides the 2020/21 programme of local levy requests in Appendix A for the

Committee to approve. 2. Affordability 2.1 Several changes have been made to the programme since the October RFCC meeting.

2.2 As per discussions at the Local Choices meeting, the priority is to make the forthcoming

year (2020/21) affordable.

2.3 Beyond 2021 it was agreed at Local Choices to review the forward programme after the new partnership funding calculator is published. This will ensure that the levy ask is set within the context of the new partnership funding rules.

2.4 Local Levy for future years will be reviewed in the summer as part of the annual

programme refresh when the implications of the new partnership funding calculator will be taken into account.

3. Recommendation

A. Approve requests for Local Levy as per Appendix A. Aaron Dixey FCRM Programme Senior Team Leader Appendix A: Local Levy dashboard

25

BLANK PAGE

26

Lead RMA  Project Name  LLFA area Total for approval 2019‐27.  Does not include historic spend

All RMAs In year emergencies/In year project opportunities All 2,625,000Broads (2006) Internal Drainage Board Halvergate Marshes Pump Management Scheme Norfolk 250,000Broads (2006) Internal Drainage Board Stalham Staithe Surface water flood alleviation scheme Norfolk 20,000Broads (2006) Internal Drainage Board Upper Thurne Integrated Drainage Improvements Norfolk 250,000Broads (2006) Internal Drainage Board Wayford Bridge Pumping Station Replacement Norfolk 12,000East Suffolk Council Corton village Suffolk 100,000East Suffolk Council Lowestoft Flood Risk Management Project Suffolk 3,340,000East Suffolk Council Thorpeness erosion response works 2015+ Suffolk 30,724East Suffolk IDB Bawdsey Marshes Deben tidal embankment works Suffolk 10,000East Suffolk IDB Iken pumping station refurbishment Suffolk 30,000East Suffolk IDB Lower Alde Ore Estuary Embankment Improvements Suffolk 750,000East Suffolk IDB Upper Alde Ore Estuary Embankment Improvements Suffolk 763,047Environment Agency Aylsham flood risk management scheme Norfolk 77,000Environment Agency Beccles Flood Risk Management Project Suffolk 243,000Environment Agency Brundall and Surlingham FRM Norfolk 28,208Environment Agency CABA Integrated catchment delivery All 5,000Environment Agency Seawick sea defence Essex 250,000Environment Agency Cley salthouse new cut diversion project Norfolk 93,000Environment Agency East Anglia property flood resilience scheme All 582,000Environment Agency Great Yarmouth Tidal Defences ‐ Epoch 2 ‐ 2016 to 2021 Norfolk 1,548,485Environment Agency Great Yarmouth Tidal Defences ‐ Epoch 3 Norfolk 250,000Environment Agency Hoveton and Wroxham Norfolk 29,045Environment Agency Thames Barrier ‐Future sites project Essex 160,000Environment Agency Marlingford Flood Risk Management Project Norfolk 89,046Environment Agency Melton Culvert Scheme Suffolk 62,000Environment Agency Heybridge FAS Essex 400,000Environment Agency Needham Market flood risk management scheme Suffolk 224,713Environment Agency Rawreth and Rawreth Shot flood management project Essex 50,000Environment Agency NFM ‐ Norfolk schemes Norfolk 58,000Environment Agency NFM ‐ Suffolk schemes Suffolk 110,000Environment Agency Sturmer bridge works‐modelling and NFM Essex 50,000Environment Agency NFM‐Peto's Marsh Norfolk 50,000Environment Agency NFM‐Upper Deben Suffolk 100,000Environment Agency Norwich Flood Alleviation Scheme Norfolk 100,000Environment Agency Norwich New Mills Norfolk 60,000Environment Agency Rain gauge project ‐ Anglian (Eastern) contribution to Anglian (Great Ouse) led scheme All 119,000Environment Agency Eastwood Brook, Southend on Sea Catchment Integrated Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 135,000Environment Agency RMA support project All 4,000Environment Agency Thames Estuary Asset Management 2100 Programme (TEP2) 2020 review Essex 110,000Environment Agency Latchingdon flood alleviation scheme Essex 20,000Environment Agency Stowmarket Flood Risk Management Suffolk 200,000Environment Agency MaylandFAS Essex 20,000Environment Agency Witham community flood risk alleviation Essex 20,000Environment Agency NFM ‐ Essex schemes Essex 18,500Environment Agency Tilbury dual function barrier Thurrock 2,000,000Environment Agency Weybourne flood risk alleviation Norfolk 48,015Environment Agency Chelmsford Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 1,305,000Environment Agency Wrentham flood risk management project Suffolk 100,000Environment Agency Cockett Wick Essex 434,150Environment Agency Coggeshall and Kelvedon Community Flood Alleviation Essex 366,501Environment Agency Great Yeldham Flood Risk Alleviation Essex 50,000Environment Agency Little Waltham flood risk alleviation Essex 50,000Environment Agency Mersea Harbour Protection  Essex 352,000Environment Agency NFM‐Finchingfield Essex 35,000Environment Agency NFM‐Great Yeldham Essex 17,500Environment Agency Salcott Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 100,000Environment Agency Thames Estuary Asset Management 2100 Programme (Essex works only) Essex 699,060Environment Agency NFM‐Roxwell‐phase 2 Essex 50,000Essex Essex Holding line Essex 800,000Essex CC Thorndon Avenue‐West Horndon C Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 422,000Essex CC Shenfield Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 191,666Essex CC Hutton Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Essex 150,000Essex CC Pilgrims Hatch Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Essex 110,000Essex CC Bowers Gifford Surface Water flood alleviation scheme Essex 82,000Essex CC Thrift Green, Brentwood Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Essex 93,000Essex CC Moulsham, Chelmsford Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Essex 92,000Essex CC Chelmer Village Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Essex 75,000Essex CC Basildon Dry Street Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 63,438Essex CC Basildon Pitsea Flood Alleviation Scheme  Essex 144,000Essex CC Braintree Bradford Street Flood alleviation Scheme Essex 37,160Essex CC Burnham Station Road Surface Water Study – Phase 2 Essex 19,714Essex CC Colchester Mile End Surface Water Study – Phase 2 Essex 16,381Essex CC Colchester St Annes Surface Water Study ‐ Phase 2 Essex 17,454Essex CC Essex Community Resilience PLR Project  Essex 129,633Essex CC Great Baddow Surface Water Study ‐ Phase 2 Essex 22,779Essex CC Maldon Causeway Area Flood Risk Appraisal Essex 53,000Essex CC Maldon Central Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex 100,000Essex CC NFM Thorndon Park Slow the Flow Essex 50,000Essex CC South Essex Bromfords Surface Water Study – Phase 2 Essex 11,081Essex CC The Lane, Mersea Tidal Flood Alleviation Study Essex 80,000Great Yarmouth BC Winterton and Hemsby Norfolk 100,000Norfolk CC Dereham Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Norfolk 140,000Norfolk CC Eastern area property level resilience‐phase 2 Norfolk 6,000Norfolk CC Great Yarmouth Surface Water Mitigation Project Norfolk 36,400Norfolk CC Lion Wood property level resilience Norfolk 12,000Norfolk CC Norwich surface water mitigation scheme (CATCH) Norfolk 30,000North Norfolk DC Bacton Gas Terminal to Ostend Coastal Management Scheme Norfolk 500,000Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council Chalkwell surface water scheme Southend 4,100Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council Cinder Path Southend 305,196

Appendix A  ‐   Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Local Levy requests as of 19 December 2019

27

Lead RMA  Project Name  LLFA area Total for approval 2019‐27.  Does not include historic spend

Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council Prittle Brook surface water scheme Southend 10,700Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council Shoebury Common Flood Defence Improvements Southend 803,243Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council Shoeburyness surface water scheme Southend 4,100Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council South Church surface water scheme Southend 4,100Southend‐on‐Sea Borough Council Temple Sutton surface water scheme Southend 4,100Suffolk County Council Boxford surface water flood alleviation Suffolk 16,000Suffolk County Council Cavendish Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Suffolk 66,000Suffolk County Council Felixstowe Property Level resilience Suffolk 38,250Suffolk County Council Hadleigh surface water flood alleviation Suffolk 16,000Suffolk County Council Ipswich surface water flood alleviation scheme Suffolk 200,000Suffolk County Council Kesgrave Surface Water flood alleviation Scheme Suffolk 16,000Suffolk County Council Stowmarket surface water flood alleviation Suffolk 66,000Suffolk County Council Sudbury Great Cornard flood risk management project Suffolk 50,000Thurrock Borough Council Stanford‐le‐Hope Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme Thurrock 50,000Waveney & Lower Yare Benacre and Kessingland Flood Risk Management Scheme Suffolk 1,210,420Waveney & Lower Yare Blundeston Pump Replacement Suffolk 8,000Waveney & Lower Yare Burgh St Peter Pump Replacement Norfolk 8,000Waveney & Lower Yare Limpenhoe pump replacement and AWC Norfolk 13,267

Table 2 ‐ Levy requested for support activities Total

Posts (LLFA and Coastal partnership East) 2,648,000

Total Committed Local Levy Total

28,180,176

28

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Item No: 10 Report No: EFCC 20/03

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

Subject: HORSEY ISLAND BEACH RECHARGE PROPOSAL

Date 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

Kieren Alexander Site Manager RSPB Old Hall Marshes

1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 The proposal is to use sand and shingle recharge arising from the capital

dredge at Harwich, as detailed on the next page. This will which offer habitat creation and enhancement opportunities for beach nesting birds as well as providing flood and coastal erosion protection for Hamford water.

1.2 The RSPB would like the RFCC to support this proposal.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The Committee is asked to :

A. Support the proposal from the RSPB to use sand and shingle recharge

arising from the capital dredge at Harwich on Horsey Island.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to:

A. Support the proposal from the RSPB to use sand and shingle recharge arising from the capital dredge at Harwich on Horsey Island.

29

Horsey Island – Beneficial reuse scheme and beach recharge

Background:  A Horsey Island recharge scheme was originally done in 1994 and then in 1998, using material from a capital dredge from Harwich Haven. This was undertaken to reduce wave action on Horsey Island and prevent coastal erosion  in the wider Hamford water estuary. It also created an ideal nesting location for little terns, a schedule 1 species and a designated feature of the Hamford water Special protection Area (SPA) and one of the UK’s rarest species. 

 

The importance of Horsey Island:  Horsey  Island  is  the  most  important place for nesting little terns in Essex. In 2018  it  held  75%  of  all  the  nests,  a figure bettered in 2019 where it is the only  place  little  terns  have  nested  in Essex.  There  are  a  variety  of  factors that  make  Horsey  the  best  nesting place  in  Essex  for  little  terns.  It  is  a private  island  with  limited  public access  and  food  supply  is  seemingly excellent.  Even  in  years  when nationally  food  supplies  seem  scarce. Beyond the importance to little terns, Horsey Island also plays a key role as a wave break for the wider Hamford water, reducing wave energy on the rest of the estuary. Which provides opportunities and benefits for recreation, fisheries and flood defence. 

 

The proposed scheme:  The biggest risk to the Horsey island tern colony and even the island itself is the deterioration of the shingle beach, this  is happening due to a combination of  longshore drift and wave action which  is flattening out the recharged beach. In the short term high summer tides may threaten the integrity of the colony causing the loss of nests to tidal  inundation.  In  the  longer term the beach will cease  to be a viable breeding  location. We propose that  the capital scheme at Harwich Haven  is the  ideal chance to secure the  future of this breeding colony and  important breakwater in the estuary. 

 Outcomes: 

Increased resilience to tidal events for the little tern colony at Horsey Island;  A secure future for little terns in Essex;  Greater  resilience  for  Hamford  water  to  coastal  erosion;  leading  to  continued  opportunities  for 

recreation and leisure;  Objectives: 

Increased numbers of nesting pairs of Little terns in Hamford water to above the 55 pairs as required by the SPA designation; 

Increased productivity to 0.7 fledged young pair per of little terns;  Outputs: 

Creation of 4ha of recharged beach and shingle habitat;  Increased protection from coastal erosion for 2187ha of designated habitat at Hamford water;  Increased climate resilience for 135ha of Horsey Island; 

 Timescales: 

 

The Harwich capital dredge is due to take place in 2021 and 2022, there is therefore a high degree of confidence that the material will be available for this project to take place and achieve the objectives of the scheme. We are currently  in the process of applying for consenting from the relevant bodies for a sampling plan and establishing the need for an EIA. 

Horsey Island nesting little terns 

30

Mareth Bassett 0203 02 58443

Mareth.bassett@environment-agency.gov.uk

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

Forward look (EFCC 20/03)

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

17 April 2020 at Norfolk County Council

17 July 2020 at Essex County Council

16 October 2020 at Suffolk County Council

Main Business Items Main Business Items Main Business Items Bacton Discussion – prior to afternoon site visit

Team/TE2100 Update Levy/GDC/IDB Precept setting and approval

Engagement Group update Norfolk and Suffolk Environment Strategy and the Suffolk Nature Strategy update

Feedback from Local Choices meeting

Coastal Update Environmental Update Update from Norfolk County Council – Mark Ogden

Update from Essex County Council – Tim Simpson

Update from Suffolk County Council – Matt Hullis

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

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Delivering the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Delivering the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

Delivering the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme

FCRM Programme – In Year Position

FCRM Programme – In Year Position

FCRM Programme – In Year Position

Incident Management Update Engagement Update Incident Management UpdateNational Paper: FCERM Update

National Paper: FCERM Update

National Paper: FCERM Update

Other Meeting dates for 2020

March/June/September/December - Engagement Group Meeting, Environment Agency Office Ipswich

Friday 18 September 2020 – Local Choices, Environment Agency Office, Ipswich

31

BLANK PAGE

32

Mareth Bassett 0203 02 58443 mareth.bassett@environment-agency.gov.uk

List of Information Papers Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (RFCC) Friday 17 January 2020

Page No.

1. Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF20/01) 35

2. Delivering Professional Asset Management for the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC - Programme 2019/20 (INF 20/02) 53

3. Developing and Delivering the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan & Team 2100 Programme 2019/20 (INF 20/03) 67

4. Engagement Update (INF 20/04) 75

5. FCERM Program Update 2019/20 Quarter 3 – Current in-year position (INF 20/05)

79

6. National paper – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Update, December 2019 (INF 20/06) 87

7. Coastal Partnership East Update (INF 20/07) 95

33

BLANK PAGE

34

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Information Item No: 1

Report No: INF 20/01

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

Subject: DEVELOPING THE ANGLIAN (EASTERN) RFCC PROGRAMME 2018/19

Date: 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

Peta Denham – FCERM Manager Mark Johnson – Coastal Manager

RECOMMENDATION

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

programme. C. Share this information and promote our work in the Anglian Eastern RFCC area.

1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 This paper provides an update for projects in the consented programme which are at the

business case development stage. It is also an update for the Committee on progress or change, to make Members aware of any new or emerging investment requirements.

1.2 During the last quarter we monitored the progress of some of our Natural Flood

Management (NFM) projects to determine their effectiveness with a view to embedding this learning into any future NFM projects. We have been working with the community and partners in Coggeshall, Feering and Kelvedon to increase awareness of the project and to garner support for our formal planning application early next year. We have been supporting LLFAs with flood investigations and looking at ways to help them gather evidence following surface water flooding using our staff and data gathering procedures.

1.3 In Q4 we will focus on developing the business case for the Chelmsford Flood Alleviation

scheme based on new modelling being carried out this winter. We will be meeting with our partners to discuss viable options and funding requirements with a view to progressing a scheme in 2020.

1.5 We will continue to support risk management partners to develop projects for the pipeline

programme. We will also support planning and development in the key growth areas Thurrock and Canvey Island as well as via consultation on National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) such as Sizewell and Bradwell nuclear new builds, the new Lower Thames Crossing and Oikos Storage Terminal. There are also a number of local plans being renewed where we want to ensure that any development is kept away from flood risk areas as much as possible, whilst any development in flood risk areas remains resilient.

35

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

Contact details

Email address Kate Lindsay – PSO Team Leader Norfolk & Suffolk

kate.lindsay@environment-agency.gov.uk

William Todd – Senior Advisor Norfolk & Suffolk william.todd@environment-agency.gov.uk David Kemp – PSO Coastal Team Leader david.kemp@environment-agency.gov.uk Gary Watson – Coastal Engineer gary.watson@environment-agency.gov.uk Mark Ogden – Norfolk County Council water.management@norfolk.gov.uk Marie Coleman – Norfolk LLFA project advisor marie.coleman@environment-

agency.gov.ukJames Fullam – IDB project advisor james.fullam@environment-

agency.gov.uk Karen Thomas – Coastal Partnership East karen.thomas@eastsuffolk.gov.uk

36

2.2 Projects or activities of note

Aylsham Initial Assessment

In early 2019 the Programme Delivery Unit (PDU) produced an Initial Assessment for Aylsham which identified up to eight residential properties at risk of flooding. This is now being progressed to business case with Jacobs through the Collaborative Delivery Framework (CDF). As part of this work we will refine the flood risk modelling in the area which will enable us to identify possible options to manage flood risk.

Photo of Aylsham flooding in 1993

Defra Catchment Scale Natural Flood Management (NFM) project The heavy rainfall in October and November has shown the Natural Flood Management (NFM) interventions we installed as part of the Defra NFM Catchment Scale project are working as designed. We have extensive monitoring in place to capture evidence on performance, which will be used to help us ascertain the flood risk and wider environmental benefits of the interventions. A crucial part of the monitoring is the time lapse photography and hydrometric monitoring which will help us understand how the interventions respond in times of higher flow. The data collected will be used to inform the hydraulic modelling planned for next year which will quantify the flood risk benefits, before reporting back to Defra in March 2021. At Marlingford the floodplain reconnection worked well, with the new spillways ensuring that the floodplain was used to store flood flows sooner than before.

37

38

At Weybourne in North Norfolk the leaky debris dams held up water levels but the severity of the rainfall meant they did not hold up as much flow as anticipated. We are investigating to see if the design can be modified to address this.

At Buxton, the spillway into the attenuation feature was opened at the end of September this year. On 6 October the attenuation feature was fully used with up to 7,000 cubic metres of water being stored. Local levy funding was used to match the Defra NFM Catchment Scale funding to construct this feature.

39

New Mills trial level drop New Mills is an EA operated and maintained structure located on the River Wensum in Norwich. It consists of 5 sluice gates which, despite maintaining a head of water upstream, have been proven to serve no flood risk purpose. Removing the gates will not only make economic sense from an ‘invest to save’ perspective but will also create various environmental enhancements including improved fish and eel passage. We are planning a trial level drop at the site for February 2020. The gates will be lowered over a period of several days, to reflect the river conditions if the structure was removed. The trial will provide an opportunity for the project team to monitor any impacts associated with lower river levels. We are currently engaging with a number of key stakeholders who may be impacted by changes to the river environment around New Mills during the trial.

40

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

Initial Assessments – Norfolk County Council (NCC) NCC have progressed Initial Assessments for Wymondham, Diss, Ormesby, Harleston and Caister through Jacobs. These have now been signed off as technical notes. The surface water risk in these locations was not of sufficient scale to warrant full investigation. However, the assessment included recommendations for a number of residential properties and these will be included in our Property Level Resilience (PLR) and small scale works programme.

Interreg North Sea Region Water Sensitive Cities (CATCH) Project – Norfolk County Council Norfolk CC is currently processing the returned legal agreements, with a view to passing the data onto Centric Works (part of the Norse group), to start installing water butts across the Norwich catchments. Over 1,300 agreements have been sent out with a relatively short deadline for return before Christmas. The procurement of the PLR contractor from the EA framework is underway, and should be awarded mid-December with the view to install in the New Year. The legal agreements are written and awaiting final approval before the householders are contacted to agree the details around installation.

Flood Investigation Reports All major historical flood investigations have been published on the NCC website. Over 600 verified reports of flooding are contained in the 38 published Flood Investigation Reports. 2014 with 191 verified reports and 2016 with 282 verified reports were particularly challenging to deliver. The rainfall event on the 6 of October 2019 caused internal flooding to over 70 properties, mostly in the east of the county. New joint working processes were put into practice using officers from both the EA and NCC to visit and verify the impacts of the flooding, speeding up the verification and allowing officers to start drafting the Flood Investigation Reports much earlier than in previous years.

41

Dereham Feasibility Study Our consultants, WSP, have modelled some of the options for the Dereham Feasibility Study. However, it has been identified that more work is required to model and understand the Anglian Water system. NCC are waiting for the modelling outputs to share with partners and discuss options. Wider engagement with the community will follow.

42

Suffolk

3.1 The map below shows the projects in Suffolk County

Contact details

Email address Kate Lindsay – PSO Team Leader Norfolk & Suffolk

kate.lindsay@environment-agency.gov.uk

William Todd – Senior Advisor Norfolk & Suffolk

william.todd@environment-agency.gov.uk

David Kemp – PSO Coastal Team Leader david.kemp@environment-agency.gov.uk Gary Watson – Coastal Engineer gary.watson@environment-agency.gov.uk James Fullam – IDB project advisor james.fullam@environment-agency.gov.uk Suffolk County Council floods@suffolk.gov.uk Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Council coastalmanagement@eastsuffolk.org Rosie Ryan – Suffolk LLFA Advisor rosie.ryan@environment-agency.gov.uk

43

3.2 Projects or activities of note

Defra Catchment Scale Natural Flood Management (NFM) project The heavy rainfall experienced in October and November has shown the Natural Flood Management (NFM) interventions we installed as part of the Defra NFM Catchment Scale NFM project are working as designed. We have extensive monitoring in place to capture evidence on performance, which will be used to help us ascertain the flood risk and wider environmental benefits the interventions may have. A crucial part of the monitoring is the time lapse photography and hydrometric data which will help us understand how the interventions respond in times of higher flow. The data collected will be used to inform the hydraulic modelling planned for next year which will quantify the flood risk benefits, before reporting back to Defra in March 2021. At Debenham in Suffolk the attenuation feature was fully used during heavy rainfall in November. The water level was 80cm higher than the normal level, with the outfall (circled red in both pictures) restricting flows downstream and attenuating flow.

44

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

Flood Investigation Reports On 6 October 2019 a large storm event led to upwards of 50 residential properties flooding across the east of Suffolk. This was a combination of properties which are in high risk areas and had flooded previously, and properties which had not flooded before. Consequently, Suffolk County Council Flood and Water Management Team has carried out ten Section 19 flood investigation reports. These will evaluate the cause of the flood and will provide a common resource for residents and RMAs to draw upon so that future steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of the flooding happening again. These reports will be published on the Suffolk County Council website upon their completion. 

45

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

Contact details

Email address James Mason – PSO Team Leader Essex james.mason@environment-agency.gov.uk Mike Robinson – Senior Advisor Essex m.robinson@environment-agency.gov.uk David Kemp – PSO Coastal Team Leader david.kemp@environment-agency.gov.uk John Lindsay – Coastal Engineer john.lindsay@environment-agency.gov.ukDave Orrin –LLFA project advisor for Essex, Thurrock and Southend

david.orrin@environment-agency.gov.uk

Essex County Council floods@essex.gov.uk Neil Hoskins – Southend Borough Council NeilHoskins@southend.gov.uk Nav Tung – Thurrock Council NTung@thurrock.gov.uk

46

4.2 Projects or activities of note Coggeshall Feering and Kelvedon Flood Alleviation Scheme  The scheme is progressing and we are working towards applying for planning permission. However, there is significant local opposition to this scheme. There has been a series of evening meetings with councillors and site visits with landowners. We will submit the planning application for the scheme in the coming months. The EIA is progressing well. A risk to this scheme is the perception of it being linked with two other local issues regarding a waste site and a secondary gravel extraction field. This may increase opposition to the planning application. This project is economically viable and designed to alleviate flooding to three communities, Coggeshall, Feering and Kelvedon. These communities were flooded in October 2001. Heybridge Flood Alleviation Scheme We are currently awaiting an updated Technical Memorandum from our consultants Jacobs, which will include High Level Benefit and Cost analysis of four shortlisted options. We aim to take these to Outline and Full Business Case. The Technical Memorandum will complete work within the approved Financial Scheme of Delegation (FSoD) budget of £100k. At the Strategic Outline Case (SOC) stage in 2018, National Projects Assurance Service (NPAS) were concerned that options were likely to have low raw Partnership Funding scores and be heavily reliant on Partnership Funding. NPAS requested the Business Case be further developed and funding commitments from project partners secured to support both the appraisal costs/risks and to support Design and Construction of a preferred option. If there is no commitment from project partners/stakeholders to support delivery of a viable option, then the EA would look to develop any of the shortlisted options that were affordable from FDGiA and Local Levy sources alone.

47

If Partnership Funding investment is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future, the scheme will either be parked (if partners are keen to support, but over a longer investment timeframe), or any option that is affordable to the EA through FDGiA and Local Levy will be offered to the community (probably PLR is the only option that fits this budget). The Risks to all partners are reputational. Tilbury Dual Function Lock Gate Project TEAM2100 are progressing with the detailed design of the new lock gates. Due to the complex nature of the design, it is taking longer than anticipated to award the contract. We now expect the contract to be awarded in 2020 with gate installation starting early Summer 2021. Construction work will finish late Summer 2021 and the project will be complete by the end of 2021.  

Chelmsford Flood Alleviation Scheme

It has been over nine years since the original business case was approved for the Chelmsford Flood Alleviation scheme. The development of this project has been complicated by a number of legal challenges, including whether we have the legal powers to access private land. All of this has frustrated our progress to deliver a viable, affordable scheme that provides an appropriate standard of flood protection for Chelmsford. We successfully defended these challenges, but the legal action was lengthy. The original business case was produced in 2010, so we decided it would be appropriate to update it to ensure the preferred option is still relevant and affordable. The update is necessary because:

Costs have risen and the economics need updating; Partnership funding requirements will be different due to the updated economics; Climate change guidance has changed so the fluvial flood modelling needs

reviewing. Updating the business case will ensure that the preferred option, a storage reservoir, is still technically and economically feasible. This will safeguard against any future legal challenge.

48

The modelling is complicated because of issues with the compatibility of software and data gaps in the original model. New baseline data was also available and this meant calibrating changes across the three catchments. When combined with new climate change guidance and reality checking against known events, the modelling has taken longer than originally expected. The funding approval granted in 2010 is still valid. However, if the updated business case shows increasing costs, which is very likely, then we need to make sure we have sufficient approved funding. All of the costs, have been necessary and important to the overall contribution towards the scheme. In particular the following three pieces of work;

planning & detail design, the Chelmer Village works, the advanced works at Margaretting.

Once we understand the available options and funding requirements better we hope to be in a position progress a scheme which will protect Chelmsford from flooding.

49

4.3 Lead Local Flood Authorities’ and District Authorities’ Projects

Essex County Council – Pitsea Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme

Above: shows proposed bund locations

Above: shows bund general arrangement

We have taken on board the communities’ comments and concerns, following a public engagement event, This has resulted in the final preferred option now being adapted from three to two attenuation areas. This option reduces flood risk to 48 properties. The decision was taken to adjust the designs due to the significant and strong public interest. The planning application was submitted in October and a decision is expected before Christmas. Contractors have been appointed and works are anticipated to start on site in early February. We are currently drafting an Outline Business Case (OBC) to submit to the Environment Agency for FDGiA funding towards the capital costs of the scheme.

Essex County Council – Wivenhoe ‘Slow the Flow’ Natural Flood Management Project We are working closely with The Environment Agency and Tarmac to deliver a Natural Flood Management (NFM) scheme within the Tarmac Quarry site in Wivenhoe. We aim to create 4 leaky dams which will attenuate flows within the existing woodland, create wetland habitat and enhance biodiversity in the area. These upstream works will complement the potential enlargement of a culverted section of the main river Wivenhoe Town Drain further downstream. The scheme is designed to protect 17 properties from flood risk. Conversations are ongoing between Essex County Council and the landowners Tarmac about the use of their land and ongoing maintenance responsibilities.

Above: Proposed leaky dam locations 50

Southend Borough Council- Initial Assessments (IAs) Southend Borough Council is currently progressing five Initial Assessments for each of the Critical Drainage Areas (CDA) in the borough (Prittle Brook, Temple Sutton, Shoebury, Southchurch and Chalkwell) through AECOM. We have worked with the consultants to review flood risk data and provide a short list of potential schemes for four of the five CDA mentioned above. Many of the options are not cost beneficial but will be progressed on three fronts:

i) progress with other beneficiaries, primarily Anglian Water, who may experience greater benefits from the schemes.

ii) re-evaluate IAs once guidelines for the new PF Calculator has been released. iii) Technical notes will be formed where there are no viable schemes.

Jacobs carried out an IA on the remaining CDA (Eastwood) earlier this year on behalf of the Environment Agency. The IA showed traditional approaches were not cost beneficial. Discussions are currently underway to explore an Integrated Urban Drainage model to address the worst of the flooding, including cross boundary flooding.

5. Recommendation 5.1 The Committee is asked to:

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

programme. C. Share this information and promote our work in the Anglian Eastern RFCC area.

Peta Denham FCERM Manager Mark Johnson Coastal Manager

51

BLANK PAGE

52

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Information Item No: 2

Report No: INF 20/02

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

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

Date: 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

1. Purpose of the report and introduction

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

Revenue and Capital programmes. The paper will focus on Revenue and Capital funded activities completed in each county.

1.2 This quarter (Q3), from October to December, we have focussed on the following

work: Essex

1.3 Projects completed in Q3 included reservoir embankment deformation surveys, public safety improvements at major assets and seawall embankment repairs. Hand-brushing has been the most frequent maintenance activity in recent months, with over 100km of watercourses manually cleared of vegetation where machine access is not possible.

1.4 Between midday on the 26 November and the afternoon of the 29 November we staffed and operated our tidal barriers at Wivenhoe and in the Thames Estuary on seven successive tides. Each operation of these barriers reduces flood risk to thousands of properties upstream. Unlike other parts of England we have not seen substantial fluvial flooding during this period but our staff have been involved in assisting the worst affected areas.

1.5 Throughout Q3 our field teams continued their operational checks, routine maintenance and

asset inspections, in addition to their work on projects and their incident response roles.

1.6 Our technical Asset Performance teams have been working on projects for delivery, gaining the necessary permissions and designing solutions to keep our assets in the required condition.

1.7 Over Q3 we completed tidal embankment grass cuts and in-channel clearance using

machines. In early November we commenced in-channel clearance by hand.

1.8 We have completed the replacement of 11 outfall flaps along Burnham on Sea town front. The initial work was carried out in June, however there were some snagging issues which were completed in October.

53

1.9 We have started to investigate the use Natural Flood Management methods in conjunction with other internal teams. We have also had positive conversations with one landowner regarding a potential scheme. Norfolk

1.10 This quarter we have focussed on cut and clear works to remove encroachments and tree debris from river channels. This usually takes place in the autumn and winter periods so that nesting birds are not disturbed by any tree works.

1.11 We have continued to address urgent Public Safety Risk Assessment repairs across the area, including localised damage identified on the flood walls in Great Yarmouth.

1.12 We have completed a project at Burnham Deepdale, repairing our flood defence bank crest

with carrstone and improving access. 1.13 When high tides were forecast in early October our Field Team deployed the Wells sliding

flood gate twice, protecting local properties from potential flooding. Suffolk

1.14 During Q3 we have focussed on completing many of our planned watercourse channel clearances throughout Suffolk ready for the winter period. We have now completed our grass cutting works across until the New Year. We will continue to cut grass at our reservoirs every other month when weather conditions allow.

1.15 The River Gipping weed cut programmed for October was cancelled due to low water levels. We will return to this during the next few months with the aim of completing the work when water levels are sufficient.

1.16 We have continued to assess and address any public safety issues at our assets. Any improvements or repairs are always progressed as a matter of priority.

1.17 In the last week of November, our field teams responded to surface water flooding across Suffolk. In Laxfield, our North Suffolk field team deployed booms to protect 5 properties from flooding.

1.18 Next quarter (Q4), from January to March, we will be focussing on the following

work: Essex

1.19 We will complete a programme of hand-brushing in key urban watercourses. This will take place alongside our routine inspection and operation of sluices, pumping stations and penstocks.

1.20 Our technical Asset Performance teams will focus on preparing projects for delivery in 2020-21. This is because of the relatively long preparation time needed to get works underway in our sensitive tidal environments.

1.21 Other projects due to start in Q4 include: Replacement of outfall flap at Church Creek dam in South Benfleet, Thameside sluice flap replacements, Abbots Hall western counterwall to Virley Hall sluice embankment repairs, Bridgemarsh Creek embankment, Jaywick sand maintenance, Canvey Island tidal defence patch repairs, Parkeston Pumping Station emergency pumping arrangements exercise.

54

Norfolk 1.22 During Q4 we will complete our ‘Cut and Clear’ maintenance works programme and

remaining tree works. We will also carry out project work at Cley next the Sea to install a boardwalk to improve access and make it safer for our teams to inspect and maintain the Cley floodwall.

1.23 In March 2020 we will start our programme of grass cutting on the North Norfolk banks and CCTV surveys to check the condition of culverts. Suffolk

1.24 In Q4 we will complete the remainder of our planned watercourse channel clearances and important operational checks. These checks ensure we can be confident that our assets will operate successfully.

1.25 We plan to complete several grass cuts of our flood embankments in the Deben catchment in March. We will also be completing our planning and assessing delivery options for maintenance schemes due to start in 20/21.

1.26 We will start 4 projects in Q4:

CCTV Culvert inspection and clearance works, Peasenhall Channel repairs, Ground investigation at Shottisham, Earsham sluice void repair works.

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

Graham Brown – graham.brown@environment-agency.gov.uk

Blackwater Asset Performance Andrew Calcutt – andrew.calcutt@environment-agency.gov.uk

Thameside Asset Performance Thomas Peck – thomas.peck@environment-agency.gov.uk

Norfolk Asset Performance Rachael Storr - rachael.storr@environment-agency.gov.uk

Suffolk Asset Performance David White - David.C.White@environment-agency.gov.uk

Broadland Asset Performance Louise Taylor - Louise.Taylor@environment-agency.gov.uk

55

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

here this quarter (Q3):

Catchment Leads Name Catchment Contact Details

Kerry Bentley Stour (Tidal) Kerry.Bentley@environment-agency.gov.uk

Gbemi Akin-Oriola Stour (Fluvial) Gbemi.Akin-Oriola@environment-agency.gov.uk

Natasha King Colne Natasha.King@environment-agency.gov.uk

Laurence Ralph Blackwater Laurence.Ralph@environment-agency.gov.uk

Tim Butt Thameside Tim.Butt@environment-agency.gov.uk

56

2.2 Projects or activities of note

Replacement of 11 tidal outfall flaps at Burnham-on-Crouch

These will prevent tidal ingress through the defences via drainage outlets and greatly reduce the maintenance requirements relative to the older design of flaps they replace. Before After

Inverter drives for World’s End Pumping Station

Installation of new inverter drives at the World’s End pumping station in Tilbury. These new drives have significantly improved the reliability of the pumps which now need fewer visits from our mechanical and electrical installations specialists.

Before After

57

Replacement outfall cover for St Anne’s Pumping Station

The outfall covers and support beams for St Anne’s pumping station on Canvey Island required replacement due to corrosion. The covers are necessary to prevent public access to the outfall. Support beams GRP covers

58

2.3 Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA), Internal Drainage Board (IDB) and District Authorities Projects

Essex County Council

Thorndon Country Park ‘Slow the Flow’ Natural Flood Management (NFM) Project

We have recently completed a NFM scheme at Thorndon Country Park South. This inventive scheme features a series of 10 leaky, woody dams which have been installed to attenuate water within the woodland. The dams will reduce the risk of flooding for up to 40 properties downstream in West Horndon, as well as creating wetland areas to enhance woodland biodiversity. The site is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with areas of listed parkland. In order to work sensitively in these areas, heavy horses were used to drag the wood into place, and only hand tools were used in the construction. Flow and turbidity monitors were installed at the site 6 months before the construction of the dams so that pre and post installation data can be reviewed to fully understand the benefits of the dams. The scheme received good press coverage, appearing on Look East, Horse and Hound magazine and in local newspapers. £50k of Local Levy was contributed towards the capital costs of this scheme.

A newly installed leaky, woody dam ‘Roy’, one of the heavy Horses in action

59

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

completed here this quarter (Q3).

Catchment Leads

Name Catchment Contact Details

Hannah Borrett North Norfolk Coast hannah.borrett@environment-agency.gov.uk

Mark Frary Happisburgh to Winterton & Great Yarmouth mark.frary@environment-agency.gov.uk

Ben Rushmer Wensum & Bure ben.rushmer@environment-agency.gov.uk

Rich Caplin Yare, Mun and Dilham Canal Rich.Caplin@environment-agency.gov.uk

60

3.2 Projects or activities of note

Great Yarmouth Flood Defence Project The second phase of the Great Yarmouth Flood Defence project primarily features a major refurbishment of the sheet piled quay walls. We will also be constructing a number of new retired set back walls. In total 4 km of flood defences, divided up across a number of different locations through the town, will be improved. Works have commenced in three locations around the town with a further two sites beginning early in the New Year. A special opening event is taking place on the 10 January to thank our partners for their support and celebrate the start of work. Additional information can be found on www.greatyarmouthflooddefence.co.uk

135-ton crawler crane on jack up barge (left), upper plating reinforcement in place (middle) prior to welding upper plating (right) at Silverton’s Yard.

Costessey (River Wensum) Cut and Clear Channel works

Before After

61

Early September High tides – Wells Floodgate

Our teams attended and deployed Wells Floodgate, reacting to forecast high tides at the end of September. The deployed flood gate can be seen behind the road closure signs

Burnham Deepdale – Flood bank defence carrstone crest repair

62

4. Suffolk

4.1 The map below shows the catchments contained in Suffolk County and the works completed here this quarter (Q3).

Catchment Leads

Name Catchment Contact Details

Emmett Klipalo Gipping Emmett.Klipalo@environment-agency.gov.uk

Matt Pepper Deben Matthew.Pepper @environment-agency.gov.uk

Stephen Quinn Alde & Ore Stephen.Quinn@environment-agency.gov.uk Chris Hanson / Vikki Alvarez Blyth Chris.Hanson@environment-agency.gov.uk

Louise Brown Waveney Louise.brown@environment-agency.gov.uk

Tom Mann Suffolk County Floods@suffolk.gov.uk

63

4.2 Projects or activities of note

Tideflex installation at Spring Farm South Sluice

Two cast iron flaps were replaced with Tideflex valves at Spring Farm South, as the original flaps were at the end of their operational life. The new Tideflex valves are expected to operate more efficiently at this location, which is subject to siltation. This work was completed by ECS Engineering Ltd, our MEICA team’s framework contractor.

Before: Cast iron flaps surrounded by silt After: Tideflex valves installed and silt levels reducing

Refurbished Benacre Pump No1 installed

Following an engineering inspection Benacre Pump No 1 was removed, refurbished and returned to the pumping station. Our MEICA Field Team then installed the pump and we are now making a series of test runs.

Our MEICA Field Team installing the pump

64

Scour Protection at Gipping Flood Storage Reservoir

Our framework contractor, Breheny Civil Engineering Ltd, is currently on site undertaking scour protection works. These works were planned for completion by mid-December 2019.

Sheet piles being inserted in front of scour areas

65

4.3 Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA), Internal Drainage Board (IDB) and District Authorities Projects

Lowestoft Flood Risk Management Project – Fluvial and Pluvial works

The start of works to fit Property Level Resilience measures to 63 properties in Lowestoft is imminent, and further properties are currently being surveyed. We continue to communicate the offer of support to homes that have been identified as being at risk. Maintenance work on the Kirkley Stream continues, carried out by the East Suffolk IDB on behalf of Suffolk County Council and in partnership with Anglian Water. The objective of the annual vegetation clearance is to ensure the current drainage system functions effectively, and the risk of blockages during storm event is minimised. The planned (fluvial) flood wall and associated pumping infrastructure to protect homes on Velda Close and Aldwyk Way is undergoing the final detailed design. Planning clarification work is due to start early in 2020.

5. Recommendation 5.1 The Committee is asked to:

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

Graham Verrier Norfolk and Suffolk Operations Manager

Dave Knagg Essex Operations Manager

66

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Information Item No: 3

Report No: INF 20/03

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

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

Date: 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

programme. C. Share this information, complete the action items and promote the work we are

doing in the Thames Estuary within Anglian Eastern RFCC area.

1. Purpose of the report and introduction 1.1 This paper provides a progress report on the delivery of the Thames Estuary (TE) 2100

Plan in the Anglian Eastern RFCC area. It also provides an update for projects within the Thames Estuary Asset Management (TEAM) 2100 Programme line of the consented programme which are at the business case development stage and the delivery stage.

1.2 This is also an update for the Committee Members to make them aware of any new or emerging investment requirements.

1.3 In Q3 of 2019 we began to meet with partners to identify single contacts responsible for

objectives and to further strengthen working relationships. We also began to influence the draft Local Plan for Castle Point Borough Council. We seek the support and advocacy of TE2100 Plan aspirations as well as progressing detailed design for replacement and refurbishment of existing flood and coastal risk management assets. In Q4 we will:

Support councils in the Anglian Eastern area with TE2100 plan implementation objectives to increase awareness, understanding and ensure delivery;

Begin the work to review and update the economic case behind the TE2100 Plan as part of its 10-Year review.

1.4 In Q4 the TEAM2100 programme will:

Progress the high level outline design for the replacement revetment along the Canvey Island Southern Shoreline and the reference design for a new pumping station and sluice at Worlds End Tilbury;

Progress with appraisal work at Tilbury Cruise Terminal; Inspect critical components of the existing Tilbury barrier.

67

Contacts

Work Theme Contact Thames Estuary 2100 Plan Delivery Catherine Robaldo – catherine.robaldo@environment-agency.gov.uk

TEAM2100 Asset Performance Tom Wallace - thomas.wallace@environment-agency.gov.uk

TEAM2100 Funding & Engagement Philip Spearman - phillip.spearman@environment-agency.gov.uk

2. Thames Estuary 2100 Plan Delivery

2.1 Strategic work with partners

Implementation Plan

The Implementation Plan sub-divides the TE 2100 Plan into annual objectives which clarify the actions needed to deliver the Plan's recommendations. We are starting to review the objectives for 2020/21.This includes an assessment of feedback obtained this year on the current objectives, and whether any new actions will be required over the next year to ensure continued delivery of the Plan. As with the previous two years, we will arrange a focus group of councils to feedback on the proposed objectives. This ensures councils are involved in shaping the objectives. We will host this focus group towards the end of January 2020, and we will be reviewing membership of the group. We would welcome any tidal council or Local Lead Flood Authority who wish to participate. We cannot deliver the TE 2100 Plan without our partners and we are committed to improving understanding within councils of their role in delivery. We will communicate the outcome of the reviews to all local authorities by the end of April.

The riverside strategy approach

The riverside strategy approach was introduced in the TE 2100 Plan as a means of ensuring that the future improvements to the tidal flood defences take place in a planned and integrated way. We envisage those involved in shaping the future of the riverside creating visions or strategies for the tidal frontage which outline how raising the flood defences can be incorporated into the wider riverside environment. We are pleased to report that the City of London Corporation were recently successful in securing a funding bid from the Thames RFCC Programme Sub-Committee to help them develop and implement

68

a riverside strategy for their stretch of the Thames. This will allow learning from the process to be shared with other councils around the estuary. The City of London anticipate having a full strategy adopted by the end of 2020. Throughout November 2019, we met with a number of London boroughs, alongside the Greater London Authority, to discuss opportunities to implement the approach in their areas. These meetings have been positive and insightful. However, during these discussions we also talked about;

The challenges associated with accessing necessary funding to carry out strategy work;

The need for clarity around future funding mechanisms for the strategy recommended defence upgrades;

How to secure the extra resources and necessary expertise for both components.

It is clear that there no single approach to delivering the riverside strategy across all boroughs. Different geographical areas need different solutions depending on the levels of planned development along the river, current planning policy framework, and the type of tidal defences. We will continue discussions with these boroughs, and share this learning across the estuary next year. If you would like to read our riverside strategy approach guidance note, which sets out our aspirations and the risks of not planning now for the future, please contact thamesestuary2100@environment-agency.gov.uk.

2020 Review

The 10-Year Review of the TE 2100 Plan is the first full review and update of the Plan since it was published in 2012. The review has 3 phases. The first is the monitoring review, where we look at 10 indicators to see how the estuary has changed over the past 10 years. These indicators include rate of sea level rise, flood defence condition, perceptions of flood risk and climate change. We hope to be able to publish some outputs from the monitoring review towards the end of 2020. We are currently confirming the scope and appointing consultants to deliver the second phase, where we will review and update the economic case behind the TE 2100 Plan to ensure it is still fit for purpose.

69

Following the first 2 phases, phase 3 will take the updated monitoring and economic data to produce an updated version of the TE 2100 Plan.   A key objective for the review is to produce an updated TE2100 Plan which is co-owned and collaboratively developed. We are therefore inviting partners to be involved throughout the review, from officer level to senior leadership. We are setting up an external Advisory Group to steer the governance of the Plan and provide advice on key decisions. We already work with partners on individual work streams and plan to run some stakeholder workshops in the new year to gather some early ideas on what our partners want from an updated TE 2100 Plan.

Influencing spatial planning

Local Plans

We expect to be consulted on the Castle Point Local Plan in December 2019 and the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan in February 2020. The aspirations of the TE2100 plan will be promoted in our responses, with a view to getting them included as policies in both authorities’ plans.

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

Tilbury Cruise Terminal Work continues on the appraisal stage of this project and should be ready for submission to the TEAM2100 Programme Delivery Board (PDB) in the first half of 2020/21. As the Cruise Terminal buildings are Grade II* listed structures we continue to engage with the Port of Tilbury and Historic England to agree the design of the new defences. These will replace the current defences located on the inside of the Cruise Terminal buildings. The new defence alignment will incorporate the cruise terminal boundary so the design will comply with port security requirements.

70

World’s End Pumping Station

The TEAM 2100 ODB has now approved the business case to design and build the replacement pumping station. The design activities will now progress through the remainder of this financial year, with a reference design to be produced by mid-2020. We currently aim to be on site in the second half of 2021/22. As part of the design process we will work with stakeholders including Thurrock Council, Anglian Water, the Worlds End Public House, Historic England and English Heritage.

Tilbury Fort to former Power Station

The structural analysis of the sheet piled and concrete walls along this frontage has revealed that the existing defences can be refurbished up to the year 2040 rather than a complete replacement now. Work will continue over the coming months to help us understand the interventions required to increase the residual life of the current defences. The sheet piled walls along the Tilbury Fort frontage will require intervention as a priority. Once we understand the level of refurbishment works required we will speak to Historic England, English Hertiage, Thurrock Council and other stakeholder.

Canvey Island Southern Shoreline

The TEAM2100 Programme Delivery Board has approved the business case to replace the revetment along the 3.2km amenity frontage between Thorney Bay and Island Yacht Club on Canvey’s southern shoreline. This allows the project to proceed. In November we met the Castle Point Regeneration Partnership to give an update on the progress of the business case. We also informed them that we had selected open stone asphalt as a preferred solution for the frontage. We continue to engage with Castle Point Borough Council and a select working group of the Canvey Island Regeneration Partnership. We are sensitive to peak holiday trading hours and the environmentally sensitive locations along the frontage. Once we have agreed key principles with this working group we plan wider public consultation well in advance of any construction works. We currently anticipate to be on-site in 2022/23.

71

Tilbury Barrier Maintenance

Works to inspect the spare hydraulic motors and barrier rollers at Tilbury barrier are scheduled to start in January 2020. This work will ensure the continued reliability of the existing barrier until the new Tilbury Dual Function Lock Gate project is complete.

3.2 Programme Funding & Partnership Working

We are looking to work in partnership with beneficiaries throughout the Thames Estuary, exploring potential contribution options to deliver the TEAM2100 programme. The following updates relate to the key beneficiaries we met in Q3 of 2019/20 from the Anglian Eastern RFCC area.

Network Rail

We remain committed to a follow-up meeting with Network Rail to specifically discuss flood risk in the Thames estuary. We took the opportunity to review and comment upon the final draft revision of Network Rail’s Weather Resilience & Climate Change Adaptation (WRCCA) Plan for the Anglia Route. This – includes the Thameside line from Shoeburyness to London Fenchurch Street. The key comments we made to Network Rail are:

A recommendation to update the document to use the latest climate change projections (UKCIP18) when considering risk to rail infrastructure;

Willingness of our local area staff to share current and future flood risk data from our tidal and fluvial flood models to help refine current and future risk to rail infrastructure;

Availability of our strategic flood risk planning activities to help identify common activities, such as flood risk management schemes or maintenance activities, which can help manage this risk and reduce wherever feasible.

By reviewing and commenting on the flood risks identified and captured in the WRCCA Plan we begin to influence Network Rail’s approach to funding resilience measures for their assets, leading towards partnership working opportunities in the longer-term.

72

Port of Tilbury

We are working with the Port of Tilbury to agree the intent to provide the permanent freehold footprint (3,000sqm) for the Worlds End pumping station to the Environment Agency at no cost. We are also seeking a similar arrangement for the necessary temporary site compound and materials storage area (5,600sqm) adjacent to the Worlds End site. Following a verbal agreement with Port representatives in May 2018, we have shared a non-legally binding “Statement of Intent” letter with the Port outlining this proposal.

Anglian Water Services Ltd We have received a letter of intent from Anglian Water’s Partnership Funding lead to support our TEAM2100 business case submissions. We are keen to meet with them to assess the benefits to their organisation from each individual project. We are aware of pressing business-wide matters Anglian Water face regarding a partnership funding approach within their AMP7 submission to OFWAT. We will wait until these are resolved before actively pursuing further discussions surrounding Thames estuary-specific works

Local Councils

A series of meetings have been held with various representatives from Castle Point Borough Council and Thurrock Council to discuss further details of TEAM2100 planned works in their areas. Conversations have covered possible contribution in-kind aspects of council services, such as access to land access and sharing expertise from their planning department.

4. Recommendation 4.1 The Committee is asked to:

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

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

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

RFCC area.

Peta Denham FCERM Manager

Mark Johnson Coastal Manager

Dave Knagg Operations Manager

73

BLANK PAGE

74

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – ESSEX NORFOLK SUFFOLK AREA

Information Item No: 4

Report No: INF 20/04

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

Subject: ENGAGEMENT UPDATE

Date 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

Tina Starling (Area FCERM Engagement Advisor)

RECOMMENDATION

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

agency partners across Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk B. Note and support our community engagement work to improve community

resilience

1. Purpose of the report and introduction

1.1 This paper is to make the Committee aware of the engagement work being delivered by FCERM. This work supports the building of relationships within our communities and with partner organisations to improve awareness and resilience of flooding in communities at risk. This work is also a core part of the national strategy in ‘Creating a Nation of Climate Champions’.

2. Engagement

Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk (ENS) FCERM Engagement Network During the summer we created an ENS FCERM Engagement Network. This new network enables a joined up and active approach to community engagement across Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. All the FCERM teams are represented on the group as well as teams that work closely with FCERM. The aim is to ensure that engagement with communities, organisations, businesses and partners continues to be a core activity for the EA and is part of everyone’s job. Working together in this way will be central to the success of FCRM. The network reports to the Finance Investment Strategy board every two months.

75

Engagement with young people Creating a nation of climate champions is a key strategic aim for the EA and we continue to work hard in engaging with children and young people. In the last six months we delivered a number of sessions: New Cangle Primary School, Haverhill –

training year 5 pupils about their local flood alleviation reservoir

Aylsham Primary School – whole school training around flooding and climate change

STEM Girl Guides event at AVIVA in Norwich

Crucial Crew – trained over 800 children as part of this annual year 6 safety awareness event in the Great Yarmouth area

Tendring Show – we focused our efforts in delivering sessions and activities for young people for the 2019 show

This work will continue in 2020.

Community Engagement

During the past six months we have continued priority working with our high risk communities to complete the following:

Rest centre training day with Gt Yarmouth BC – delivered a flood awareness session to volunteers who man GYBC rest centres.

Tides of Tendring – working with a number of partners including the Heritage Lottery, a strobe light illuminated the night skies above Tendring. The light was projected from Jaywick Sands Martello Tower and Golf Green Hall to show the current flood plain and the distance the water travelled during the flooding in 1953. The purpose of the project was to spread awareness of flood safety and celebrate the Tides of Tendring exhibition.

Tides of Tendring community fun day for children at the Jaywick Sands Martello Tower.

Gorleston public drop-in - updating on local schemes.

Coggeshall and Kelvedon drop-in – updating people on the local scheme.

West Mersea – working with ECC to support the delivery and handover of temporary flood defences to the community.

Dedham – supporting the community to become more resilient following the flooding in 2016.

76

3. Training

Collaborative learning project – Hemsby and Winterton The national Flood Resilience Engagement Advisor group is supporting the collaborative learning project - working together to adapt to a changing climate: flood and coast for Hemsby and Winterton. Consultants Icarus are leading this on behalf of Coastal Partnership East. Initial work is being undertaken with community for this initiative project.

Community Information Officers Engagement training for CIOs has continued over the last 6 months. October was the first opportunity for the CIOs to work with Norfolk County Council when surface water flooding took place. The CIOs supporting the council by collecting data and engaging with the members of the public affected by flooding.

4. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 The Committee is asked to:

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

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

Tina Starling (Area FCERM Engagement Advisor)

77

BLANK PAGE

78

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ANGLIAN REGION

Information Item No: 5

Report No: INF 20/05

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

Subject: FCERM Programme Update 2019/20 Quarter 3 – Current in-year position

Date: 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

Aaron Dixey, FCRM Programme Senior Team Leader

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee are asked to note:

A. The Quarter 3 2019/20 capital and revenue programming and budget position B. The RFCC contribution to the overall national targets and programme performance to

date

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

at each meeting RFCCs will:

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

the outcomes Consider requests made for local funding

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

and capital and revenue programme position for financial year 2019/20. It contains the information presented to the Environment Agency East Anglia Area, Delivery Portfolio Board on 26 November 2019.

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

that is included in the members handbook. 2. Summary of 2019/20 (19 September 2019– 19 November 2019)

Element Report Section Current Position Mitigation

Level of Concern (LMH)

Grant-in-Aid Position

3 The current GiA capital forecast (all RMAs) is £36.8m, against a budget allocation of £36.2m. GiA revenue forecast is £300k below affordable budget

N/A Opportunities for increased revenue maintenance spend are being explored.

Local Funding Position

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

N/A

Changes to project forecasts

5 Forecast of GiA remains the same as the September forecast.

N/A

L

L

L

79

Efficiency Savings

6(a) Accepted claims during Q1 and Q2 this year total £542k against an in-year target of £3.62m i.e. 10% of the GiA capital allocation. Claims submitted during Q3 are not yet processed.

All RMAs need to remember to submit efficiency claims.

Financial Risk

6(b) There is approximately £0.8m risk

of overspend in the programme if risks (e.g bad weather) materialise.

N/A - This is not unusual and we expect risk forecasts to reduce as the year progresses.

 

New projects 7 There has been one brand new project with approval to spend since the start of year.

N/A

Partnership contributions

8 The non GiA contributions to the 2019/20 capital programme, including Local Levy, is currently forecast as £27.3m. The largest non GiA spend is for Bacton Gas Terminal to Ostend Coastal Management Scheme.

N/A

Outcome Measures

9 The outcome measure forecast for 2019/20 is 1822 (OM2 + 3), which is 562 higher than the start of year target of 1260.

We continue to review projects to ensure that every outcome that can be claimed, is being claimed.

KPI 962 (% of assets at required condition)

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

We have recently started to see large numbers of assets failing on their routine re-inspections and as a result the pass rate for this KPI is likely to fall towards the end of the year.

3. Grant-in-Aid Position 3.1 In Anglian Eastern RFCC the capital GiA budget across all RMAs is £36.2m. The

forecast captured on 19 November 2019 shows an increase of £0.6m. 3.2 The largest component of the GiA capital budget is for EA projects. For EA GiA the

current budget is £28.2m against which the latest EA forecast spend is £28.6m i.e. £0.4m above the start of year allocation.

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

for revenue maintenance activities is £8.4m - see figure 3.1.

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

M

L

L

L

L

M

80

Figure 3.1: 2019/20 Environment Agency expenditure position

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

below in Figure 3.2.

3.5 The IDB Capital programme is forecasting £0.65m which is £0.8m below the start of year budget. The LA Capital programme is forecasting £7.5m which is £1m greater than the start of year budget.

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

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

2018/19 plus the income for 2019/20, which together gave a budget of £8.7m. 4.2 The RFCC has agreed to retain flexibility around the use of Local Levy for revenue

maintenance activities and set aside £375k per year for use on unforeseen in year expenditure if needed, including on revenue maintenance. No Local Levy is expected to be needed for revenue maintenance during financial year 2019/20.

4.3 Forecast for Local Levy expenditure in 2019/20 is £3.3m of capital expenditure - this

is a reduction in forecast of £3.7m since the start of year. The remaining Local Levy balance is earmarked for projects in accordance with the list approved by the

81

Committee in January 2019. Note: an updated list is expected to be agreed in January 2020.

4.4 GDC and IDB budgets are forecast to be fully used during 2019/20. 5. Changes to project forecasts 5.1 Project forecasts vary throughout the year as opportunities and risks materialise. The

table below lists the largest project variances since last reported to the committee. Please note these are total values across all funding sources.

Figure 5.1: Key Project variances since 19 September 2019

6. Efficiencies and Risks 6.1 Efficiency claims submitted during Quarter 3 have not yet been processed. Accepted

claims during Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 this year total £542k against an in-year target of £3.62m i.e. 10% of the GiA capital allocation.

6.2 A project risk can be defined as an event which could negatively impact upon the scheme’s delivery. Some risks have the potential to affect the benefits of the scheme; whereas others can impact upon spend. Risk in the programme is managed throughout the year and, where realised, reported each quarter as significant change to project forecast (known as a programme variance) – see section 5.

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

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

6.4 The current forecast for financial risk (19 November) is for around £0.8m overspend,

should the risks materialise. 7. Additional Projects within the Programme and other expenditure opportunities 7.1 There has been one brand new project with approval to spend this financial year.

8. Partnership funding

8.1 One of the 6 year capital programme settlement conditions was to secure more than 15% of partnership funding contributions between 2015 and 2021. The non GiA contributions forecast for projects during 2019/20 are listed in figure 8.1.

82

Figure 8.1: Partnership contributions forecast for spend on projects during 2019/20

83

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

programming and financial management’ is included in the members handbook. Outcomes are used to highlight the benefits achieved by carrying out Capital projects. Nationally, the commitment to government is that we reduce flood risk (OM2), or risk from coastal erosion (OM3), to 300,000 households between April 2015 and 2021. This Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) period is the key target for all Risk Management Authorities and - to provide confidence in achieving this target - figures are split down into individual years and RFCCs.

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

Current forecast is for achievement of 1822 OM 2+3, which is 562 greater than our start of year position of 1260.

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

10. Asset Condition Performance 10.1 The Revenue Maintenance programme helps to prevent assets from falling below

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

10.2 The forecast for KPI 962 is currently 98.2% against a target of 98.2% (of assets

passing their visual inspections). However, we have recently started to see a large number of assets failing on their routine re-inspections; this means that the pass rate for this KPI is likely to fall towards the end of the year.

10.3 During the summer months an increased number of failures was due to longitudinal

cracking along the crest of the seawalls as a result of the unusually dry weather we were experiencing.

84

10.4 More recently, additional failures are occurring because of corrections made to the ‘weighting’ of asset elements. Every asset is given a condition grade for each element of its structure, and those elements are given a relative importance by a weightings process. Changes to this calculation process can result in an asset being recorded as a failure.

11. Recommendations 11.1 The Committee are asked to note:

The Q3 2019/20 capital and revenue programming and budget position; and The RFCC contribution to the overall national targets and programme

performance to date.

Aaron Dixey FCRM Programme Senior Team Leader

85

BLANK PAGE

86

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – EAST ANGLIA AREA

Information Item No: 6

Report No: INF 20/06

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

Subject: FLOOD AND COASTAL EROSION RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE, DECEMBER 2019

Date 17 January 2020 Officer Responsible:

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

and Updates.

1. Incident management

November Flooding

1.1 Large parts of central and eastern England had twice the normal level of rainfall in October, with central parts of England receiving a month’s worth of rainfall in the early part of November. The 7 November is the seventh wettest day on record in Sheffield (63.8mm of rain). The highest ever river levels were recorded on the Don at Doncaster and Derwent in Derby, exceeding 2007 flood levels in places. The peak at Evesham is the fifth highest in the 82 year record.

1.2 The most significant flooding impacts was seen along the River Don in South Yorkshire. The main areas that flooded in South Yorkshire were Fishlake and Bentley and Worksop in Nottinghamshire. Seven Severe Flood Warnings (covering some 400 properties) were in force to communicate ‘risk to life’ along the River Don near Doncaster. Around 22,000 properties and businesses have been protected by flood defences across the impacted areas and approximately 1,000 properties have flooded during the event, mostly in South Yorkshire.

1.3 Catchments across much of England are absolutely saturated and are very sensitive to rainfall and will mean flood risk is higher and it will take a lot less rain than it ordinarily would at this point in the year to result in flood warnings. The future of flood warning? Cell Broadcast Trials

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

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

1.6 The first of these trials will take place in Hull, in partnership with Fujitsu, EE and the University of Hull, on the 26 November 2019. Depending on the findings of the initial trial, a public trial is planned for 2020 in Hull city centre on the EE 4G network, with further trials on other mobile networks likely in 2020.

87

1.7 To help us understand how a cell broadcast would be received and what action someone might take, we’d like to invite Chairs and Committee members to respond to our pre-trial questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdB_2Bj1uBBCqPr4EtdVPJqe7S9MzE249yiqIwvGejxmLZNsA/viewform

1.8 If you are interested in this initiative, please email us on mobile-alerting@environment-

agency.gov.uk. You can also follow us on twitter on @FloodDigitalEA.

Flood Risk Mapping and our ‘knowledge services’ 1.9 We have two flood mapping services:

i. Long Term Flood Risk Information (LTFRI) provides the public with flood risk information for locations in England https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/. It includes risk from rivers, the sea, surface water reservoirs and groundwater and is our primary channel for communicating flood risk from all sources. It has 400,000 users completing one million visits a year. We are currently improving the way that local surface water risk is communicated so that it is better presented and more easily understood.

ii. Flood Map for Planning is a service for developers, and their consultants, to check the flood risk of potential development sites https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/. With 420,000 users completing 800,000 visits a year, we are currently working to improve this service by automating the provision of all data required for a flood risk assessment.

1.10 This will provide information to customers faster, without compromising quality and

significantly reduce demands on staff time.

Flood Warnings and our ‘Live services’ 1.11 The Flood Information Service https://flood-warning-

information.service.gov.uk/warnings is the home of our flood warning pages online as well as information on river and sea levels and the five day forecast. We have recently added 30 more flood forecast sites to our river levels online pages.

1.12 In addition to continuing the great partnership work with

Google to share our flood warnings through Google public alerts (reported in the Sept RFCC stakeholder update), further important work has been ongoing to develop our cell broadcasting capability (see above).

2. Planning for the future

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy

2.1 Following the public consultation on the draft FCERM Strategy, we are in the process of finalising the strategy taking on board the extensive stakeholder feedback we received.

88

We received over 400 consultation responses and there has been significant support for three ambitions of the draft Strategy: climate resilient places; today’s growth and infrastructure – resilient to tomorrow’s climate; and a nation of climate champions. We are very grateful for all the feedback and support we have received. The work to deliver the ambitions within the strategy remains our focus.

2.2 We will be seeking to finalise the strategy for approval by the new Secretary of State in

the New Year. As a statutory document, the strategy needs to be laid in Parliament for 40 days and so we are now aiming to publish the strategy in spring 2020. Flood and Coast Conference 2020

2.3 We are pleased to announce that The 2020 Flood and Coast Conference will take place from 2-4 June 2020 at the Telford International Centre. The event will be developed and delivered in partnership between the Environment Agency and CIWEM, who have recently acquired the Intellectual Property Rights from TRIO events.

2.4 We are really excited that this year’s conference will not only focus on flood and coastal issues, but will also have a greater focus on Climate Change, linking in to the aspirations of CoP26 conference taking place in November 2020. The event will draw together key partners from the flood and coastal risk management community, including local authorities, internal drainage boards, contractors and suppliers, community groups and academia.

2.5 The project board have invited key professionals across the Flood and Climate Change

sector to form our Advisory Committee and we look forward to welcoming Martin Hurst to help in the design of the conference programme. All RFCC Chairs and members are requested to book these dates in their diary and are strongly encouraged to attend.

2.6 Building on our previous success, we are currently working on an exciting programme for

2020. We would like to invite RFCC members to get involved by suggesting stimulating discussion topics, interactive displays, facilitated workshops as well as lively presentations which will form part of that programme. If you are aware of any projects that have delivered excellent results or have found a new or improved way of working that you would like to highlight, please let the team know by contacting: floodandcoast@environment-agency.gov.uk

New National Flood Risk Assessment

2.7 Our National Flood Risk Assessment is changing. Our current assessment only considers flooding from rivers and the sea. In future, we will draw upon a wider range of flood risk information from a variety of sources to inform our New National Flood Risk Assessment, available in 2024.

89

2.8 It is essential that we engage and involve our stakeholders at all stages of the project. We

are currently seeking to establish an External User Advisory Group to help shape, review and test the products. We would like to have this group set up before April 2020.

2.9 We would like to invite you and your Committee members to participate in this group. This

is a key opportunity to help us produce improved flood risk information for the public and create a shared understanding of flood risk across our organisations. Lead Local Flood Authorities’ involvement is particularly important. To receive updates or join the group, please send your details to FCRM_Risk_Assessment@environment-agency.gov.uk

Flood risk and hazard maps publication

2.10 The flood risk regulations (FRR) require the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) to produce flood risk and hazard maps and review them every six years. Our first flood risk and hazard maps were published in 2013. We must review, update and publish second cycle maps by 22 December 2019.

2.11 Flood risk and hazard maps must be produced to reflect the different sources in the flood risk areas (FRAs) which were identified using the methodology we agreed when we undertook the preliminary flood risk assessment. Having consulted with LLFAs to gain agreement, we will prepare all the necessary maps on behalf of both the Environment Agency and LLFAs. This will provide consistency across the country and reduce the burden for LLFAs.

2.12 The maps are published on gov.uk in order to meet our requirements under the FRR and they are used to inform the production of flood risk management plans. The flood risk maps show what is at risk of flooding such as people, property, economic activity and natural and historic areas of environmental importance. The flood risk maps use static data from a snapshot in time in order to report to the EU are not intended for use by the public and other stakeholders. The flood hazard map requirement is covered by our ‘long term flood risk assessment for locations in England’. Contact: kylie.russell@environment-agency.gov.uk

Improving our data: Conceptual Data Model for FCRM

2.13 Comprehensive, useable and reliable data underpins the Environment Agency’s ability to operate and is key to the success of the FCERM Strategy, our digital services and the 25 Year Environment Plan. Data is the vital hidden asset we need to look after to help us provide a better service as well as maintain the trust of customers and partners. We want to embed digital services and good data management as a core part of our structures, culture and skills.

2.14 To help do this we are creating a conceptual data model which will be used to improve

how we create, maintain and use data across flood and coastal risk management. Creating and maintaining data models means we can see the whole picture on data across flood activities and understand the impacts of any changes to the data, actions we take and who will be impacted. We can identify any potential clashes of understanding, terminology, relationships and dependencies both within the FCRM business and potentially with other parts of the Environment Agency. We can then use this knowledge to identify what could be done better.

2.15 The Mapping, Modelling and Data Leadership Group, will be using the data model as a

reference in its new role as the FCRM Data Governance Council (DGC). We’ll make sure that new projects adhere to the data model, helping Project Executives and Data Custodians to make the right strategic decisions for all stakeholders based on their data needs. Contact: nick.keen@environment-agency.gov.uk

Property flood resilience

2.16 A new British Standard for property flood resilience (PFR) products was published on 24 September 2019. It replaces PAS1188:2014 Parts 1 to 4, which will now be withdrawn. It

90

sets standards for the laboratory testing of the leakage rate of PFR products. Part 1 of the new standard covers products for buildings and Part 2 covers perimeter systems, which includes temporary barriers and demountable systems. Engineers from Defra and the Environment Agency provided technical expertise as members of the drafting committee for the British Standard.

2.17 Manufacturers testing new products will use the new standard. Manufacturers with

existing PAS1188 tested products will have an interim period to test products and ensure they comply with the new standard.

2.18 A new Code of Practice (CIRIA RP1055) will explain the assessment, design, installation,

aftercare and operation of PFR products and is due to be published shortly. Contact: phil.foxley@environment-agency.gov.uk or Robbie.Craig@defra.gsi.gov.uk

World Class Asset Management 2.19 The Asset information Management System (AIMS) Upgrade project will put in place a

comprehensive enterprise asset management (EAM) system and central asset data repository for the Environment Agency. It is an important step in our goal of becoming world class asset managers. It will replace existing systems, improve the way we manage Environment Agency maintained assets, and improve our ability to share data with other Risk Management Authorities.

2.20 AMX Solutions is the recently appointed supplier of the new system; they already provide

similar systems to Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and other major infrastructure organisations. Work is now progressing to configure the new systems, develop new ways of working and prepare data for transfer. We are also collaborating with NRW and other users of the AMX solution to identify common objectives and features.

2.21 In May 2021, AIMS: Operations & Maintenance (AIMS: OM), will replace the many

existing flood and coastal risk management systems with a single application and consolidated data repository. The system will be rolled out to the Environment Agency’s Environment & Business (E&B) directorate in April 2022.

2.22 Once in production, we will have ownership of the system’s functionality and underlying

data, meaning we will be able to control over how the system evolves and expands in the future. Contact: Craig.McAdie@environment-agency.gov.uk

3. Flood risk activity permitting

Multi-site permits 3.1 In our ambition to be a fair regulator offering value for money we have developed a multi-

site permit for flood risk activities. Multi-site permits allow for a number of activities to be held on one permit and offers greater flexibility while still managing flood and environmental risks.

3.2 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR) enables

groups or individuals to apply for one bespoke permit to cover a large area perhaps for five to ten years. We have used this principle in Alt Crossens (Lancashire) to enable a group of around 15 landowners to undertake a significant amount of channel maintenance (previously undertaken by the Environment Agency).

3.3 This multi-site permit has been a great success. The main outcomes include:

Cheaper permits as costs can be shared; Proportionate risk based regulation; Maintenance for a substantial area co-ordinated by a group of landowners meaning better

environmental outcomes as well as land drainage benefit; Improved delivery. We can programme Environment Agency work to complement the work

of landowners in a co-ordinated way; Stronger local partnerships.

Contact: joe.march@environment-agency.gov.uk 91

Sharing best practice with Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

3.4 As part of our regulatory work we continue to look at ways to improve the service. Last month we visited the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) to understand how their regulations apply in practice for river activities. We also exchanged ideas on working practices that would enable a better experience for our customers. Contact: john.austin@envronment-agency.gov.uk

4. Working with others

De-maining pilots (testing approaches to transferring watercourses and assets) 4.1 The de-maining pilots are now complete. From the initial five pilots, we have been

successful in transferring watercourses, land and assets in three of the pilot locations: South Forty Foot in Lincolnshire, River Stour in Kent and the Snow Sewer on the Isle of Axholme. The three pilots resulted in the re-designation of 63.8 km of main river, and the transfer of 28 assets and 178 acres of land to Internal Drainage Boards. There were a number of watercourses that we did not de-main during the pilot because the proposals were either not supported locally, or where action by partners was needed that did not meet the pilot timescales.

4.2 The pilots have provided valuable learning, including the importance of strong functioning local relationships, clear lines of communication and ways of working, a local strategy for long term maintenance, and the need to streamline and make the process of de-mainment less resource intensive.

4.3 We are writing up a full evaluation of the pilots, which we will share with pilot partners, Association of Drainage Authorities, Local Authorities through the Local Government Association (LGA) and RFCCs. Contact: rachael.hill@environment-agency.gov.uk

Apprenticeships

4.4 The Water Environment Worker Apprenticeship Standard has now been approved for delivery by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. We appointed Bridgwater and Taunton College to deliver the apprenticeship on our behalf. Our first 120 apprentices in Field Operations teams are in the process of being enrolled. You can find more information here: https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/water-environment-worker/

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

4.6 Looking ahead, we intend to put in place a specific apprenticeship programme to take advantage of the new Environment Practitioner Degree-level (BSc) Apprenticeship Standard. The aim is for 40 new starters in September 2021. Contact: colin.berghouse@environment-agency.gov.uk

Education to Profession: Engaging with Children and Young People

4.7 In step with our draft FCERM Strategy, we have actively engaged thousands of children and young people over the past six to nine months, through a structured approach we call the ‘3C’s of STEM engagement’. These are Curriculum, Career and Conversation. Recent highlights include:

92

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

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

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

And finally…

3.5 We have a number of initiatives in the pipeline including a ‘Climate Champions’ competition for primary school aged children. We released an Engineering Project that we wrote for Level 2 students. Ayo Sokale, one of our Graduate Engineers did a live read (https://learnliveuk.com/) to schools and colleges around the country (and possibly the world) of ‘Alba the 100 Year Old Fish’ by on 6 November. We are told the live online audience was over a thousand children from 40+ schools in the UK, with many more likely to listen to the recorded story in the weeks ahead. Contact: colin.berghouse@environment-agency.gov.uk

5. RECOMMENDATION 5.1 The Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is asked to:

A. Note the December 2019 Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management News and Updates.

JULIE FOLEY Director of Flood Risk Strategy & National Adaptation

93

BLANK PAGE

94

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – ESSEX, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK AREA

Information Item No: 7

Report No: INF 20/07

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

Subject: COASTAL PARTNERSHIP EAST UPDATE

Date 17 January 2020 Officer

Responsible:

Karen Thomas Coastal Partnership East (Head of Coastal Management)

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to :

A. Note the work carried out by Coastal Partnership East.

1. Purpose of the report and introduction

1.1 This paper provides an update on the work currently being carried out by Coastal Partnership East.

2. Projects

Bacton and Walcott- Sandscaping Project2.1 The final parts of the sandscaping scheme are now being completed. This includes

the completion of navigation beacons for the decommissioned surface water outfalls,settlement of the account and further consideration of beach user safety andfinalisation of consent reporting. Additional work is progressing on monitoring andresearch.

2.2 The first additional surveying campaign funded partly with Dutch Government funds, has been completed and involved terrestrial LiDAR and jet ski bathymetry. The beach profiles have continued to change and the recent survey data will be used to further assess this.

2.3 The Local Liaison Group have taken part in a lessons learned workshop. The lessons learnt will be captured from those who have been involved in the project. This includes the Steering Committee with terminal operators, wider NNDC staff and partners such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. This work is being completed by Dr Sophie Day of the UEA.

Lowestoft Flood Risk Management Project (LFRMP) 2.4 Ms Tamzen Pope is the new Project Manager for the LFRMP as we move from

project development into project delivery of the scheme. Mrs Sharon Bleese will remain the Engagement and Partnerships lead. Her experience and knowledge will remain central to the project. Ms Karen Thomas has taken over as Project Executive following Bill Parkers’ retirement.

2.5 Ms Pope has worked closely with Balfour Beattie to progress the detailed design elements of the work, which are now needed to give greater certainty to the overall project costs.

95

2.6 The legal agreement with ABP is being drawn up. This will cover elements of

intrusive Ground Investigations (GI) in and around the harbour channel. Once complete we will then be able to progress to detailed design. We have now split the land-based GI from the marine GI so we can progress the wall works in 2020.

2.7 Mr Mackie has continuing to develop business cases for funding. We are talking to the Anglian LEP regarding the £10M funding and exploring how to draw access these funds as we progress. The Board Members were updated on the scheme progress and development in early December with a further Board meeting being sought for late January 2020. CPE are working with East Suffolk Council (ESC) teams to create an integrated forum to discuss the projects currently happening in Lowestoft ensuring the best outcomes for Lowestoft residents and businesses.

2.8 Unfortunately, a number of properties were flooded during the early October intense rainfall in Aldwyck Way and Velda Close. This location will benefit from the Fluvial and Pluvial works being delivered by Suffolk County Council. The Property Level Resilience measure work has been delayed slightly but we hope that it will start in early 2020. The work will help to reduce the risk of surface water flooding experience in the town.

Hemsby - ‘Working together to adapt to a changing climate: flood and coast: A collaborative learning project.’

2.9 We met with Icarus and the EA in November to discuss the national pilot approach and the sensitivity in the community about what coastal adaptation really means. Anne Casey, Rob Goodliffe, Bernard Harris and Sharon Richardson are the key officers on this project.

2.10 We have agreed with EA National team and Icarus to reframe the project so that Great Yarmouth Borough Council and CPE will focus on developing the coastal management options. Icarus will work with us to focus on raising awareness of the impacts of climate change with the wider Hemsby community. We feel the adjustment in approach will support our work in developing the best outcomes for all those living in Hemsby and maximise the resources we have available at CPE and Icarus.

2.11 The Jacobs report ‘Hemsby Coast Erosion Environmental File Note - Option screening’ was sent to Natural England, Marine Management Organisation, EA and the Historic Environment section of Norfolk County Council for their comments. The Hemsby coastal defence options appraisal table has been updated to incorporate the comments received. The analysis shows that the rock berm is the short term defence option that best meets the criteria covering acceptability, feasibility and affordability. This will be taken forward into the EIA process. A Screening and Scoping opinion request is being drafted to submit to Great Yarmouth Borough Council. We have already submitted a paper has been submitted to the councils’ Environment Committee outlining the Hemsby project’s objectives with a request that the council endorse and adopt them.

3. Emergency Response- CPE with wider East Suffolk Council colleagues

Pakefield 3.1 In November this frontage became the primary focus of work for CPE. The frontage

continues to experience significant erosion and beach lowering. The high tides resulted in water reaching the sandy cliff base causing fresh cliff slumps. There is a Health and Safety risk to walkers who walk close to the cliff base at mid tide. CPE

96

are working with landowners to install warning signage. We have met with the caravan park owner about the need to remove concrete bases from the cliff tops and enabled discussions with ESC planners for rollback options.

Easton Bavents

3.2 Following further erosion, with 3.5m losses on 4 and 5 December the decision to demolish the remaining three terraced houses is being taken with the property owner and Building Control colleagues. We will progress Defra grant applications to fund the demolition costs through EA. Kellie Fisher is key to discussions as she has worked closely with the property owner on previous planning rights through their ‘letter of legitimate expectation’.

3.3 We are sharing expertise across the CPE frontage via Kellie Fisher to build on

lessons learnt at previous erosion locations, with a view to develop a protocol with wider Council services.

Lowestoft Temporary Barriers

3.4 The team have refreshed their Incident response planning ahead of the winter season for the temporary barrier with the Strategic Flood Partnership. We have also secured some additional cover from the ESC Building Control team so we can run a 24hour rota (3x8hr shifts) during a flood event.

4. Strategic Work

Coastal Loss Innovative Financing and Funding (CLIFF)

4.1 This project is a collaboration between CPE and DEFRA. The project has engaged with Marsh who are a specialist in the financing and insurance world. The project will be conducting investigations into alternative ways to manage and fund coastal assets which are at risk from tidal inundation.

4.2 Marsh will conduct a series of interviews with key experts in the finance and insurance sector to establish interest, assess feasibility and shortlist options. Initial interviews have been informative and there appears to be an appetite to develop approaches with those who have taken part.

Zurich Flood Resilience

4.3 The workshop, led by Paul Mackie and Sharon Richardson, was held at The Marina Theatre Lowestoft and successfully captured information to enable us to measure the flood resilience of the community. Information was gathered from residents, infrastructure and business teams. Stage two of the project will be designed shortly. The event was a UK first and huge thanks go to the CPE staff involved as well as colleagues from SCC, EA, ESC and IDB who facilitated on the day.

Regeneration Project- Wider benefits of seaside towns

4.4 Paul Mackie is leading on this work with Motts to look at the financial and economic benefits of two seaside town coastal protection projects at Felixstowe and Clacton. The work aims to show the ‘real’ benefits of the schemes and help inform our future development of coastal protection projects as well as our funding strategies. The work will also provide evidence of the wider benefits of coastal protection to the local economy and health and well-being for the Government and local Enterprise Partnership to review.

 

 

97

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 The Committee is asked to :

A. Note the work carried out by Coastal Partnership East.

Karen Thomas Head of Coastal Management Coastal Partnership East

96

Amy Inman 01733 464389 amy.inman@environment-agency.gov.uk 01733 464222

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

Friday 17 January 2020

Venue: Suffolk County Council, Landmark House, Ipswich

Agenda Lead Page Timing

1. Apologies for absence and greetings to visitors PH - 09:30

2. Declarations of members’ interests All -

3. Chairman’s announcements PH - 09:35

4. Environment Agency announcements MJ - 09:45

5. Approval of minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2019 All 1 09:55

6. Matters arising from previous meeting All 13 10:00

7. Members’ slot All - 10:10 Main Items

8.

Review and seek RFCC consent to FCERM GiA final indicative allocation for revenue maintenance and capital programmes 2020/21 (EFCC 20/01) Review and seek consent for FCERM Local Levy Programme 2020/21 (EFCC 20/02)

PD / AD 15

25 10:25

9. Future Maintenance in Broadland LT / MJ - 10:50

Tea and Coffee 11:15 10. Horsey Island Beach Recharge Proposal (EFCC 20/03) KA/MJ 29 11:30 11. East Marine Plan GS - 11:50 12. Update from Suffolk County Council MH - 12:10

General Business

13. Forward look (EFCC 20/04) All 31 12:30 14. Key Items from Information Papers All 33 12:40 15. Any other business All - 12:50

Lunch 13:00 Date of Next Meeting

Friday 17 April 2020, Norfolk County Council – County Hall, Norwich, Norfolk

Information Papers (for noting only)

Developing the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC Programme 2019/20 (INF20/01)

Delivering Professional Asset Management for the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC - Programme 2019/20 (INF 20/02)

Developing and Delivering the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan & Team 2100 Programme 2019/20 (INF 20/03)

Engagement Update (INF 20/04)

FCERM Program Update 2019/20 Quarter 3 – Current in-year position (INF 20/05)

National paper – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Update, December 2019 (INF 20/06)

Coastal Partnership East Update (INF 20/07)

BLANK PAGE

Glossary of terms used in FCRMprogramming and financial management

This glossary is intended as reference tool for Members to be used in conjunction with the papers onthe RFCC programme.

It is a living document and will be updated periodically. If you have any feedback on it or would likeadditional clarification to support your role or learning & development then please contactvicky.eade@environment-agency.gov.uk

A

AccrualWork done or a service received which has not been invoiced or paid for by the end of the accountingperiod. You allow for it to show a true figure of your financial position.

AllocationThe funding aligned to projects and programmes prior to Budgets being set; see Indicative Allocationand Final Allocation. It should be noted that receiving a funding allocation does not obviate the needto gain Approval.

AppraisalThe process of; defining the problem; setting objectives; examining options, assessing outcomebenefit (inc benefit:cost ratio); weighing up costs, impacts (positive and negative) risks anduncertainties in order to make a decision. This is the period between Gateways 0 and 1. Theappraisal follows a short Initial Assessment and culminates in a Business Case. The appraisal phaseprovides greatest scope for RFCC Members to get involved and support project development, eg aspart of the associated community engagement.

ApprovalThis refers to a project’s Financial Scheme of Delegation (FSoD) approval following Technical Reviewor the Environment Agency Board approval to the programme.

Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager (AFCRM)Our Area Flood & (or) Coastal Risk Managers (AFCRMs) lead the delivery of the National FCERMstrategy and our strategic overview role locally. A key part of our strategic overview role is thebringing together of evidence and working with communities, potential funders and partners,especially other Risk Management Authorities, to develop complementary approaches to managingflood and coastal erosion risk.

AFCRMs promote candidates and once they are in the programme they sponsor Environment Agencyled capital projects through the scheme appraisal stage to the approval of the Business Case. Thisincludes associated engagement, partnership funding activity and the programming relationship withother Risk Management Authorities. It is at this stage of project development that the committee havethe greatest opportunity to help shape the delivery of measures within their area.

They also have a role to work with regards to in-year monitoring of projects being delivered by otherRisk Management Authorities; this includes signing-off project Business Justification and BusinessCase documentation prior to submission for Technical Review.

The majority of their programme accountabilities are delivered through their Partnerships & StrategicOverview (PSO) teams.

AssetWithin flood risk these are usually categorised as either structures (eg sluices, pumping stations etc)or defences (eg channels, walls, embankments etc), but equally the term applies to data, models andother tangible products.

Asset Performance (AP) teamSee Operations Manager

Asset SystemsAn asset system is a collection of individual assets that work together to provide flood risk protectionto properties in a geographical area. They are defined for Environment Agency systems (main riverand sea defence) and have a System Consequence rating associated with them. They do not relateto Coastal Erosion assets as these are not the responsibilities of the Environment Agency.

B

Baselining

In January the RFCC issue their consent to the programme. The financial allocation to deliver thatprogramme is based on forecast project costs at a snap shot in time. As forecasts vary month onmonth, baselining is the process for making final budget adjustments before the start of the financialyear.

BenefitsThe positive quantifiable and unquantifiable changes that a project is expected to produce.

BudgetThis is the amount of money given to a project or available to a programme within the accountingsystem. Project and programme budgets are set based on needs identified at a snap-shot in time andare reviewed and re-set at appropriate milestones in the financial year (see Baselining).

Business CaseFollowing approval for a project’s Business Justification, a project’s business case summarises andpresents the project appraisal for Technical Review and FSoD approval. For most projects thebusiness case is presented within a Project Appraisal Report (PAR), completed proportionately to anational template for consistency; for low risk/cost projects the business case can be presented withina Form A.

Business JustificationA project’s business justification is reviewed following Initial Assessment to determine whether thereis a case to progress to full project appraisal; this includes the development and presentation of theproject’s Business Case. The justification is presented for Technical Review and FSoD approvalthrough a Form A template for Environment Agency projects or FCERM7 for other Risk ManagementAuthorities.

C

CandidateA candidate is a problem or need that has been identified and a Risk Management Authority believesthere is a requirement for financial investment. It is in effect a potential project that is most oftenidentified and submitted as part of the annual Investment Needs round. A candidate is identified in aProject Mandate form. A Pre-Gateway 0 analysis is undertaken to determine if the need is valid andsuitable for submission for funding. Once funding has been allocated the Project Mandate isauthorised and the candidate becomes a project.

Capital fundingCapital funding is the money spent on the construction, creation, purchase and improvement orreplacement of assets.

Capital ProgrammeThe list of projects from all Risk Management Authorities, which are funded by FCRM GiA and orLocal Levy along with third party contributions where applicable. The programme is prioritised byPartnership Funding Score, and delivery of statutory requirements, and is allocated through theInvestment Needs process. This is usually spent on building new assets, or extending the life ofexisting assets (Capital Reconditioning).

Capital Reconditioning (REC)A sub-set of the capital programme, the purpose is to repair/recondition or refurbish assets that arebelow their Target Condition (or forecast to fall below within a reasonable timeframe) to sustain theassets’ standard of service. In Anglian Region we package these works together for more efficientapproval, procurement and delivery (called Reconditioning or RECON package). Works aresometimes also referred to as Capital Maintenance.

Before After

Catchment EngineerSee Operations Manager. The Catchment Engineer also has a role to sign-off project Business Caseson behalf of the Senior User prior to their submission for Technical Review.

Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR)The Spending Review is a Treasury-led process to allocate resources across all governmentdepartments, according to the Government's priorities. These allocations span across a number ofyears with the current spending review period running from April 2011 to March 2015 (called CSR10).

ConsentThe Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (section 23) requires the Environment Agency to:

obtain the RFCC’s consent before the EA can implement its regional programme for theCommittee’s region (s23(2)).obtain the consent of the RFCC before the Agency can issue a levy under Section 17 of theAct (s23(3)).obtain the consent of the Committee to the spending of revenue under Section 118 of theWater Resources Act in the region where the revenue is raised (s23(4)).

Consent is sought in January as part of presentation of the Final Allocation. Approval by theEnvironment Agency Board follows RFCC consent in February. The RFCC are asked to consent tothe projects, activities and outcomes of the proposed programmes.

ContributionsThis is funding from sources other than FCRM GiA as part of Partnership Funding projects.

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)This measures the costs and benefits of a project in a common currency (preferably £s) over itslifespan, and assesses the balance between the two. Costs and benefits that cannot be monetisedshould still be considered. Whilst any project with a >1:1 ratio is viable, we should be looking for agreater return (1:5 as a minimum and 1:8 is quoted as the average return for FCRM investments).

Current MagazineThis is produced by our Framework partners and gives some great examples of programme andproject delivery across the Environment Agency. Well worth a read.

Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/119269.aspx

D

DeliveryScheme delivery follows Gateway 1 and concludes with Gateway 6.

Do minimum optionThis option is where the minimum amount of action necessary is taken to manage an asset egmaintenance.

Do nothing optionThis option is used in appraisal to act as a baseline against which all other options are tested. Itassumes no action whatsoever is taken. In the case of existing works, it assumes for the purpose ofappraisal that operating authorities cease all maintenance, repairs and other activities immediately.In the case of new works, it assumes that there is no intervention, and natural and other externalprocesses are allowed to take their course.

Do something optionAny option other than do-nothing.

E

Efficiency targets

The Cabinet Office, via the Government’s construction strategy, require government departments toachieve capital efficiency savings. As part of Defra’s business plan, the Environment Agencynationally has a corporate target to achieve savings of 15% of the FCRM GiA allocation to theEnvironment Agency delivered elements of the capital programme by the end of this CSR period(2014/15). The aim is to deliver better outcomes and increase the number of properties protectedthrough the reinvestment of efficiency savings.

To achieve this, the annual targets increase year on year and the national target has been split andallocated to each Environment Agency region. Targets have not been allocated or split down to RFCCor Environment Agency Area level.2011/12 provides the baseline by which efficiencies are measured. Effectively there are twocategories of efficiency.

- At Programme level; we build efficiencies into our GiA submission (ie ask for less budgetupfront), this means there is more GiA available to allocate elsewhere at the start of the year.

- In-year project level: cash released by efficiencies made on projects after we have received abudget that can be reinvested

ExceptionIf a measurable element of a project changes (eg financial forecast or benefit delivery) beyond acertain limit then we call this an exception. Tolerances for such limits can be set at both an individualproject, programme or corporate level. Exceptions are then escalated to the appropriate governancebody. This may include the RFCC depending upon if, and what tolerances, have been agreed.

F

Final AllocationThe proposed final amount of capital and revenue funding allocated for the forthcoming financial yearfrom the Investment Needs submission and following review of the Indicative Allocation. It is usuallymade in late November/December for RFCC review and consent in January. It is then signed off bythe Environment Agency Board in February prior to Ministerial announcement. The word ‘proposed’ isused as the allocation is not confirmed until the Board have agreed it.

Financial Mandate (FM)The Financial Mandate (FM) set by Defra contains the rules on Financial, Resource and CorporateStrategy and Performance matters through which Defra as lead sponsor administers control over theEnvironment Agency. These rules include limits on authority for expenditure and details where priorapproval from Defra is required.

Financial Scheme of Delegation (FSoD)The FSoD, as approved by the Environment Agency Board, prescribes the limits to the powers andduties that have been delegated to the Management and Officers of the Environment Agency withinthe terms of the Financial Mandate. Authority is delegated downwards from HM Treasury to ourGovernment sponsors (Defra/WG) and then throughout the Environment Agency to the Board; ChiefExecutive (CE) and Directors; Regional Directors (RD) and other grades and specific posts.Capital project expenditure requires FSoD approval at Business Justification and Business Casestage (along with any Supplementary Expenditure) following Technical Review.

It should be noted that even if a project has received a funding allocation there are separate ruleswithin the FSoD that govern and approve how that funding is spent; ie Allocation does notautomatically mean Approval to spend.

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Appraisal Guidance (FCERM-AG)The FCERM-AG has been produced by the Environment Agency. It provides best practiceimplementation guidance on appraisal and supports the Defra Policy Statement on Appraisal (June2009). The previous Defra Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance (FCDPAG) waspublished between 1999 and 2001. Since that time, the approach has changed from one focused onflood defences and coast protection to the management of risk.

The guidance was launched in June 2010 and its use is a requirement for all publicly funded Floodand Coastal Erosion Risk Management strategies and projects developed by Risk ManagementAuthorities. The guidance aims to help users undertake efficient appraisals and encouragesexperience and knowledge to be applied at all stages. It has been designed based on key principlesto reduce flood risk, enhance the environment, promote partnership working and to be proportional tothe project being appraised.

Flood & Coastal Risk Management Grant-in-Aid (FCRM GiA)The Government, through Defra, provides the majority of funding for flood and coastal erosion riskmanagement activities for England in the form of Grant in Aid (GiA) administered by the EnvironmentAgency. It is often still known and referred to as Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid (FDGiA). FCRM GiA iseither Capital or Revenue. Capital is used for new assets, or extending the life, and is available to allRisk Management Authorities. Revenue is used for ‘day to day’ Environment Agency activities andmaintenance activities.

Flood Risk CategoriesThere are four flood risk categories associated with Outcome Measures, they are:

Low - 0.5% (200 to 1) chance of flooding each year or less.Moderate - Between 0.5% (200 to 1) and 1.3% (75 to 1) chance of flooding each year.Significant - 1.3% (75 to 1) chance of flooding each year or greaterVery Significant – 5% (1 in 20) chance of flooding each year or greater

ForecastThis is an assessment by the project team of the most likely outcome of the project, including financialforecast, risk forecasts and outcome (benefit) forecasts. They are reviewed and updated on a monthly basis for the year end position, and also look at the total project forecast (ie when it iscomplete potentially on a future financial year). Project forecasts then inform a Programme levelforecast position.

Form A/FCERM7A template used for presentation of a project’s Business Justification. A Form A is used forEnvironment Agency projects and a FCERM7 is the form for other Risk Management Authorities(RMAs) and can cover the whole business case for studies. A Form A can also be used forpresentation of a Business Case for low risk projects.

Form G/ FCERM4The form (G for Environment Agency and FCERM4 for other RMAs) used when the forecast projectcosts exceeds the project’s FSoD approval, or there is a change to the scope of the project work. Itpresents the case for Supplementary Expenditure.

FrameworkAn approved list of external suppliers including contractors and consultants experienced in delivery offlood and coastal risk schemes. The frameworks are tendered for and allocated on a five year basis.The new framework WEM (Water and Environment Management) is due to begin in April 2013 andwill be available for use by all Risk Management Authorities.

Frequent MaintenanceRevenue activities within the Revenue Maintenance programme carried out by the EnvironmentAgency which prevents deterioration of an asset below Target Condition. This is an annual orrecurring planned activity undertaken every 5 years or less, to keep assets at their Standard ofService. eg 2-yearly channel de-silting, bushing, grass cutting etc.

G

GatewaysThe Office of Government Commerce promoted gateways as best practice. They are points during the project lifetime, when reviews are undertaken. They provide an opportunity for independent reviewof project progress and ensure we review business justification regularly. This enables us to stopprojects that are not viable, or will not deliver the required outcome, as soon as possible.Applying the gateway review process provides:

Consistency and streamlining;A clear audit trail;Opportunities for effective risk management and forward planning;A framework for supporting performance management and sharing knowledge;Ultimately, better value for money.

Pre Gateway 0The desk top analysis of a Candidate to assess them to ensure they have the potential to be a viableproject. This includes the production of a Project Mandate to set out the background and need for theproject, and an analysis of the potential benefits of the project.

Gateway 0Is the review and authorisation of a Project Mandate by the Programme Manager on behalf of theProgramme Board. It authorises inclusion within the programme and once funding is confirmed it canprogress as a project to Gateway 1 first via an Initial Assessment.

Gateway 1This is when a project’s Business Case received FSoD approval.

Gateway 2This gateway checks that the project design has been carried out in accordance with the approvedbusiness case

Gateway 3This gateway checks that everything necessary is in place to ensure that the organisation will receivevalue for money, and we can award the construction contract.

Gateway 4At this gateway construction work has been completed to our satisfaction, the contract projectmanager has prepared a completion certificate, and it is ready to be issued. Outcome Measures canbe claimed at this point.

Gateway 5At this gateway the contractor has corrected all the defects listed in the defects schedule and we haveissued the defects correction certificate.

Gateway 6At this gateway the project is complete and the project is closed

Gateway 7The project sponsor identifies the need for and arranges a post-project appraisal.

General Drainage Charge (GDC)A local income, General Drainage Charge is raised for additional maintenance of Environment Agency flood risk management assets and is raised from landowners whose land is greater than 4ha and is not within an IDB Boundary. Anglian Region is unique in raising this charge. The charge rate islinked to the % change in Local Levy contribution by a Council Tax Band D property within the regionand it has to be spent in the financial year it is raised.

Governance

Usually governance relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, guidance, processes anddecision-rights for a given area of responsibility. For flood risk the term is mostly associated with thecontrol of a project or programme via clear roles, a Project Board or the Programme Board.

H

Highland Water ChargeCharge made by IDBs to the Environment Agency for additional operating costs within their districtsdue to the need to convey water through IDB systems that originates from higher ground outside ourtheir district.

I

IDB Precept (IDBP)A local income raised from Internal Drainage Boards, with the rate generally set locally at RFCC level.It must be spent in the financial year it is raised and contributes towards Environment Agency FCRMactivities within the river catchment.

Identified NeedsA term applied to elements of work within the Revenue Maintenance programme. It comprises all theFrequent and Intermittent Maintenance needs within an Asset System (over and above the MinimumNeeds) to maintain the performance of that system of assets.

Indicative AllocationThis is the initial financial allocation (capital and revenue) for the forthcoming financial year, followingthe submission of the Investment Needs bid, and national prioritisation. It is presented to the RFCC atthe October meeting for review / amendment. The RFCC are able to allocate local income to projectsor activities as part of this process. Any changes made by the RFCC are then submitted for the finalallocation, subject to them being affordable nationally, and delivering the same or more outcomes.

Initial AssessmentOnce a candidate has passed Gateway 0, the Risk Management Authority will need to investigate theproject further to develop the Business Justification. This is the initial assessment which gathers morespecific data (ie surveys) than the desktop review as a candidate. It is a review to ensure that theproject is worthy of full appraisal. The RFCC could use the outputs of this stage to make a moreinformed decision about the use of Local Income on a project.

Intermittent MaintenanceThese revenue funded activities form part of the Environment Agency Revenue Maintenanceprogramme. It comprises a suite of works that prevents deterioration of assets below their TargetCondition. This is usually a one off activity or an activity undertaken at greater than 5 yearly intervals(ie bushing works or re-grouting of sea walls)

Investment Needs SubmissionThe needs based bid for FCRM capital GiA funding for all RMAs for the next five years. Its aim is todeliver specific outcomes or benefits (ie numbers of properties protected, number of assets at orabove target condition, number of Ha of habitat created / protected). The process starts in April, andthe submission is made in July following RFCC agreement.

J

K

Key Performance Indicator (KPI)These are the Environment Agency’s corporate performance measures against which targets are setand agreed with Regions. They reflect our progress towards achieving our environmental outcomesand are one of the ways we demonstrate we are meeting our commitment to deliver. In programming,we report our position to the RFCCs on the key FCRM KPIs (962 and 965).

Key Performance Indicator 962 (KPI962)KPI 962 reports the percentage of assets that are at or above their target asset condition, known as‘passing assets’. The Environment Agency reports on all Flood Risk Management assets on MainRiver, regardless of who owns or manages them. The national target is split by Region and, inAnglian, by the three RFCCs.

Key Performance Indicator 965 (KPI965)KPI 965 quantifies the number of households that are at increased flood risk from assets that are notat their target flood defence condition (‘failing’ assets). In an ideal world all assets would be atcondition and, hence, the additional households at risk would equal zero.

L

Large Projects Review Group (LPRG)Previously known as National Review Group (NRG), it has the same Technical Review andassurance function as the Project Assurance Board (PAB) but recommends technical and financialapproval for large and/or complex projects over the value of £10 million. It meets on a monthly basis,and reviews projects from all Risk Management Authorities across England & Wales.

Local incomeA collective term for Local Levy, General Drainage Charge and IDB Precept income.

Local LevyA local income raised by each RFCC to fund FCERM activities within the region that are a localpriority and to support Partnership Funding projects by attracting FCRM GiA. The Local Levy requiredis discussed by the RFCC annually in January and voted on by Local Authority members only. Thetotal agreed levy needed is raised from all LLFAs within the RFCC boundary and is proportionedacross them based on the equivalent number of band D council tax properties that each LLFA has inthe RFCC’s area. This means that where Local Authority boundaries cross RFCC boundaries theymay pay different rates of levy to different RFCCs. Local Levies do not have to be spent in the yearthey are raised as balances can be carried forward.

Long Term Investment Strategy (LTIS)This sets out the scale of the investment needed nationally to meet the FCRM challenges over thenext 25 years. The current LTIS was published in 2009 and was called ‘Investing for the Future’ (it iscurrently being updated). It sets out:

the present scale of flood and coastal erosion risk, and the achievements in managing it sofar;an analysis of the investment needed to adapt to climate change and manage the potentialincreased risk over the period 2010-2035;ways to manage flood and coastal erosion risk more efficiently;an analysis of the benefits of investment, and the potential to broaden the sources ofinvestment.

Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/108673.aspx

M

Maintenance Protocol

Our asset maintenance protocol sets out our approach to maintaining flood and coastal riskmanagement assets in England. It describes how we decide which assets we maintain and how wework with those affected by our decisions.

The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for England describesthe strategic approach to maintaining our flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) assets. Theasset maintenance protocol for England is an important part of the FCERM strategy and will supportits implementation. It will help us apply a consistent approach to identifying which low risk assetsshould no longer be maintained and how we will work with those affected by our decisions. Reducingour investment in low risk assets will allow us to focus our maintenance in higher risk locations.

Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/policy/135650.aspx

Medium Term Plan (MTP)The Medium Term Plan (MTP) is the spreadsheet that captures the capital Environment Agency,Internal Drainage Board and Local Authority candidates and projects over the next 20 years.

MEICA (Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation)The acronym for the regional team (that reports to an Operations Manager) and the type of assets that they look after. MEICA assets are typically pumping stations and other major assets with complexoperational arrangements. The team also develops and manages the carbon reduction work.

Minimum NeedsA term applied to elements of work within the Revenue Maintenance programme. It is the lowestunavoidable cost to maintain statutory compliance and continue operation in an Asset System overthe next year. We capture this figure (and all Identified Needs) in System Asset Management Plans(SAMPs). In undertaking the minimum maintenance required, asset condition may decline as a result.Typically this will mean that we ensure our assets meet Health and Safety standards for staff operating them, the public, and that we ensure our environmental obligations are met (eg WFD compliance).

ModerationNot all capital Candidates contribute towards Outcome Measures targets, however, there is a clearand demonstrable need for them, eg for statutory or legal reasons, emergency works, health andsafety, or time dependant works. In these cases there will be moderation evidence with the ProjectMandate. Candidates with moderation are screened nationally as part of the Investment Needssubmission to ensure the case is clear and robust, prior to the allocation of any funding.

N

National Allocation & Programming TeamWithin the FCRM Directorate at Head Office, this team develops a set of key principles for theallocation of FCRM GiA to the Environment Agency and other Risk Management Authorities. Theteam are responsible for translating the Spending Review funding levels into national and regionalbudgets for all Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) and corporate activities funded byFCRM GiA.

National Capital Programme Management Service (ncpms)A national Operations team, the National Capital Programme Management Service (ncpms) projectmanages schemes on behalf of Area teams. In Anglian Region they manage approximately 80%-90%of the Environment Agency delivered capital programme and their services can also be used by otherRisk Management Authorities.

National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS)The National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS) is responsible for managing theenvironmental impact of capital and revenue programmes to ensure projects are compliant withenvironmental legislation, have minimal environmental impact, uphold high standards inenvironmental design and contribute to national and regional environmental targets.

O

Operations ManagerOur Operations Managers lead on our asset management work to deliver professional asset creation,maintenance and operational services for local communities. This includes sponsoring EnvironmentAgency led capital projects through their Delivery phases and the associated budget management.They are also accountable for the identification of need, prioritisation and delivery of the RevenueMaintenance programme.

Their programme accountabilities are delivered through their Asset Performance teams andCatchment Engineers.

OpportunitiesThis is a term that is used for candidates that can be brought forward within a financial year to makethe most of any available budget, or indeed existing projects that can be accelerated.

Outcome Measures (OMs)A suite of performance measures specifically related to managing flood and erosion risk. Theyreplaced the priority score system and are used to assess the benefits of projects. They help prioritisethe programme of works from all Risk Management Authorities and OM1 to OM4 are used as part ofthe Partnership Funding score to calculate the FCRM GiA available to a project. Flood and CoastalErosion Risk Management have targets set for each OM. They are listed below :

OM1 - The ratio of benefits to costs that a project delivers. To ensure consistency in allschemes this is calculated over the whole life of the project (ie including the design, build,operation, maintenance and expected refurbishments). To mitigate for inflation, these figuresare discounted to ‘today’s’ price. This is applied to both costs and benefits and called PresentValue whole life. A simple way to think about it, if we had all the money up front, how muchwould we need in the bank, allowing for interest on the account, so that we had a balance of£0 when the asset reached the end of its life. At a national programme level we aim for aminimum of 5:1, however, for the last CSR period we achieved a programme ratio of 8:1.

OM2 - The number of households moved out of any flood probability category to a lowerprobability category (see flood risk categories).

OM2b - The number of households moved from the very significant or significant probabilitycategory to the moderate or low probability category (see flood risk categories). In this casethe 1:75 year (1.33% probability of flooding in any particular year) is the threshold.

OM2c - The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas moved out of thesignificant or very significant probability categories to the moderate or low probability category(OM2b). Therefore they are less likely to experience difficulties in arranging mortgages orinsurance.

OM3 - The number of households with reduced risk of coastal erosion. Therefore they areless likely to experience difficulties in arranging mortgages or insurance.

OM3b - The number of households protected against loss in 20 years from coastal erosion.Therefore they are less likely to experience difficulties in arranging mortgages or insurance.

OM3c - The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas protected against loss in20 years from coastal erosion. Therefore they are less likely to experience difficulties inarranging mortgages or insurance.

OM4a - Hectares of water dependent habitat created or improved to help meet the objectivesof Water Framework Directive. Remedies to improve condition of Sites of Special ScientificInterest and measures needed for water bodies to achieve good ecological status/potential,meeting our statutory obligations under both the Countryside and Rights of Way Act andWFD.

OM4b - Hectares of intertidal habitat created to help meet the objectives of the WaterFramework Directive for areas protected under the EU Habitats / Birds Directive. New habitatis created to offset habitat being lost to coastal squeeze.

OM4c - Kilometres of rivers protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive improved to helpmeet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. FCRM actions to restore riversdesignated as special areas of conservation.

Over-programmeThis is a programme management technique to enable a programme to deliver to budget. Effectivelyyou start a financial year progressing more projects than can be afforded on the basis that not allproject risk budgets with be fully utilised, efficiencies will be made on projects, some projects willsuffer a delay and a few may be found not to be viable.

P

PackagingThe combining of a number of projects which are similar in either nature or in geographic location. It isusually applied to lower value projects to make them more efficient by only having to let one contract,thus saving time and money on the procurement process. Packaging also provides for continuity ofwork for suppliers that enables specialist delivery teams to be formed resulting in greater deliveryefficiency.

Partnership & Strategic Overview (PSO) teamsSee Area Flood & Coastal Risk Managers

Partnership FundingFlood and Coastal Erosion Resilience Partnership Funding is Defra’s current policy. It provides asystem of funding which applies to all Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) projectsseeking FCRM GiA Capital funding in England. It is a way of increasing overall investment in floodand coastal erosion risk management by encouraging external contributions as a means to unlockGiA. GiA is capped based on the number of outcome measures a project will deliver, with eachproject having a Partnership Funding score as a means of prioritisation. The RFCC has a key role inworking with partners and communities to maximise contributions and also raise and allocate locallevy which can also be used as an external contribution.

Partnership Funding score (PF Score)Based on the outcomes a project is expected to deliver, a maximum amount of FCRM GiA iscalculated. The score is calculated based on the outcome measures benefit divide by funding,expressed as a percentage.

A project needs a minimum score of 100% to be considered for FCRM GiA. However, in many casesthe raw score (base purely on its outcomes) will be below this threshold. In these cases the projectwill either need to increase the outcomes it delivers so that FCRM GiA could fund the whole scheme,reduce the costs of the scheme (ie a cheaper way of delivering) or increase contributions from othersources. This will then give an adjusted score, called the Partnership Funding Score. That is alsoused to prioritise both nationally and locally by RFCCs. A score of 100% will not guarantee funding ofa scheme as there is a finite amount of GiA available, but the higher the score the more likely it is tosecure GiA. The RFCC can use Local levy as a contribution to schemes and therefore improve the PFscore.

PRINCE2PRINCE2 (an acronym for PRojects IN Controlled Environments) is a de facto process-based methodfor effective project management. It is used extensively by the UK Government, PRINCE2 is alsowidely recognised and used in the private sector, both in the UK and internationally.

ProgrammeIt its purest form programming is about organisational transformation. However, we use the termprogramme to describe a collection/dossier/portfolio of similar activities or projects.

Programme BoardIn terms of programme governance each Region of the Environment Agency has a Programme Boardand there is also a National Programme Board. In Anglian Region the Board is managed throughmonthly FCRM Business Group meetings where Flood & Coastal Risk Managers, Finance, ncpmsand others meet to review by exception in-year performance, programme opportunities, risks as wellas future programmes of investment. The Programme Team report performance to the Boardfollowing detailed monthly financial and programme monitoring review at an Area/RFCC level. TheProgramme Board take decisions and mitigating actions and escalate issues to the Regional Directorand his leadership team as appropriate.

Programme level risksAre risks that have the potential to affect the overall outcomes of the Programme. These may be interms of external factors (budgets, extra funding from government, new legislation, PF Scores),significant project risks (ie a project being delayed by planning consent) or the accumulation ofsmaller risks (ie the aggregation of small individual risks across a number of projects).

Programme ManagementThe term programme management refers to the co-ordinated organisation, direction andimplementation of a portfolio of projects and activities. Programme management aims to achieveresults and realise benefits that are of strategic importance.

Programme ManagerLed by the FCRM Programme Manager, programming and monitoring of all Environment Agencysupported FCERM delivery is done once at region. This includes developing and implementing RFCCprogrammes of work and assuring the outcomes of these programmes.

Programme TeamReporting to the Programme Manager, the Programme Team leads FCRM programming for AnglianRegion and monitors associated delivery. Business Partner aligned to each Environment AgencyArea/RFCC. This team provides a clear link to the National Allocation and Programme team andworks very closely with Area teams, Finance and ncpms.

ProjectWhen a candidate passes through Gateway 0 it becomes a project. A collection of projects form partof a programme. An FCRM project is set up to scope, appraise and deliver tangible products to meetthe needs identified and recorded in the Project Mandate. For FCRM capital projects, there are fivetypes of project: they are Sustain; Simple Change; Supported Change, Legal Compliance andComplex Change (See Project Type)

Project Appraisal Report (PAR)The project appraisal report (PAR) describes the appraisal that has been carried out on an FCRMproject and provides the business case to support the recommendations proposed. It is used to gainformal approval under the Environment Agency Financial scheme of delegation (FSoD) and whereappropriate approval from Defra, Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and HM Treasury.

Project Assurance Board (PAB)The purpose of PAB is to provide Technical Review and assurance of projects (up to the value of £10million) throughout their entire lifecycle. PAB makes recommendations to project teams so they canimprove their business case and once satisfied that issues have been appropriately resolved willrecommend approval to the FSoD delegated officer.

Each Region has a PAB which meets on a monthly basis. Projects from all RMAs are reviewed for thefollowing:

are projects supported by a robust case for change that provides strategic fit – the ‘strategiccase’do projects optimise value for money – the ‘economic case’are projects commercially viable – the ‘commercial case’are projects financially affordable – the ‘financial case’are projects achievable – the ‘management case’.

Membership of PAB is made up of managers and specialists from across the business.

Project BoardA small group of people (normally only the Project Executive, Senior User and, if in place, the SeniorSupplier) who collectively monitor and control a project’s overall progress. This group concentratesalmost entirely on the process of project management and:

acts as a quality assurance mechanism for a project’s deliverables;provides an escalation and resolution route (to the Programme Board) for a project’s risks andissues.

Project development costsActivity and expenditure between Gateway 0 and Gateway 3 is defined as project development.

Project ExecutiveSee Project Roles

Project ManagerSee Project Roles

Project MandateThis is the form where the outline need for investment is recorded and supports the submission of acandidate into the programme, recording Gateway 0.

Project riskAll projects have risk built up from potential occurrences that may affect the delivery of a project totime, cost, quality or outcome. Risks are explored as part of project development andmonitored/managed routinely throughout a project, Project budgets (and FSoD approval) include forthe costs of managing a project’s identified risks (but not all of them) should they arise. Thecumulative effect of this is that at a programme level a significant amount of budget is aligned toproject risk that may or may not materialise and therefore require use of that budget. The over-programming approach is a means to manage this issue.

Project rolesHaving clear and defined roles on a project is crucial to good governance. The key roles on a projectare:

Project Executive:Ultimately accountable for the project’s delivery, they should be independent from the Userand Supplier.

Project Sponsor:Identifies a need within the organisation; acts as the ultimate 'client’ for any project that is setup; and is the major driving force of the project shaping the benefits to be delivered. ForEnvironment Agency FCRM capital projects this is the Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager upto Gateway 1 and then the Operations Manager to Gateway 6. For high risk projects orpackages of work the Area Manager may perform this role.

Senior User:The senior user is responsible to the end users for ensuring that the products delivered by theproject are fit for purpose. Their input continues throughout the life cycle of the project. Thesenior user:

helps shape project deliverables;communicates the end users’ needs and aspirations throughout the life of theproject;provides a link to all the internal functions/teams during the life of the project;is the principal point of contact in FCRM for all project matters;leads on engagement with the community, partners and stakeholders;

Version 1 (December 2012) Page 14

signs off the product descriptions for products to be delivered as part of theproject board;accepts the completed project from the project executive.

For Environment Agency FCRM capital projects the Senior User is from within OperationsManagement, usually senior Asset Performance staff or the Catchment Engineer. They canbe supported by a team and for most projects will draw upon the skills and resources fromwithin our Partnership & Strategic Overview teams (eg regarding funding packages withpartners), Flood Resilience teams (who coordinate community engagement) and Modelling &Hydrology teams.

Senior Supplier:The senior supplier represents the interests of those designing, developing, facilitating,procuring, implementing, and possibly operating and maintaining the project products; theyare also accountable for the quality of products delivered by the supplier(s) and they musthave the authority to commit or acquire supplier resources required.

This role is most appropriate for high risk or key delivery projects or major packages of work.It would ordinarily be performed by a senior manager from within a Framework supplier.

Project Manager:Appointed by the Project Executive, they have the authority and responsibility to manage aproject day-to-day. This person must deliver the required products, within the tolerancesagreed with the Project Board.

Project Type– Complex ChangeA complex change project is a project that examines options at the strategic level or implements astrategic solution but where there is no agreed strategy in place. Complex change projects require astrategic approach to be developed to address the extent, integration or interconnection of differentareas. A full cost:benefit appraisal is required.

Project Type– Simple Change (aka Standalone project)A Simple Change Project is one where the problems to be addressed, potential solutions andeffective decision-making can be taken independently of the wider catchment/coastal zone or framedso as to not constrain future long term management. A strategic context is still required for a SimpleChange Project to support the decision-making process. This type of project is the most common inthe programme.

A Simple Change Project is appropriate when:a change to the standard of service (SoS) is proposedjustification to sustain the current SoS is not clear or beyond the control thresholdsa strategy plan is not required

A full Benefit:Cost analysis is required for appraisal of these projects.

Project Type – Supported ChangeA project to deliver the recommendation(s) of an approved (FSoD )strategy. As such the scope of thisproject is typically limited to assessing the specific needs to implement the strategy in the projectlocation. The overall option and new SoS will already have been determined. This project will drawheavily upon information in and gained for the strategy which will minimise the time and effort requiredfor this project.

Project Type – Sustain (standard of service (SoS))A Sustain SoS project is one that delivers activities needed to continue the agreed standard of serviceof an existing asset or group of assets. Typically projects might include the refurbishment of assets orreplacement of components of larger assets, which have reached their design life.

In addition, projects classified as Sustain must fall within Control Thresholds to ensure that theinvestment in them is justifiable and does not impede on any potential future strategic plans (ie wewouldn’t replace an asset if we plan to build something else in 5 year which will negate the need for

that asset). If the project is not within the thresholds then the project should be classified as a SimpleChange. Sustain projects are appraised using a cost effectiveness analysis.

Project Type – Legal ComplianceProjects that are required to fulfil legal obligations can typically be divided into:

legal requirements that drive the need for a project: there are two types of legislation here:o legislation with ‘general’ application, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives or

Water Framework Directive; ando specific legislation, including local legal agreements, such as navigation acts for

specific rivers.legal requirements that place duties or obligations on the project: these can be sub-dividedinto:

o duties that stem from legislation such as Health & Safety or Town ando Country Planning; and obligations that arise from contractual agreements, such as

contracts between an operating authority and a water company to provide adequatewater levels for abstraction by pumps.

Defra policy also requires that the benefits of meeting the legal requirements are identified, describedand, where possible and appropriate, quantified and valued in monetary terms. Information on thebenefits will be used to help understand who is gaining or losing from the programme of work, and tohelp demonstrate that the programme provides good value for money. It is also important to considerwhether there may be efficiency gains from providing wider benefits beyond those linked to theminimum legal requirements. The costs and benefits of providing the wider benefits would need to beappraised. This means that any incremental increases in investment

Project SponsorSee Project Roles

Q

R

Reconditioning/RECONSee Capital Reconditioning

Revenue fundingFCRM GiA Revenue funding is the money spent by the Environment Agency on day to day activities.These include salary costs of most staff, revenue projects (ie typically inspections, maintaining ourhydrometric and telemetry network and quality assurance of flood modelling) and RevenueMaintenance (ie preventing assets falling below target condition). Revenue also pays for our incidentresponse to flooding..

Revenue programmeThe revenue programme is the programme funded by FCRM GiA Revenue Funding and supported byLocal Income.

Revenue projectsA subset of the Revenue programme, these are projects generally funded by FCRM GiA Revenue.These support Environment Agency day to day activities where we have to procure specialistresource, eg diver inspections of assets. They also include work on ensuring our mapping andmodelling as at the required industry standard, biodiversity is preserved, and we maintain ouroperational capability for flood forecasting and incident management thought exercises andmaintaining our telemetry systems.

Revenue maintenanceThis is a subset of the Revenue programme and includes the maintenance activities the EnvironmentAgency undertake to ensure that assets do not fall below their target condition. They are acombination of Frequent Maintenance and Intermittent Maintenance. The programme includes routineinspections of assets and correcting minor issues, and is captured in the System Asset ManagementPlans (SAMPS).

S

Senior UserSee Project Roles

Standard of ProtectionThe probability of flooding expressed as either a return period (ie 1 in 75 years or 1:75 years) or as apercentage (1.33%) chance per year. The calculation is 1 divided by the return period multiplied by100 (1/75*100=1.33%). If we maintain the Standard of Service then we accept that the standard ofprotection will reduce in time as the affects of climate change take hold.

Standard of ServiceA measurable and objective description of an asset; for example the crest level of a wall or pumpingcapacity and a minimum condition grade. Not to be confused with the term Standard of Protection.

Senior SupplierSee Project Roles

Supplementary ExpenditureExtra funding that is required on a project, over and above what has already been allocated to it. Thiswill also require further Technical Review and FSoD approval It is captured on a Form G(Environment Agency) or FCERM4 (other RMAs) that needs to demonstrate that the businessjustification/case for the project is still robust.

System Asset Management Plans (SAMPs)These are long-term plans for each Asset System. They include information on the benefit of thesystem (ie what the system protects) and what the expected maintenance costs are for the assets inthat system. We use SAMPS to hold the information on our revenue maintenance programme. Datafrom SAMPS is used by the National Allocation and Programme team to make an indicative and finalallocation of FCRM GiA Revenue to each RFCC. Information in SAMPs is updated regularly byOperations teams.

System consequenceThis provides an indication of potential impacts of flooding for an Asset System. Each system isdefined as High, Medium or Low using a matrix that broadly compares the impact on people againstthe impact on property and land.

T

Target ConditionWe use a condition grading system (1 – 5) for our assets and each asset has a target grade againstwhich we monitor (through asset inspections), report (through KPIs) and improve (via assetrecondition/refurbishment).

Technical ReviewThe project assurance role undertaken by PAB and LPRG.

ToleranceTolerances can be set at a project and programme level. They enable project/programme outcomes(eg cost, time, scope, quality and benefits) to vary up to set limits (positive or negative) and to bemanaged in the best possible way. Once the tolerance levels are forecast to be exceeded, they areconsidered an exception, and are flagged for discussion/agreement at the appropriate governancelevel (eg Project Board, Programme Board). The in-year programme papers for the RFCC nowconcentrate on projects which have exceeded their tolerances, and are now in exception. The RFCCcould apply tolerances for their allocation of Local Levy

U

V

Variance

Variance is a measured from the previous month’s forecast or the start of year position called thebaseline. We track the variances of financial, outcome and risk forecasts. This data allows us to makedecisions on bringing in opportunities in to the programme.

VirementThe Programme Board is able to make some adjustments to in-year project budgets and bringprojects forward from future years. However, if these changes are above the threshold (eg asignificant change >£500k) a formal application of the budget change is required via Head Office andDirectors. If approved then a transfer of budget into or out of the RFCC takes place.

W

Whole Life CostThe net present cost of a project, or the asset provided by the project, to deliver defined outputs thatincludes the running and maintenance costs over an extended period. The period can include thereplacement of the asset, and is not fixed. The period is usually taken as that where the discountedfuture costs are material to the net present cost.

X

Y

Z

Glossary of Acronyms - 1 -

ABCs Area Base ControllersABD Areas that Benefit from DefencesABI Association of British InsurersADA Association of Drainage Authorities AFFS Anglian Flood Forecasting System AIP Asset, Investment and PlanningASM Asset Systems ManagementASP Asset Safety ProcessBAG Biodiversity Action GroupBAP Biodiversity Action PlanCFMPs Catchment Flood Management PlansCGiA Capital Grant in AidCHaMP Coastal Habitat Management PlanCIL Community Infrastructure LevyCLG (Department for) Communities and Local GovernmentCOBR Cabinet Office Briefing RoomCRFCC Central Regional Flood & Coastal CommitteeCSR Comprehensive Spending ReviewDEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsEA Environment AgencyEELGA East of England Local Government AssociationERFCC Eastern Regional Flood & Coastal CommitteeEFRA Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committeeEMF Elected Members ForumERYC East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilFAS Flood Alleviation SchemeFCERM Flood Risk and Coastal Erosion Risk ManagementFCRM Flood and Coastal Risk ManagementFCRPF Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership FundingFDGiA Flood Defence Grant in AidFIDO Flood Incident Duty OfficerFIM Flood Incident ManagementFRM Flood Risk ManagementFRMS Flood Risk Management StrategyFRM&DM Flood Risk Mapping and Data ManagementFWD Floodline Warnings DirectFWIP Flood Warning Improvements ProgrammeFWMA Flood and Water Management ActGDC General Drainage ChargeGIA Grant in AidHCA Homes and Communities AgencyHECAG Humber Estuary Coastal Authorities Group HIRP High Impact Refurbishment Programme IDBs Internal Drainage BoardsIDDs Internal Drainage Districts

Glossary of Acronyms - 2 -IFCA Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest KPI Key Performance IndicatorLA Local Authority (County, Borough or District Council)LDF Local Development Framework LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging LLFA Lead Local Flood Authorities LNP Local Nature PartnershipLPA Local Planning AuthorityLRF Local Resilience ForumLTIS Long Term Investment Strategy LTP Long Term PlanMAFPs Multi-Agency Flood PlansMEICA Mechanical and Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation MMO Marine Management OrganisationMORI Market and Opinion Research Institute MTP Medium Team PlanNAFRA National Flood Risk Assessment NAO National Audit OfficeNCPMS National Capital Programme Management Service NFCC National Flood and Coastal CommitteeNFCDD National Flood and Coastal Defence Database NFU National Farmers UnionNIA Nature Improvement Area NORA Nar Ouse Regeneration Area NRE National Resilience ExtranetNRFCC Northern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee NRG National Review GroupOM Outcome Measure OPUS Operation Public Safety PAB Project Approval BoardPAR Project Appraisal ReportPF Partnership FundingPFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment PL Planning LiaisonPPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25 - development and flood risk RBD River Basin DistrictREPAC Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee RFCC Regional Flood and Coastal CommitteeRFERAC Regional Fisheries, Ecology & Recreation Advisory Committee RMA Risk Management AuthoritiesRSS Regional Spatial StrategiesSAB SUDS Approving BodySAC Special Area of Conservation SAMP System Asset Management Plan SCAR Suffolk Coast Against Retreat SCG Strategic Coordinating Group

Glossary of Acronyms - 3 -SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFW Severe Flood WarningSFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SMP Shoreline Management Plan SPA Special Protection AreasSR Spending Review (eg SR10 = Spending Review 2010) SRO Surface water Run OffSSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest STP Short Term PlanSUDS Sustainable Drainage Systems SWMP Surface Water Management Plan TCG Tactical Control GroupTES Training and Exercise System UA Unitary AuthorityWAG Welsh Assembly Government WFD Water Framework Directive WLMP Water Level Management Plan

BLANK PAGE