East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 – 2026€¦ · East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 – 2026 Technical Appendices. A1 Overview of East Sussex:

eastsussex.gov.uk

East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 – 2026Technical Appendices

Contents

A1 Overview of East Sussex: physical, social and economic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Social and Economic Characteristic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Historic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Catchment Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 River Adur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 River Ouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cuckmere and Sussex Haven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Rother and Romney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 River Medway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A2 Policy and Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A3 The Risk Management Authorities and their Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The Risk Management Authorities in East Sussex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Other Key Partners and Stakeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

A4 Revised Assessment of Local Flood Risk across East Sussex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Findings of the revised Assessment of Local Flood Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Comparison with previous assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 How will it inform flood risk management in East Sussex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Data reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

A5 Drainage Risk Areas: technical note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

A6 Local Study Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A7 Funding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Funding for Local Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Funding for Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Current Fluvial and Coastal Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Current Local Flood Risk Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2

East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 – 2026 Technical Appendices

A1Overview of East Sussex: physical, social and economic characteristics

A1.1 The East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) covers the administrative area of East Sussex County Council (ESCC) that includes the districts of Lewes, Rother and Wealden and boroughs of Eastbourne and Hastings, as illustrated in Figure 1.

A1.2 The county of East Sussex covers an area of 1,725 square kilometres and is characterised by a densely populated urban coastal zone and a dispersed settlement pattern in rural areas.

A1.3 The county falls within the South East River Basin District and is served by one water and sewerage company – Southern Water – and one water supply only company – South East Water. It lies within two Environment Agency areas of responsibility, with the western 60% of the county covered by the Solent and South Downs area, and the eastern 40% of the county is covered by the Kent and South London area. East Sussex also falls within the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee area.

Figure 1. The administrative boundaries of East Sussex County Council (its districts and boroughs) and neighbouring lead local flood authorities (county and unitary authorities). Not to Scale.

© Crown copyright. East Sussex County Council. 100019601 2013

3

Overview of East Sussex

Socio-economic Characteristics

A1.4 In 2015 the population of East Sussex was estimated at over 539,000 (equating to 239,900 households), with three quarters living in market towns and urban areas on the coastal strip (East Sussex in Figures, 2015). Between the years of 2001 and 2011 the population of the county increased by nearly 7%,and is expected to increase by approximately a further 5% by 2021. Health deprivation is a significant problem in areas of Hastings where life expectancy for both men and women is below the national average and the lowest across the Strategy area. Employment and income deprivation is a significant problem in Hastings, but also exists in pockets across the rest of the county. Within these areas average unemployment rates are over twice the county average. Low skill levels and poor education attainment are also an issue in parts. Hastings still remains the most educationally deprived authority in the area despite recent improvements.

Natural Environment

A1.5 Much of East Sussex is recognised for its high quality landscape. The county is covered by five National Character Areas – the High Weald, Low Weald, South Downs, Pevensey Levels and Romney Marshes – each defined by a combination of landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity, cultural and economic activity. The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) covers around a third of East Sussex and the Low Weald is also understood to be a landscape of considerable historic complexity. The South Downs National Park, covering most of the area of the former Sussex Downs AONB, was confirmed in April 2010, and became fully operational in April 2011. The National Park covers 14.1% of the county, approximately 244km2 in total, and encapsulates the first defined stretch of Heritage Coastline between Seaford and Eastbourne, including Beachy Head. The county also possesses considerable areas of coastal marshland including the Pevensey Levels and Romney Marshes.

A1.6 The county possesses an array of sites designated as being of international, national and local importance for biodiversity. There are six Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), two Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and two Ramsar sites (one proposed), which are strictly protected by the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. National designations include 64 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) that are important for wildlife or geological interest, four National Nature Reserves and 10% of East Sussex is covered by Ancient Woodland, the highest proportion of any county in England. There are also designations of local importance including 35 Local Nature Reserves, 280 Local Wildlife Sites (formerly Sites of Nature Conservation Importance) and more than 50 Local Geological designations (formerly Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites).

Geology

A1.7 The geological structure of East Sussex can be characterised as a broad dome, or anticline, which trends east-west and reaches its highest point in Ashdown Forest, in the northern part of the county. Subsequent cracking and erosion of the anticline has given expression to a varied and highly attractive landscape, the surface rocks of which date mainly from the Cretaceous or subsequent geological periods.

4


A1.8 The geology of East Sussex is easily explained by sub-dividing the county (Figure 2) into four distinctive landscapes:

A The High Weald, B The Low Weald, C The Chalk Downs, and D The Coastal Marshes.


© Natural England

A1.9 The High Weald covers much of the northern, central and eastern parts of the county. It is a faulted structure comprising of clays and sandstones (collectively known as the Hastings Beds). This varied and extensively eroded geology has produced an attractive and distinctive landscape, the majority of which lies within the High Weald AONB.

A1.10 The Low Weald is a generally flat clay vale that separates the High Weald from the Chalk Downs to the south. The surface geology is mainly Weald Clay, but narrow bands of Gault Clay and the Lower and Upper Greensands outcrop close to the ridge of the Downs.

Figure 2. Diagram displaying the key geological sub-areas within East Sussex: the High Weald, Low Weald, Chalk Downs and Coastal Marshes. Not to Scale.

5


A1.11 The Chalk Downs form a significant line of hills extending along the coast westwards from Eastbourne. They produce a unique, open, rolling landscape dissected by major river valleys cut by the Ouse and Cuckmere. Almost the entirety of the undeveloped downland is part of the South Downs National Park.

A1.12 The Coastal Marshes represent a fourth geological sub-area. These are located between Eastbourne and Bexhill, and in the Rye Bay/Camber area either side of the Rother estuary. Inundated by the sea in recent geological times, these areas comprise large flat sheets of alluvium, extending inland over the Pevensey Levels and Romney Marsh. This is protected by extensive storm beach gravel deposits along the coast.

Historic Environment

A1.13 The challenges presented by flooding, whether it is coastal or inland, have been a constant theme for the people living in East Sussex over the last ten thousand years. There are a number of remains from prehistory, Roman and early medieval activity that have been uncovered along the coast and in river valleys. Since the early medieval period there has been progressive inning (i.e. land reclamation) and management of valley floors and former marshlands, with the use of sea defences, banks, ditches and sluices to control water levels. The labour and resourcefulness in adapting to and managing the environment have left a rich archaeological heritage and history.

A1.14 East Sussex possesses highly valued built and cultural assets, including many listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered parks, gardens and battlefields. County-wide mapping is available which shows archaeological potential and identifies areas where development may affect historical/archaeological remains.

6


Catchment Characteristics

A1.15 The administrative boundary of East Sussex falls within five river catchments (Figure 3):

• River Adur,• River Ouse,• Cuckmere and Sussex Havens,• Rother and Romney, and• River Medway.

Figure 3. Diagram displaying the location of the River Adur; River Ouse; Cuckmere and Sussex Havens; Rother and Romney and River Medway catchments in relation to the East Sussex administrative boundary. Not to Scale.


© Natural England

© Environment Agency 2012

LegendEast Sussex Administrative Boundary

Main River

Adur

Ouse

Cuckmere and Sussex Havens

Rother and Romney

Medway

East Sussex Administrative Boundary

Main River

Adur

Ouse

Cuckmere and Sussex Havens

Rother and Romney

Medway

Legend

7


River AdurA1.16 The River Adur catchment (600 km2) is comprised of five topographically defined sub-

catchments (Figure 4): the Lower Adur; Adur West Branch; Adur East Branch; Ferring Rife and Teville Stream. Less than 5% of the catchment falls within East Sussex.

Figure 4. Diagram of the River Adur catchment, displaying sub-catchments, key settlements and environmental designations. Not to Scale.


© Natural England

Main River

Site of Special Scientific Interest

South Downs National Park

Legend

8


A1.17 Beyond the heavily developed coastal plain, which includes the population centres of Littlehampton, Worthing, Shoreham, and Brighton & Hove; the catchment is mostly characterised by rural and agricultural land use, with several small settlements, villages and towns scattered throughout.

A1.18 The topography of the catchment is dominated by the steep South Downs chalk ridge to the south, beyond which the land gently descends into the low-lying coastal plain. The northward face of the South Downs ridge is steeper and overlooks the Low Weald, a broad, low-lying vale with higher drier outcrops of limestone and sandstone. The northwest part of the catchment is characterised by the sandstone ridges and valleys of the High Weald.

A1.19 The majority of the main River Adur flows through the Low Weald where gradients are generally flat. However, some of the upstream tributaries of the Adur East Branch originate in the High Weald where the ground elevations are more than 200m above mean sea-level (compared to 100m above sea-level for the tributaries of the Adur West Branch).

A1.20 The chalk of the South Downs and the sandstone of the High Weald are areas of higher ground. In these permeable areas, the soils are generally well drained and the streams respond to seasonal groundwater variations and high levels of surface water runoff from the open landscape during intense rainfall events. The chalk formation is an important aquifer and forms a significant water resource, widely abstracted for public use.

A1.21 The Low Weald occupies the majority of the upper catchment, including Wivelsfield that falls within the administrative boundary of East Sussex County Council. A band of impermeable Weald Clay underlies this area causing poor drainage and prolonged waterlogging of overlying soils. This causes a rapid response to rainfall events i.e. a high percentage of surface water runoff.

A1.22 The area contains several sites of environmental and landscape importance, including the South Downs National Park, High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and eight Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). This includes the Adur Estuary SSSI which is of particular significance due to its saltmarsh habitat.

A1.23 Within the East Sussex section of the River Adur catchment there are the following heritage designations – 60 Listed Buildings, 3 Conservation Areas and 1 Scheduled Monument. Of notable interest is the 16th century, grade 1 listed, Wings Place in Ditchling.

9


River OuseA1.24 The River Ouse catchment (605 km2) is comprised of four sub-catchments (Figure 5):

the upper, middle and lower Ouse and the River Uck.


© Natural England

Figure 5. Diagram of the River Ouse catchment, displaying sub-catchments, key settlements and environmental designations. Not to Scale.

Main River

Special Area of Conservation

Special Protection Area



Legend

10


A1.25 The physical characteristics of the River Uck catchment, in particular its steep slopes and channel gradient, leave downstream areas susceptible to flooding due to the rapid conveyance of runoff following heavy rainfall events.

A1.26 The River Ouse flows through gentle undulating countryside in its upper reaches and below the confluence with the Uck it flows out onto a broad flat floodplain where it meanders down to Lewes. At Lewes, the Ouse is bottlenecked through a narrow gap in the chalk of the South Downs, then widens out and flows across the low flat valley of the Lewes Brooks, reaching the coast at Newhaven. The river levels are tidally-influenced between Newhaven and Barcombe Mills.

A1.27 The Upper Ouse lies within the High Weald, which is comprised of silty sands and sandstones, with lesser amounts of mudstone. These semi-permeable layers are overlain by various silty, loamy and sometimes clayey topsoils, which vary from moderately well draining to poorly draining soils that can become waterlogged in wet weather. Clays result in high runoff rates which mean that the catchment responds quickly to rainfall events (described as ‘flashy’) and flooding can occur rapidly.

A1.28 The Middle Ouse is situated within the Low Weald; an area that is underlain by a band of impermeable Weald Clay where drainage is poor and overlying soils are subject to prolonged waterlogging. Greensand and Gault clay underlie the southern part of the Low Weald and as such the topsoil here is better drained.

A1.29 The Chalk layers of the South Downs are overlain by generally shallow and well-drained topsoil that allows rainfall to quickly seep into the underlying chalk aquifers. Rain soaks into the chalk bedrock and may emerge at the base of the ridge slope as springs, producing the characteristic spring line across the South Downs ridge.

A1.30 A large area of the upper catchment is part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and much of the lower catchment lies within the South Downs National Park. The area possesses an array of sites designated as being of international, national and local importance for biodiversity. These include one Special Protected Area (SPA), three Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), two National Nature Reserves and 24 Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Many of these sites support important wetland habitats and species sensitive to changes in water level, flow and quality.

A1.31 Within the River Ouse catchment there are the following heritage designations – 1,683 Listed Buildings, 124 Scheduled Monuments and 61 Conservation Areas. Key heritage designations include Sheffield Park House, Lewes Castle, Glynde Place and Caburn Iron Age Hillfort.

11


Cuckmere and Sussex HavensA1.32 The Cuckmere and Sussex Havens catchment (506km2) is comprised of five smaller river

catchments (Figure 6): the Cuckmere River; and watercourses on the Willingdon Levels; the Pevensey Levels; Wallers Haven and Combe Haven.

Figure 6. Diagram of the Cuckmere and Sussex Havens catchment, displaying sub-catchments, key settlements and environmental designations. Not to Scale.


© Natural England

Main River

Ramsar and Special Area of Conservation



Heritage Coast

Legend

12


A1.33 Topography has a major influence upon river flows within this catchment. Fast-flowing streams emerge from the Upper Weald area in the north and then flow more slowly down into the shallower low-lying coastal plain. Landscape varies from the distinctive hills and steep scarp slopes of the South Downs, to the gently rolling hills of the Low Weald and the extensive low-lying area of the Pevensey and Willingdon Levels.

A1.34 Within the geology of this catchment, the High Weald consists of various sandstones and mudstones, of which the Ashdown Sands and Tunbridge Wells Sands are ‘minor’ aquifers from which water is abstracted for public water supply. Soils in the High Weald tend to be free draining over the Ashdown Sands however they are also interspersed with relatively impermeable, clay-rich soils which remain seasonally waterlogged in places. Springs are common where permeable and impermeable rocks meet.

A1.35 The Low Weald is formed of softer silty sandstones and mudstones that continue beneath much of the Pevensey Levels and across the middle reaches of the Cuckmere River. Springs are common at the junction between permeable sandstones and the impermeable mudstones, resulting in a large number of small streams with a naturally flashy response to rainfall events and strong seasonal variations in river flows. Despite the density of woodland in the High Weald, surface water runoff is higher than for the Low Weald because of the steeper topography and comparatively less permeable soils.

A1.36 The lower reaches of the Cuckmere River enter the highly permeable chalk of the South Downs; a major aquifer and important water resource for surrounding towns and villages. There are no main rivers or streams issuing from the chalk, although many springs rise at the foot of the scarp boundary between the Upper Greensand and the Gault Clay. The permeable chalk geology in parts of the lower catchment results in more complex groundwater flooding and surface water drainage problems.

A1.37 The upper catchments of the Cuckmere and Sussex Havens lie within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the lower reaches within the South Downs National Park. The Pevensey Levels are designated as an internationally important site for migratory wading birds under the Ramsar Convention. The Lower Cuckmere is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – the Seaford to Beachy Head SSSI – due to its landforms of geographical and geomorphological interest, and diverse range of habitats which support nationally rare, scarce and significant plants, invertebrates and birds.

A1.38 Within the catchment there are 1,946 Listed Buildings, 130 Scheduled Monuments and 62 Conservation Areas. Key heritage designations include Pevensey Castle, Battle Abbey and Arlington Medieval Village.

13


Rother and RomneyA1.39 The Rother and Romney catchment (970 km2) falls within the administrative areas of both

ESCC (approximately 40%) and Kent County Council, see Figure 7.

Figure 7. Diagram of the Rother and Romney catchment, displaying sub-catchments, key settlements and environmental designations. Not to Scale.


© Natural England Legend

Main River




14


A1.40 The primary river system within East Sussex for this plan area is the River Rother, which rises in Mayfield and flows eastward through the towns of Robertsbridge and Etchingham. The Rivers Tillingham and Brede join the Rother estuary at Rye. The Walland and Romney Marshes, which lie to the east of the catchment, consist of wetlands of international conservation significance and grade 1 and 2 agricultural land.

A1.41 The High Weald in this catchment is comprised of a geology of alternating sands, silt and clay ridges dissected by incised river valleys. These layers are commonly known as the ‘Hastings Beds’. The constituent units of the Hastings Beds Group include the Ashdown Beds, Wadhurst Clay and Tunbridge Wells Sands. The layering of the Hastings Beds in the upper catchment results in the incorporation of impermeable clay and silt layers within the largely 'sandy' soil, which following a rainfall event can result in fast runoff and rapid onset flooding.

A1.42 The soils of the upper catchment are Stagnogley Soils that occur widely in lowland Britain on tills and soft argillaceous rocks. These tend to be deeper silty or clayey loams, which can restrict drainage and increase runoff, interspersed with areas of loamy soils that provide better drainage.

A1.43 The lower Rother valley is covered by alluvial soils that are developed in loamy or clay alluvium and which have a mixture of good to poor drainage. The land here is very flat so although water can drain into the soil, it often sits on the surface or forms puddles as it slowly infiltrates. In the 1960s the Kent River Authority instigated the Rother Area Drainage Improvement Scheme, which led to the Rother being embanked in its lower reaches and pumping stations built to improve land drainage.

A1.44 The area of the River Rother catchment immediately adjacent to and surrounding Rye Harbour comprises of predominantly sand dune soils that are freely draining.

A1.45 Important designations and protected areas within this catchment include the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, one Special Protection Area, three Special Areas of Conservation, 22 Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the proposed Dungeness to Pett Level Ramsar site.

A1.46 Within the catchment there are 2,054 Listed Buildings, 41 Scheduled Monuments and 12 Conservation Areas. Notable designations include the grade I listed Bodiam Castle, Beauport Park Roman Bath House and the Military Canal at Rye.

15


Figure 8. Diagram of the River Medway catchment, displaying sub-catchments, key settlements and environmental designations. Not to Scale.

Legend

Main River





© Natural England

River MedwayA1.47 The River Medway catchment (1,388 km2) contains the heavily managed River Medway and its

four main tributaries (Figure 8): the Eden, Bourne, Teise and Beult. Only a small section, 25% of the catchment, falls within the East Sussex administrative boundary.

16


A1.48 The River Medway rises as a spring near East Grinstead (West Sussex) and flows east where it is joined by the Eden. The river continues to flow eastwards through the Leigh Barrier and into Tonbridge in Kent. The River Medway flows across the northern most part of East Sussex, through Forest Row and then eastwards towards Groombridge, where it veers northwards along the East Sussex County boundary for a short distance before entering Kent, see Figures 3 and 8.

A1.49 The geology of this area is comprised of the deeply incised tributaries of the High Weald which have cut through the siltstones, sandstones and clays of the Hastings Beds. Surrounding the Hastings Beds is the Low Weald, which is characterised by heavy clay, with very little sandstone compared with the High Weald. The more permeable geological components are locally important aquifers which provide baseflow for the headwaters of the Medway and Teise Rivers.

A1.50 The High Weald (upper Medway and Teise) is predominantly covered by loamy and clayey soils with slightly impeded drainage. The soil texture is very granular and compact, therefore producing a lower permeability that restricts the downward movement of water. Soils of this type can become waterlogged quickly after heavy rainfall, which then increases the rate of surface water runoff leading to higher fluvial flows.

A1.51 There are also patches of sandy and loamy soils in the mixed dry and wet heath communities to the south-west of the catchment, around Ashdown Forest and Royal Tunbridge Wells. This soil texture is lighter than the rest of the High Weald but surface runoff rates can still be high due to a surface layer of peat that holds water.

A1.52 Important designations and protected areas within this catchment include the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Ashdown Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest, Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area.

A1.53 Within the River Medway catchment in East Sussex there are 580 Listed Buildings, 26 Scheduled Monuments and 9 Conservation Areas. Notable designations include High Rocks Hillfort and Bayham Abbey.

Shoreline Characteristics

A1.54 The iconic coastline of East Sussex stretches from Saltdean in the west of the county to Camber Sands in the east, see Figure 3. The shoreline is a varied mosaic, characterised by high chalk cliffs; lowland reclaimed marshland and shingle beaches. There is also extensive agricultural land; large urban areas that fringe the coast including Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings; as well as many areas designated and protected for their heritage, landscape, geological and biological value.

A1.55 The coastline is constantly in a state of flux, further exacerbated by social, economic and environmental pressures.

A1.56 The shoreline of East Sussex is characterised by a legacy of human intervention, with attempts to ‘hold the line’ through coastal defence for over 200 years, in order to slow the effects of coastal erosion and to prevent inundation. Defence is required due to the substantial levels of financial and cultural investment along the coast. Considerable lengths of the county’s coast have been developed with 90 to 95% of its frontage defended against erosion and/or flood risk. This is understandable when the majority of the county’s population is concentrated within the coastal zone. Within the developed coast are pockets of deprivation, including Hastings, the 13th most deprived neighbourhood in the country, as identified by the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015.

17


A1.57 The ‘Hard engineering’ of the coastal frontage through the development of coastal defences and management practices have minimised the delivery of sediment alongshore, to nourish beaches locally within the county. The construction of defences inhibits sediment movement and prevents cliff erosion. Limited sediment supply and the ‘unnatural’ hard engineered line of the current shoreline has resulted in the need to artificially manage the foreshore, including the need for replenishment schemes, as well as the use of groynes and breakwaters.

A1.58 Rising maintenance costs coupled with environmental pressures, such as the impacts of climate change including increased storminess and rising sea-levels, have highlighted the need to search for alternative, sustainable methods of defence. Detailed future policy for the frontages of East Sussex are outlined within two Shoreline Management Plans; South Foreland to Beachy Head and Beachy Head to Selsey Bill. Changes in policy options as a result of recent and more detailed strategy assessments can be found online at www.se-coastalgroup.org.uk.

A1.59 The coastline of East Sussex is recognised for its landscape and environmental importance. The shoreline contains a significant share of the region’s designated wildlife sites, such as the Ramsar and SAC protected Pevensey Levels, as well as the heritage coastline of the Severn Sisters and Beachy Head, which warrant protection. Detail of these designations, including the South Downs National Park, can be seen in Figures 2 through to 8.

A1.60 The coastline is also subject to increased social pressures, due to housing demands and tourism. The high amenity value of the East Sussex frontages warrants its long-term protection.

18


A2Policy and Legal FrameworkA2.1 A number of key policy and legislative drivers underpin East Sussex County Council’s new role

as a lead local flood authority (LLFA).

A2.2 Table 1 outlines regulations, policy and legislation which are directly relevant to the risk management authorities or which they should be mindful of when carrying out their flood risk management duties and functions. To view the following statutory documents in full, please visit www.legislation.gov.uk and search for the desired act, regulations or directive.

19

Policy and Legal Framework

Tabl

e 1.

An

outli

ne o

f key

legi

slat

ive

and

polic

y dr

iver

s w

hich

are

dire

ctly

rele

vant

to th

e ris

k m

anag

emen

t aut

horit

ies

in E

ast S

usse

x or

whi

ch th

ey s

houl

d be

min

dful

of w

hen

carr

ying

out

thei

r ris

k m

anag

emen

t dut

ies

and

func

tions

.

Polic

y, Re

gula

tion,

Legi

slatio

nPu

rpos

e

Flood

Ris

k Man

agem

ent

The P

itt Re

view

(200

7)

Follo

wing

the w

ides

prea

d flo

odin

g of s

umm

er 2

007 a

n in

depe

nden

t rev

iew

was u

nder

take

n by

Sir M

ichae

l Pitt

on b

ehal

f of t

he G

over

nmen

t. Th

e fina

l rep

ort

entit

led “L

earn

ing L

esso

ns fr

om th

e 200

7 Flo

ods”

calle

d fo

r urg

ent a

nd fu

ndam

enta

l cha

nges

to th

e way

the c

ount

ry wa

s ada

ptin

g to t

he li

kelih

ood

of m

ore

frequ

ent a

nd in

tens

e per

iods

of ra

infa

ll. Fo

cus c

entre

d on

surfa

ce w

ater

floo

ding

– th

e mai

n ca

use o

f dam

age d

urin

g the

200

7 floo

ds.

The

repo

rt ou

tline

d 92

reco

mm

enda

tions

, of w

hich

21 w

ere s

pecifi

cally

rela

ted

to lo

cal a

utho

rities

and

thei

r res

pons

ibili

ties.

Of p

artic

ular

inte

rest

was

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

that

loca

l aut

horit

ies s

houl

d pl

ay a

maj

or ro

le in

the

man

agem

ent o

f loc

al fl

ood

risk,

takin

g th

e lea

d in

tack

ling

loca

l floo

ding

and

co-

ordi

natin

g all r

eleva

nt ag

encie

s.

The F

lood

and

Wate

r M

anag

emen

t Act

(201

0)

The

Flood

and

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Act

aim

ed to

impr

ove

the

man

agem

ent o

f wat

er re

sour

ces a

nd cr

eate

a m

ore

com

preh

ensiv

e an

d ris

k bas

ed re

gime

for

man

agin

g the

risk

of fl

oodi

ng fr

om al

l sou

rces.

The A

ct ga

ve th

e Env

ironm

ent A

genc

y a st

rate

gic ov

ervie

w ro

le in

rega

rd to

floo

d an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risk m

anag

emen

t and

mai

ntai

ned

its re

spon

sibili

ty fo

r flu

vial,

coas

tal a

nd re

serv

oir fl

ood

risk.

Coun

ty co

uncil

or u

nita

ry lo

cal a

utho

rities

wer

e id

entifi

ed a

s lea

d lo

cal fl

ood

auth

oriti

es, r

espo

nsib

le fo

r man

agin

g lo

cal fl

ood r

isk i.e

. floo

ding

from

surfa

ce w

ater

, gro

undw

ater

and o

rdin

ary w

ater

cour

ses.

The A

ct al

so pr

ovid

ed du

ties a

nd po

wers

to ai

d par

tner

ship

wor

king,

im

prov

e inf

orm

atio

n sha

ring b

etwe

en ri

sk m

anag

emen

t aut

horit

ies an

d help

achi

eve s

usta

inab

le ou

tcom

es fr

om flo

od ri

sk ac

tiviti

es. O

ther

chan

ges i

nclu

ded:

Re

giona

l Flo

od D

efen

ce C

omm

ittee

s bec

omin

g Re

giona

l Flo

od a

nd C

oast

al C

omm

ittee

s, po

wers

wer

e in

trodu

ced

to d

esign

ate

stru

cture

s and

feat

ures

that

aff

ect fl

oodi

ng, a

nd m

easu

res w

ere i

ntro

duce

d fo

r the

appr

oval

and

adop

tion

of su

stai

nabl

e dra

inag

e sys

tem

s.

The k

ey ro

les an

d re

spon

sibili

ties o

f risk

man

agem

ent a

utho

rities

und

er th

e Act

are o

utlin

ed in

full i

n Sec

tion A

4.

The N

atio

nal F

lood

and C

oast

al

Eros

ion

Risk

Man

agem

ent

Stra

tegy

for E

ngla

nd(2

011)

The N

atio

nal F

lood

and

Coas

tal E

rosio

n Ri

sk M

anag

emen

t (NF

CERM

) Stra

tegy

(ava

ilabl

e onl

ine a

t www

.env

ironm

ent-a

genc

y.gov

.uk)

pro

vides

an ov

erar

chin

g fra

mew

ork f

or fu

ture

actio

n by

all r

isk m

anag

emen

t aut

horit

ies (a

s defi

ned

by th

e Flo

od an

d Wa

ter M

anag

emen

t Act)

to ta

ckle

flood

and

coas

tal e

rosio

n ris

k in

Engla

nd. T

his s

trate

gy ai

ms t

o mak

e sur

e tha

t Def

ra, t

he En

viron

men

t Age

ncy,

loca

l aut

horit

ies, w

ater

com

pani

es, in

tern

al dr

aina

ge bo

ards

and o

ther

flood

an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risk m

anag

emen

t par

tner

s wor

k tog

ethe

r to:

•m

aint

ain

and

over

tim

e im

prov

e sta

ndar

ds of

pro

tecti

on ag

ains

t floo

d an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risks

whe

re it

is aff

orda

ble t

o do s

o;•

incr

ease

the o

vera

ll lev

el of

inve

stm

ent i

n flo

od an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risk m

anag

emen

t to s

uppl

emen

t cen

tral g

over

nmen

t exp

endi

ture

;•

help

hou

seho

lder

s, bu

sines

ses a

nd co

mm

uniti

es b

ette

r und

erst

and

and

man

age a

ny fl

ood

and

coas

tal e

rosio

n ris

ks th

at th

ey fa

ce;

•en

sure

fast

and

effec

tive r

espo

nses

to, a

nd re

cove

ry fro

m, fl

ood

even

ts w

hen

they

do o

ccur

;•

give p

riorit

y to i

nves

tmen

t in

actio

ns th

at b

enefi

t tho

se co

mm

uniti

es w

hich

face

grea

test

risk

and

are l

east

able

to aff

ord

to h

elp th

emse

lves;

•en

cour

age a

nd su

ppor

t loc

al in

nova

tion

and

decis

ion

mak

ing w

ithin

the f

ram

ewor

k of r

iver c

atch

men

ts an

d co

asta

l cell

s; an

d•

achi

eve e

nviro

nmen

tal g

ains

alon

gsid

e eco

nom

ic an

d so

cial g

ains

, con

siste

nt w

ith th

e prin

ciples

of su

stai

nabl

e dev

elopm

ent.

20


Polic

y, Re

gula

tion,

Legi

slatio

nPu

rpos

e

Flood

Ris

k Man

agem

ent

The F

lood

Risk

Regu

latio

ns(2

009)

The

Flood

Risk

Reg

ulat

ions

tran

spos

ed th

e EC

Flo

ods

Dire

ctive

(200

7/60

/EC)

on

the

asse

ssm

ent a

nd m

anag

emen

t of fl

ood

risk

into

dom

estic

law

and

impl

emen

ted i

ts pr

ovisi

ons.

The r

egul

atio

ns ou

tline

the r

oles

and r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s of t

he va

rious

auth

oriti

es co

nsist

ent w

ith th

e Flo

od an

d Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Ac

t and

pro

vide f

or th

e deli

very

of th

e out

puts

requ

ired

by th

e dire

ctive

.

The

regu

latio

ns re

quire

that

the

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y pre

pare

pre

limin

ary fl

ood

risk

asse

ssm

ents

, as w

ell a

s floo

d ris

k m

aps,

haza

rd m

aps a

nd fl

ood

risk

man

agem

ent p

lans

whe

re re

quire

d in

rela

tion

to fl

ood

risk f

rom

the

sea,

mai

n riv

ers a

nd re

serv

oirs

. Lea

d lo

cal fl

ood

auth

oriti

es (L

LFAs

) are

to p

erfo

rm th

e sa

me

resp

onsib

ilitie

s fo

r all

form

s of

loca

l floo

ding

(exc

ludi

ng s

ewer

floo

ding

) inc

ludi

ng th

at c

ause

d by

sur

face

wat

er ru

noff,

gro

undw

ater

and

ord

inar

y wa

terco

urse

s. Th

e En

viron

men

t Age

ncy i

s req

uire

d to

colla

te a

nd co

-ord

inat

e suc

h LL

FA p

lans

and

map

ping

and

pub

lish

the

findi

ngs.

Revie

w of

such

pla

ns

and

map

s occ

urs o

n a s

ix-ye

arly

basis

.

Depa

rtmen

t for

Envir

onm

ent,

Food

and

Rura

l Affa

irs (D

efra

) (2

011)

‘Futu

re W

ater

- The

Go

vern

men

t’s w

ater

stra

tegy

for

Engla

nd’

‘Futu

re W

ater

’ set

s out

the G

over

nmen

t pla

n fo

r fut

ure w

ater

pro

visio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t in

Engla

nd. T

he st

rate

gy ca

lls fo

r the

bet

ter m

anag

emen

t of s

urfa

ce

wate

r dra

inag

e by 2

030,

with

Sur

face

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Pla

ns (S

WM

Ps) s

een

to b

e a ke

y in

achi

evin

g thi

s. SW

MPs

are

reco

mm

ende

d to

be u

nder

take

n in

ar

eas w

here

ther

e is a

sign

ifica

nt ri

sk fr

om su

rface

wat

er fl

oodi

ng, a

nd sh

ould

aim

to co

-ord

inat

e dra

inag

e sta

keho

lder

s, an

d cla

rify t

heir

resp

onsib

ilitie

s in

the m

anag

emen

t of s

urfa

ce w

ater

. The

pla

n aim

s to e

nsur

e tha

t SW

MPs

pro

vide a

stro

nger

influ

ence

in th

e coo

rdin

atio

n of f

utur

e dev

elopm

ent a

nd p

lann

ing.

Land

Dra

inag

e Act

(1991

)

The L

and

Drai

nage

Act

outli

nes t

he d

uties

and

powe

rs to

man

age l

and

drai

nage

for a

num

ber o

f bod

ies in

cludi

ng th

e Env

ironm

ent A

genc

y, in

tern

al d

rain

age

boar

ds, l

ocal

aut

horit

ies, n

aviga

tion

auth

oriti

es a

nd ri

paria

n ow

ners

. In

addi

tion

to p

erm

issive

pow

ers f

or la

nd d

rain

age,

ther

e are

also

furth

er d

uties

with

re

spec

t to r

ecre

atio

n an

d th

e env

ironm

ent.

Sche

dule

2 of t

he Fl

ood

and

Wate

r Man

agem

ent A

ct am

ende

d th

e Lan

d Dr

aina

ge Ac

t. Th

is ga

ve ES

CC a

new

resp

onsib

ility

for c

onse

ntin

g wor

ks up

on or

dina

ry wa

terco

urse

s (a

resp

onsib

ility

trans

ferre

d fro

m th

e En

viron

men

t Age

ncy).

Inte

rnal

dra

inag

e bo

ards

hav

e re

tain

ed th

e re

spon

sibili

ty fo

r con

sent

ing

work

s wi

thin

thei

r dist

ricts

.

Plan

ning

Natio

nal P

lann

ing P

olicy

Fra

mew

ork

(201

2)an

d su

ppor

ting t

echn

ical

guid

ance

The N

atio

nal P

lann

ing P

olicy

Fram

ewor

k set

s out

Gov

ernm

ent p

olicy

on de

velo

pmen

t and

flood

risk

. It st

ates

that

plan

ning

auth

oriti

es sh

ould

adop

t pro

activ

e st

rate

gies t

o miti

gate

and

adap

t to c

limat

e cha

nge,

takin

g ful

l acc

ount

of fl

ood

risk,

coas

tal c

hang

e and

wat

er su

pply

and

dem

and

cons

ider

atio

ns.

It ou

tline

s tha

t ina

ppro

pria

te de

velo

pmen

t in a

reas

at ri

sk of

flood

ing s

houl

d be a

void

ed by

dire

cting

deve

lopm

ent a

way f

rom

area

s at h

ighes

t risk

, but

whe

re

deve

lopm

ent i

s nec

essa

ry, m

akin

g it s

afe w

ithou

t inc

reas

ing t

he ri

sk of

floo

ding

else

wher

e.St

rate

gic flo

od ri

sk as

sess

men

ts (S

FRAs

) are

prep

ared

by pl

anni

ng au

thor

ities

and s

houl

d cov

er al

l form

s of fl

ood r

isk. A

SFRA

is us

ed in

the p

lann

ing p

roce

ss

to id

entif

y sui

tabl

e site

s for

dev

elopm

ent.

Hous

e of C

omm

ons:

Writt

en

Stat

emen

t (HC

WS1

61) m

ade

by Th

e Sec

reta

ry of

Sta

te

for C

omm

uniti

es an

d Lo

cal

Gove

rnm

ent (

Mr E

ric Pi

ckles

) on

18 D

ecem

ber 2

014.

In co

njun

ction

with

the

Natio

nal P

lann

ing

Polic

y Fra

mew

ork,

this

stat

emen

t out

lined

the

proc

edur

e fo

r ens

urin

g th

e in

stall

atio

n of

Sus

tain

able

Drai

nage

Sy

stem

s (Su

DS) i

n m

ajor

dev

elopm

ent (

plan

ning

appl

icatio

ns of

10 or

mor

e dwe

lling

s or l

and

of ov

er 1

hect

are)

to m

anag

e sur

face

wat

er ru

noff.

From

April

2015

onwa

rds,

loca

l pla

nnin

g aut

horit

ies ar

e res

pons

ible

for e

nsur

ing t

hat S

uDS a

re in

stall

ed in

maj

or de

velo

pmen

ts an

d mai

nten

ance

is ar

rang

ed

for t

he lif

etim

e of t

he d

evelo

pmen

t. Th

e Lea

d Lo

cal F

lood

Aut

horit

y acts

as a

stat

utor

y con

sulte

e on

plan

ning

appl

icatio

ns fo

r sur

face

wat

er m

anag

emen

t.

21


Polic

y, Re

gula

tion,

Legi

slatio

nPu

rpos

e

Flood

Ris

k Man

agem

ent

The T

own

and C

ount

y Pla

nnin

g (D

evelo

pmen

t Man

agem

ent

Proc

edur

e) (E

ngla

nd) O

rder

201

5 No

.595

Sche

dule

4 of

The T

own

and

Coun

ty Pl

anni

ng (D

evelo

pmen

t Man

agem

ent P

roce

dure

) (En

gland

) 201

5, d

efine

s the

Lead

Loca

l Flo

od A

utho

rity a

s a st

atut

ory

cons

ulte

e to t

he p

lann

ing s

yste

m fo

r all m

ajor

dev

elopm

ent w

ith su

rface

wat

er d

rain

age,

com

ing i

nto e

ffect

from

15th

Apr

il 201

5.

Plan

ning

Prac

tice G

uida

nce:

Flo

od Ri

sk an

d Coa

stal

Chan

ge

(201

4)

The

Plan

ning

Pra

ctice

Gui

danc

e fo

r Flo

od R

isk a

nd C

oast

al C

hang

e ou

tline

d th

e wa

y in

which

risk

s of

floo

ding

and

coas

tal e

rosio

n ca

n be

acc

ount

ed fo

r in

pla

nnin

g fu

ture

dev

elopm

ents

. The

gui

danc

e co

vers

whe

re c

onsid

erat

ions

or f

orm

al a

sses

smen

ts o

f floo

d ris

k an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

are

requ

ired

for

deve

lopm

ent.

Depa

rtmen

t for

Envir

onm

ent,

Food

and

Rura

l Affa

irs (M

arch

20

15) S

usta

inab

le Dr

aina

ge

Syst

ems:

Non-

stat

utor

y tec

hnica

l st

anda

rds f

or su

stai

nabl

e dr

aina

ge sy

stem

s

This

docu

men

t pro

vides

the t

echn

ical s

tand

ards

for s

usta

inab

le dr

aina

ge sy

stem

s (Su

DS),

inclu

ding

the d

esign

, ope

ratio

n, an

d m

aint

enan

ce of

the s

yste

ms.

Drai

nage

stra

tegie

s fo

r new

dev

elopm

ents

sho

uld

be p

rodu

ced

in-li

ne w

ith th

ese

stan

dard

s, an

d Le

ad L

ocal

Flo

od A

utho

rities

(LLF

As) s

houl

d re

view

appl

icatio

ns ac

cord

ing t

o the

se p

rincip

les. H

owev

er, t

he st

anda

rds a

re n

on-st

atut

ory,

and

ther

efor

e LLF

As m

ay ta

ilor d

rain

age s

trate

gy re

quire

men

ts to

mee

t th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f the

ir ow

n re

gions

. The

tech

nica

l sta

ndar

ds sh

ould

be

used

in co

njun

ction

with

the

Natio

nal P

lann

ing

Polic

y Fra

mew

ork

and

Plan

ning

Pr

actic

e Gui

danc

e 201

2.

Envir

onm

enta

l, Su

stai

nabi

lity a

nd N

atur

e Con

serv

atio

n

The W

ater

Fram

ewor

k Dire

ctive

(200

0)

Wate

r Fra

mew

ork D

irecti

ve

Regu

latio

ns En

gland

and

Wales

(2

003)

The

Wate

r Fra

mew

ork

Dire

ctive

(WFD

) tra

nspo

sed

to th

e W

FD R

egul

atio

ns fo

r Eng

land

and

Wal

es, e

stab

lishe

d a

legal

fram

ewor

k to

man

age,

pro

tect

and

impr

ove t

he w

ater

envir

onm

ent a

cross

Euro

pe an

d en

sure

s its

long

-term

sust

aina

ble u

se. T

he d

irecti

ve es

tabl

ished

an in

tegr

ated

rive

r bas

in ap

proa

ch to

the

man

agem

ent a

nd pr

otec

tion o

f aqu

atic

ecos

yste

ms.

The d

irecti

ve ad

dres

ses i

nlan

d sur

face

wat

ers,

trans

ition

al w

ater

s, co

asta

l wat

ers a

nd gr

ound

wate

r – th

e ce

ntra

l req

uire

men

t of t

he Tr

eaty

bein

g tha

t the

envir

onm

ent i

s pro

tecte

d to

a hi

gh le

vel in

its e

ntire

ty.Fu

ndam

enta

l to t

he W

FD is

that

mem

ber s

tate

s mus

t aim

to ac

hiev

e at l

east

‘goo

d ec

olog

ical s

tatu

s’ fo

r all i

nlan

d, tr

ansit

iona

l and

coas

tal w

ater

bod

ies an

d ‘go

od ec

olog

ical p

oten

tial’ f

or al

l arti

ficia

l or h

eavil

y mod

ified

wat

er bo

dies

by 20

15 (t

his m

ay be

delay

ed un

til 20

21 or

2027

if th

ere a

re te

chni

cal d

ifficu

lties

). Fu

rther

det

erio

ratio

n of

wat

er st

atus

is p

rohi

bite

d. Co

mpl

ianc

e is a

lso re

quire

d wi

th o

ther

dire

ctive

s, wi

th go

od st

atus

requ

ired

for a

ll Nat

ura

2000

site

s by

2015

(Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns 2

010,

see b

elow)

.Th

e Env

ironm

ent A

genc

y has

pro

duce

d riv

er b

asin

man

agem

ent p

lans

for a

ll 11 r

iver b

asin

dist

ricts

acro

ss En

gland

and

Wales

inclu

ding

the S

outh

East

with

th

e aim

to d

evelo

p ne

w an

d be

tter w

ays o

f pro

tecti

ng an

d im

prov

ing t

he aq

uatic

envir

onm

ent.

The o

ther

risk

man

agem

ent a

utho

rities

(inc

ludi

ng ES

CC) a

re re

quire

d to

take

mea

sure

s to m

anag

e floo

d ris

k in s

uch

a way

as to

not

caus

e fur

ther

wat

er b

ody

dete

riora

tion.

They

will

also

be r

equi

red

to co

nsid

er an

d pu

rsue

oppo

rtuni

ties t

o im

prov

e wat

er b

odies

in co

njun

ction

with

floo

d ris

k man

agem

ent a

ctivit

ies.

22


Polic

y, Re

gula

tion,

Legi

slatio

nPu

rpos

e

The C

onse

rvat

ion

of H

abita

ts an

d Sp

ecies

Regu

latio

ns(2

010)

The H

abita

ts D

irecti

ve (9

2/43

/EEC

) and

Bird

s Dire

ctive

(200

9/14

7/EC

) wer

e tra

nspo

sed

into

UK l

aw b

y the

Cons

erva

tion o

f Hab

itats

and S

pecie

s Reg

ulat

ions

. Th

e ob

jectiv

e of

the

Regu

latio

ns is

to p

rote

ct an

d en

hanc

e bi

odive

rsity

thro

ugh

the

cons

erva

tion

of n

atur

al h

abita

ts a

nd s

pecie

s of

wild

faun

a an

d flo

ra,

mai

ntai

ning

a co

here

nt n

etwo

rk of

pro

tecte

d ar

eas k

nown

as N

atur

a 200

0 sit

es.

The R

egul

atio

ns ap

ply t

o Eur

opea

n sit

es i.

e. S

pecia

l Pro

tecti

on A

reas

(SPA

) and

Spe

cial A

reas

of Co

nser

vatio

n (S

AC).

This

sam

e lev

el of

pro

tecti

on is

appl

ied

and

exte

nded

to In

tern

atio

nal R

amsa

r site

s, th

us R

amsa

r site

s ar

e tre

ated

as

if th

ey a

re d

esign

ated

Eur

opea

n sit

es. W

ithin

Eas

t Sus

sex,

the

follo

wing

Eu

rope

an an

d In

tern

atio

nal s

ites h

ave b

een

iden

tified

:

•Le

wes D

owns

SAC;

•Ca

stle

Hill S

AC;

•As

hdow

n Fo

rest

SAC a

nd SP

A;•

Peve

nsey

Leve

ls SA

C and

Ram

sar;

•Ha

stin

gs Cl

iffs S

AC;

•Du

ngen

ess S

AC an

d•

Dung

enes

s, Ro

mne

y Mar

sh an

d Ry

e Bay

SPA/

Ram

sar (

exte

nsio

n of

SPA

and

desig

natio

n of

Ram

sar s

ite).

It is t

he re

spon

sibili

ty of

the r

isk m

anag

emen

t aut

horit

ies to

ensu

re th

at th

e req

uire

men

ts of

the H

abita

t Reg

ulat

ions

are m

et be

fore

unde

rtakin

g or p

erm

ittin

g an

y pro

ject.

A ha

bita

t reg

ulat

ions

ass

essm

ent s

cree

ning

opi

nion

shou

ld b

e sou

ght f

rom

Nat

ural

Engla

nd to

det

erm

ine w

heth

er a

pla

n or

pro

ject i

s like

ly to

ha

ve a

signi

fican

t effe

ct on

any E

urop

ean (

SAC o

r SPA

) or I

nter

natio

nal (R

amsa

r) sit

e des

ignat

ed fo

r env

ironm

enta

l con

serv

atio

n pur

pose

s, an

d hen

ce w

heth

er

or n

ot an

appr

opria

te as

sess

men

t is r

equi

red.

The N

atur

al En

viron

men

t and

Ru

ral C

omm

uniti

es A

ct(2

006)

Loca

l Aut

horit

ies p

lay a

vita

l rol

e in

cons

ervin

g bio

dive

rsity

and

Sec

tion

40 o

f The

Nat

ural

Envir

onm

ent a

nd R

ural

Com

mun

ities

Act

(NER

C) se

ts o

ut th

e dut

y th

at “e

very

publ

ic au

thor

ity m

ust,

in ex

ercis

ing i

ts fu

nctio

ns, h

ave r

egar

d, so

far i

s con

siste

nt w

ith th

e pro

per e

xerci

se of

thos

e fun

ction

s, to

the p

urpo

se of

co

nser

ving b

iodi

vers

ity”.

The L

ocal

Floo

d Ri

sk M

anag

emen

t Stra

tegy

is in

form

ed b

y the

Coun

ty Co

uncil

’s En

viron

men

t (20

11) a

nd Su

stai

nabl

e Com

mun

ity (2

008)

stra

tegie

s, wh

ich ar

e ge

ared

towa

rd p

rote

cting

and

enha

ncin

g Eas

t Sus

sex’s

nat

ural

and

built

envir

onm

ent i

n lig

ht o

f clim

ate c

hang

e. Th

ese c

omm

itmen

ts ar

e com

plem

enta

ry to

ot

her n

atio

nal a

nd lo

cal c

onse

rvat

ion a

nd su

stai

nabi

lity i

nitia

tives

, inclu

ding

the B

iodi

vers

ity St

rate

gy 20

20; t

he So

uth

East

Bio

dive

rsity

Stra

tegy

(200

9) an

d lo

cal b

iodi

vers

ity ac

tion

plan

s.

The W

ildlif

e and

Coun

trysid

e Act

(1981

)Am

ende

d by

: Th

e Cou

ntrys

ide a

nd Ri

ghts

of

Way A

ct (2

000)

The

Coun

trysid

e an

d Ri

ghts

of W

ay A

ct (C

roW

) is t

he p

rincip

al m

echa

nism

for e

nviro

nmen

tal p

rote

ction

in E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

. The

Act

prov

ides

for p

ublic

ac

cess

on

foot

to ce

rtain

type

s of

land

; inc

reas

es m

easu

res

for t

he m

anag

emen

t and

pro

tecti

on o

f Site

s of

Spe

cial S

cient

ific I

nter

est (

SSSI

); st

reng

then

s wi

ldlif

e enf

orce

men

t leg

islat

ion

and

prov

ides

for b

ette

r man

agem

ent o

f Are

as of

Out

stan

ding

Nat

ural

Bea

uty (

AONB

).Th

e ris

k m

anag

emen

t aut

horit

ies a

re re

quire

d to

adh

ere

to th

e pr

ovisi

ons

in th

e Ac

t, wi

th a

focu

s on

pro

tecti

ng a

nd p

rovid

ing

mea

sure

s to

enh

ance

the

natu

ral e

nviro

nmen

t and

nat

ure c

onse

rvat

ion

inte

rest

s.

The S

alm

on an

d Fre

shwa

ter

Fishe

ries A

ct (19

75)

The E

els (E

ngla

nd an

d Wa

les)

Regu

latio

ns (2

009)

Any w

orks

affec

ting w

ater

cour

ses s

houl

d no

t lim

it or

affec

t the

pas

sage

of ee

ls, sa

lmon

and

fresh

wate

r fish

.Th

is is

impo

rtant

to co

nsid

er w

hen

gran

ting fl

ood

defe

nce c

onse

nt ap

plica

tions

.

23


Polic

y, Re

gula

tion,

Legi

slatio

nPu

rpos

e

Stra

tegic

Envir

onm

enta

l As

sess

men

t Dire

ctive

(200

1)

The E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t of

Plan

s and

Prog

ram

mes

Re

gula

tions

(200

4)

The S

trate

gic En

viron

men

tal A

sses

smen

t (SE

A) D

irecti

ve (2

001/

42/E

C) ai

ms t

o ens

ure e

nviro

nmen

tal is

sues

are c

onsid

ered

durin

g the

deve

lopm

ent o

f pla

ns,

prog

ram

mes

or s

trate

gies.

In E

ngla

nd, t

he D

irecti

ve is

impl

emen

ted

thro

ugh

the

Envir

onm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent o

f Pla

ns a

nd P

rogr

amm

es R

egul

atio

ns. A

SEA

id

entifi

es th

e sign

ifica

nt en

viron

men

tal e

ffects

that

are l

ikely

to re

sult d

ue to

the i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of a

plan

, pro

gram

me o

r stra

tegy

and i

s man

dato

ry fo

r pla

ns

or p

rogr

amm

es w

hich

:•

are

prep

ared

for a

gricu

lture

, for

estry

, fish

eries

, ene

rgy,

indu

stry,

tran

spor

t, wa

ste/

wat

er m

anag

emen

t, te

lecom

mun

icatio

ns, t

ouris

m, t

own

and

coun

try

plan

ning

or la

nd u

se an

d wh

ich se

t the

fram

ewor

k for

futu

re d

evelo

pmen

t con

sent

of p

rojec

ts lis

ted

in th

e Env

ironm

enta

l Impa

ct As

sess

men

t Dire

ctive

;•

or h

ave b

een

dete

rmin

ed to

requ

ire an

asse

ssm

ent u

nder

the H

abita

ts D

irecti

ve.

Clim

ate C

hang

e Act

(2

008)

The C

limat

e Cha

nge A

ct re

quire

s a U

K-wi

de cl

imat

e cha

nge r

isk as

sess

men

t eve

ry fiv

e yea

rs, a

ccom

pani

ed b

y a n

atio

nal a

dapt

atio

n pr

ogra

mm

e tha

t is a

lso

revie

wed

ever

y five

year

s. Th

e Act

has g

iven

the G

over

nmen

t pow

ers t

o req

uire

pub

lic b

odies

and

stat

utor

y org

anisa

tions

such

as w

ater

com

pani

es to

repo

rt on

how

they

are a

dapt

ing t

o clim

ate c

hang

e.Fo

r ESC

C th

e ke

y acc

ount

abili

ty re

late

s to

adap

ting

to cl

imat

e ch

ange

, ens

urin

g th

at th

e Lo

cal F

lood

Risk

Man

agem

ent S

trate

gy ta

kes i

nto

acco

unt c

limat

e ch

ange

and

issue

s suc

h as

chan

ges i

n ra

infa

ll and

how

that

coul

d aff

ect l

ocal

floo

ding

.

Othe

r

Civil

Cont

inge

ncies

Act

(2

004)

The

Civil

Con

tinge

ncies

Act

aim

s to

deliv

er a

sing

le fra

mew

ork

for c

ivil p

rote

ction

in th

e UK

and

sets

out

the

actio

ns th

at n

eed

to b

e ta

ken

in th

e ev

ent o

f a

flood

. Em

erge

ncy s

ervic

es, N

HS a

nd p

rimar

y ca

re tr

usts

, the

Env

ironm

ent A

genc

y an

d lo

cal a

utho

rities

hav

e a

resp

onsib

ility

as c

ateg

ory

one

gene

ral

resp

onde

rs u

nder

the A

ct an

d as

such

mus

t adh

ere t

o its

pro

visio

ns an

d ta

ke ac

tion

in re

spon

se to

a flo

od ev

ent.

High

ways

Act

(1980

)

The H

ighwa

ys A

ct pr

ovid

es fo

r the

crea

tion,

impr

ovem

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce of

road

s and

for t

he ac

quisi

tion

of la

nd. T

he A

ct co

nsol

idat

es H

ighwa

y Acts

1959

to

1971

and

rela

ted

enac

tmen

ts.

The A

ct es

tabl

ishes

the C

ount

y Cou

ncil

as th

e high

way a

utho

rity f

or Ea

st S

usse

x; re

spon

sible

for t

he m

aint

enan

ce o

f the

loca

l or ‘

publ

ic’ ro

ad n

etwo

rk. T

his

inclu

des e

nsur

ing t

hat h

ighwa

y dra

inag

e sys

tem

s are

clea

r and

that

bloc

kage

s on t

he hi

ghwa

y are

rem

oved

. A hi

ghwa

y aut

horit

y also

has t

he po

wer t

o deli

ver

work

s con

sider

ed n

eces

sary

to p

rote

ct th

e high

way f

rom

floo

ding

. The

se ca

n be

on

the h

ighwa

y or o

n la

nd th

at h

as b

een

acqu

ired

by th

e high

way a

utho

rity

for t

hat p

urpo

se. T

he au

thor

ity m

ay di

vert

parts

of a

wate

rcour

se or

carry

out a

ny ot

her w

orks

on an

y for

m of

wat

erco

urse

if it

is ne

cess

ary f

or th

e con

stru

ction

, im

prov

emen

t or a

ltera

tion

of th

e high

way o

r pro

vides

a ne

w m

eans

of ac

cess

to an

y pre

mise

s fro

m a

high

way.

The H

ighwa

ys A

genc

y is r

espo

nsib

le fo

r the

stra

tegic

road

net

work

of tr

unk r

oads

and

mot

orwa

ys.

Coas

t Pro

tecti

on A

ct

(1949

)

The C

oast

Prot

ectio

n Act

amen

ded

the l

aw re

latin

g to t

he p

rote

ction

of th

e coa

st of

Gre

at B

ritai

n ag

ains

t ero

sion

and

encro

achm

ent b

y the

sea.

Part

1 of t

he A

ct es

tabl

ishes

and

iden

tifies

coas

t pro

tecti

on au

thor

ities

(CPA

s); th

eir r

oles

and

resp

onsib

ilitie

s. A

coas

t pro

tecti

on au

thor

ity is

the C

ounc

il for

ea

ch m

ariti

me d

istric

t and

thus

all d

istric

t and

boro

ugh c

ounc

ils in

East

Suss

ex ar

e suc

h an a

utho

rity (

East

bour

ne an

d Has

tings

boro

ughs

; Lew

es, R

othe

r and

We

alde

n di

stric

ts). C

PAs h

ave p

ower

s to c

arry

out s

uch

coas

tal p

rote

ction

wor

k (wh

ethe

r it b

e new

sche

mes

, mai

nten

ance

or re

pair

work

s) se

en as

nec

essa

ry fo

r the

pro

tecti

on of

land

with

in th

eir a

rea.

Land

can a

lso b

e acq

uire

d by

agre

emen

t for

the d

elive

ry of

, or m

aint

enan

ce of

such

wor

ks. C

PAs a

lso h

ave p

ower

s to

serv

e not

ice on

an ow

ner o

r occ

upie

r to c

arry

out c

oast

al m

aint

enan

ce an

d re

pair

work

s.

24


A3The risk management authorities and their functionsA3.1 This section provides details of the Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) that operate within

East Sussex and outlines the risk management functions they are to exercise.

A3.2 The key RMAs for managing flooding within East Sussex are:

• East Sussex County Council – as both a Lead Local Flood Authority and Highways Authority• The Environment Agency• Southern Water• Upper Medway and Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Boards, and Pevensey and

Cuckmere Water Level Management Board• Lewes District Council• Eastbourne Borough Council• Wealden District Council• Hastings Borough Council• Rother District Council

A3.3 As a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the County Council also works with a wide range of other partners and stakeholders to manage flood risk. The roles and responsibilities of these authorities, partnerships, associations, groups and businesses are outlined under Other Key Partners and Stakeholders.

Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

A3.4 In its role as a LLFA, ESCC has a strategic role in overseeing the management of local flood risk. This includes flooding from ordinary watercourses (any river, stream or channel which is not identified as an Environment Agency Main River or critical ordinary watercourse), from surface water runoff, and from groundwater.

A3.5 ESCC has duties and powers to assist in delivering effective local flood risk management.

Duties

• To develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management within East Sussex;

• To investigate flood incidents (to the extent it considers necessary and appropriate), or determine which authority has flood risk management responsibilities and whether they propose to exercise those functions;

• To maintain a register of structures or features considered to significantly affect flood risk, and record ownership and state of repair. This should be available for inspection by the public at all reasonable times; and

• To advise local planning authorities on surface water management for major developments.

25

The risk management authorities and their functions

Powers

• To designate structures and features that affect flood risk;• To undertake works to manage flood risk from surface water runoff and groundwater

(permissive powers to undertake works on ordinary watercourses remain with district/borough councils and internal drainage boards, where these exist);

• To request information from any person in connection with the authority’s flood risk management functions;

• To determine applications for works affecting water flow and cross-sectional area of ordinary watercourses; and

• To serve notice on responsible parties, to ensure they carry out the necessary works to an ordinary watercourse.

Summary

A3.6 The primary roles of ESCC as LLFA are as follows:

• Management of local flood risk (including flooding from ordinary watercourses, surface water runoff and groundwater).

• Developing, maintaining, applying and monitoring a local flood risk management strategy.• Maintaining a register of flood risk assets.• Providing a co-ordinating role and promoting partnership working between the various

flood risk management authorities.• Acting as a statutory consultee to the planning system on major planning applications

(under the revised Development Management Procedure (England) Order 2015).

26


Risk

Man

agem

ent

Auth

ority

Func

tion

Role

s, D

utie

s, P

ower

s and

Res

pons

ibili

ties i

n Flo

od R

isk M

anag

emen

t

Coun

ty Co

uncil

(Eas

t Sus

sex

Coun

ty Co

uncil

)

Lead

Loca

l Flo

od

Auth

ority

and

Land

Dra

inag

e Au

thor

ity

•Re

spon

sible

for m

anag

ing l

ocal

floo

d ris

k (fro

m su

rface

wat

er, g

roun

dwat

er an

d or

dina

ry wa

terco

urse

s) in

East

Suss

ex.

•De

velo

ping

, mai

ntai

ning

, app

lying

and

mon

itorin

g a lo

cal fl

ood

risk m

anag

emen

t stra

tegy

.•

Prov

idin

g a co

-ord

inat

ing r

ole w

ith th

e risk

man

agem

ent a

utho

rities

.•

Advis

ing l

ocal

pla

nnin

g aut

horit

ies on

surfa

ce w

ater

man

agem

ent f

or m

ajor

dev

elopm

ents

.•

Dete

rmin

ing a

pplic

atio

ns fo

r wor

ks aff

ectin

g wat

er fl

ow an

d cro

ss-s

ectio

nal a

rea o

f ord

inar

y wat

erco

urse

s.•

Inve

stiga

ting fl

ood

incid

ents

(to t

he ex

tent

it co

nsid

ers n

eces

sary

and

appr

opria

te).

High

way A

utho

rity

•Re

spon

sible

for m

anag

ing t

he lo

cal h

ighwa

y dra

inag

e net

work

•M

anag

ing a

nd m

aint

aini

ng st

ructu

res i

n its

owne

rshi

p wh

ich p

ass u

nder

the h

ighwa

y. M

aint

aini

ng th

e high

way a

nd it

s ass

ets,

thro

ugh

regu

lar i

nspe

ction

and

mai

nten

ance

.•

Duty

of ca

re fo

r tho

se w

ho u

se th

e Cou

nty C

ounc

il’s r

oads

.•

Powe

r to d

elive

r wor

ks co

nsid

ered

nec

essa

ry to

pro

tect

the h

ighwa

y fro

m fl

oodi

ng (o

n th

e high

way o

r on

land

acqu

ired

by th

e High

way

Auth

ority

).•

A ‘ri

ght t

o disc

harg

e’ su

rface

wat

er ru

noff

from

the h

ighwa

ys in

to an

y inl

and

or ti

dal w

ater

s.•

Powe

r to p

reve

nt w

ater

runn

ing o

nto t

he h

ighwa

y fro

m ad

join

ing l

and.

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng

(Eas

t Sus

sex

Resil

ienc

e &

Emer

genc

ies

Partn

ersh

ip

(ESRE

P))

•Pl

anni

ng fo

r and

resp

ondi

ng to

loca

l floo

d ev

ents

•Pr

ovid

ing a

serv

ice fo

r Eas

tbou

rne,

East

Suss

ex, H

astin

gs, L

ewes

and

Weal

den C

ounc

ils. S

uppo

rts aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es an

d he

lp lim

it th

e im

pacts

of fl

oodi

ng.

•Pr

oduc

ing a

nd co

ntrib

utes

to m

ulti-

agen

cy fl

ood

plan

s.•

Mon

itorin

g floo

d gu

idan

ce an

d M

et O

ffice

wea

ther

info

rmat

ion.

•As

sistin

g in

resil

ienc

e and

reco

very

from

floo

d ev

ents

.

Plan

ning

Aut

horit

y•

Deliv

erin

g dev

elopm

ent m

anag

emen

t fun

ction

for:

a)

wast

e and

min

eral

s app

licat

ions

.b)

Co

unty

Coun

cil d

evelo

pmen

t app

licat

ions

e.g.

road

s, sc

hool

s and

libra

ries.

Mon

itorin

g of m

iner

als a

nd w

aste

site

s.•

Inve

stiga

ting a

llege

d br

each

es of

pla

nnin

g con

trol a

nd u

nder

takin

g enf

orce

men

t acti

vities

.•

Deve

lopm

ent a

nd ad

optio

n of

was

te an

d m

iner

als l

ocal

pla

ns.

•Ob

serv

ing n

atio

nal p

olicy

guid

ance

and

relev

ant d

evelo

pmen

t pla

n po

licy o

n flo

od ri

sk in

det

erm

inin

g app

licat

ions

and

deve

lopi

ng

plan

ning

pol

icy.

•En

surin

g tha

t app

ropr

iate

SuDS

are i

nsta

lled

with

in an

y cou

nty d

evelo

pmen

t con

sider

ed to

be m

ajor

.

27


Risk

Man

agem

ent

Auth

ority

Func

tion

Role

s, D

utie

s, P

ower

s and

Res

pons

ibili

ties i

n Flo

od R

isk M

anag

emen

t

Dist

rict a

nd B

orou

gh

Coun

cils

(Lewe

s Dist

rict C

ounc

il,

East

bour

ne B

orou

gh

Coun

cil, W

eald

en

Dist

rict C

ounc

il,

Hast

ings

Bor

ough

Co

uncil

, Rot

her D

istric

t Co

uncil

)

Land

Dra

inag

e Au

thor

ity•

Mai

ntai

ning

or im

prov

ing e

xistin

g wor

ks in

thei

r own

ersh

ip.

•Us

e per

miss

ive p

ower

s to a

llow

work

s to b

e und

erta

ken

on or

dina

ry wa

terco

urse

s in

orde

r to h

elp p

reve

nt, m

itiga

te or

rem

edy fl

ood

dam

age

•Ad

vise t

he LL

FA on

land

dra

inag

e con

sent

appl

icatio

ns•

Carry

out r

ipar

ian

owne

r res

pons

ibili

ties a

s a la

ndow

ner.

Loca

l Pla

nnin

g Au

thor

ity (L

PA)

•De

term

inat

ion

of al

l pla

nnin

g app

licat

ions

whi

ch ar

e not

the r

espo

nsib

ility

of th

e Cou

nty C

ounc

il.•

Cons

ider

ing fl

ood

risk w

hen

alloc

atin

g site

s for

dev

elopm

ent i

n de

velo

pmen

t pla

ns.

•Un

derta

king a

stra

tegic

floo

d ris

k ass

essm

ent.

•En

surin

g tha

t, wh

ere a

ppro

pria

te, S

uDS

are i

mpl

emen

ted

in d

evelo

pmen

ts. S

urfa

ce W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

lans

(SW

MPs

) may

be u

sed

to

info

rm d

ecisi

on m

akin

g in

settl

emen

ts w

ith a

high

surfa

ce w

ater

floo

d ris

k.

Coas

tal E

rosio

n Ri

sk M

anag

emen

t Au

thor

ity

•Co

ast p

rote

ction

auth

oriti

es (u

nder

the C

oast

Prot

ectio

n Act

(1949

) and

coas

tal e

rosio

n ris

k man

agem

ent a

utho

rities

(und

er th

e Flo

od an

d Wa

ter M

anag

emen

t Act

2010

).Pla

nnin

g and

deli

verin

g sho

relin

e man

agem

ent a

ctivit

ies (w

ith in

put f

rom

the E

nviro

nmen

t Age

ncy).

•De

velo

ping

floo

d an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risk p

olici

es in

thei

r are

a.•

Usin

g per

miss

ive p

ower

s to u

nder

take

coas

tal d

efen

ce w

orks

and

sche

mes

.•

Supp

ortin

g col

labo

ratio

n, kn

owled

ge-b

uild

ing a

nd sh

arin

g of g

ood

prac

tice i

nclu

ding

pro

visio

n of

capa

city-b

uild

ing s

chem

es su

ch as

tra

inee

sche

mes

and

office

r tra

inin

g via

Sou

th Ea

st Co

asta

l Gro

up.

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng A

utho

rity

•‘C

ateg

ory o

ne’ r

espo

nder

s to e

mer

genc

ies•

Mai

ntai

ning

site

-spe

cific fl

ood

plan

s for

thei

r are

as.

•M

onito

ring fl

ood

guid

ance

and

Met

Offi

ce w

eath

er in

form

atio

n.•

Assis

ting i

n re

silie

nce a

nd re

cove

ry fro

m fl

ood

even

ts.

The E

nviro

nmen

t Ag

ency

(Sol

ent a

nd S

outh

Do

wns,

Kent

and S

outh

Lo

ndon

)

Natio

nal S

trate

gic

Role

•Pu

blish

ing t

he N

atio

nal S

trate

gy, a

clea

r nat

iona

l fra

mew

ork f

or al

l for

ms o

f floo

d an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risk m

anag

emen

t.•

Use s

trate

gic p

lans

to se

t the

dire

ction

for fl

ood

and

coas

tal e

rosio

n ris

k man

agem

ent.

•Co

llatin

g and

revie

wing

floo

d ris

k reg

ulat

ions

asse

ssm

ents

, pla

ns an

d m

aps p

rodu

ced

by LL

FAs.

•Pr

ovid

ing t

he d

ata,

info

rmat

ion

and

tool

s to i

nfor

m go

vern

men

t pol

icy an

d ai

d RM

As in

deli

verin

g the

ir re

spon

sibili

ties.

•Su

ppor

ting c

olla

bora

tion,

know

ledge

-bui

ldin

g and

shar

ing o

f goo

d pr

actic

e inc

ludi

ng p

rovis

ion

of ca

pacit

y-bui

ldin

g sch

emes

such

as

train

ee sc

hem

es an

d offi

cer t

rain

ing.

•M

anag

ing t

he Re

giona

l Flo

od an

d Coa

stal

Com

mitt

ees (

RFCC

s) an

d su

ppor

t the

ir de

cisio

ns in

allo

catin

g fun

ding

for fl

ood

and

coas

tal

eros

ion

risk m

anag

emen

t (FC

ERM

) sch

emes

.•

Repo

rting

and

mon

itorin

g on

flood

and

coas

tal e

rosio

n ris

k man

agem

ent.

•Pr

ovid

ing g

rant

s to R

MAs

to su

ppor

t the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

thei

r inc

iden

tal fl

oodi

ng or

envir

onm

enta

l pow

ers.

28


Risk

Man

agem

ent

Auth

ority

Func

tion

Role

s, D

utie

s, P

ower

s and

Res

pons

ibili

ties i

n Flo

od R

isk M

anag

emen

t

The E

nviro

nmen

t Ag

ency

Loca

l Ope

ratio

nal

Role

•M

anag

ing fl

oodi

ng fr

om m

ain

river

s, cr

itica

l ord

inar

y wat

erco

urse

s, th

e sea

and

rese

rvoi

rs.

•Pe

rmiss

ive p

ower

s to c

arry

out w

orks

to m

aint

ain

and

impr

ove i

ts as

sets

on m

ain

river

s.•

Abili

ty to

brin

g for

ward

floo

d de

fenc

e sch

emes

thro

ugh

the R

FCCs

/FEC

RMs,

and

work

with

LLFA

s and

loca

l com

mun

ities

to sh

ape l

ocal

sc

hem

es.

Coas

tal F

lood

ing

and

Eros

ion

Coas

tal F

lood

ing

and

Eros

ion

•Le

ad au

thor

ity fo

r all fl

oodi

ng fr

om th

e sea

.•

Acco

unta

ble t

o bot

h th

e gov

ernm

ent a

nd th

e pub

lic fo

r all c

oast

al fl

ood

risk m

anag

emen

t dec

ision

s.•

Asse

sses

the r

isk of

coas

tal e

rosio

n an

d flo

odin

g.•

Unde

rtake

s coa

stal

wor

ks.

•Al

loca

tes c

apita

l fun

ding

for p

rojec

ts.

•En

sure

s the

sust

aina

bilit

y of t

hird

par

ty co

asta

l def

ence

s.

Rese

rvoi

rs•

Enfo

rcem

ent a

utho

rity i

n En

gland

and

Wales

, for

rese

rvoi

rs th

at ar

e gre

ater

than

10,0

00m

3•

Ensu

ring t

hat fl

ood

plan

s are

pro

duce

d fo

r spe

cified

rese

rvoi

rs p

rodu

ced

by re

serv

oir o

wner

/ope

rato

r.•

Esta

blish

ing a

nd m

aint

aini

ng a

regis

ter o

f res

ervo

irs.

•Pu

blish

ing fl

ood

map

s for

rese

rvoi

rs, a

nd ca

tego

risin

g ‘hi

gh-ri

sk’ r

eser

voirs

.

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng•

Cont

ribut

ing t

o the

dev

elopm

ent o

f mul

ti-ag

ency

floo

d pl

ans t

o co-

ordi

nate

the o

rgan

isatio

ns in

volve

d in

resp

ondi

ng to

a flo

od.

•Co

ntrib

utin

g to t

he N

atio

nal F

lood

Emer

genc

y Fra

mew

ork f

or En

gland

.•

Prov

idin

g the

floo

d wa

rnin

g sys

tem

thro

ugho

ut En

gland

and

Wales

in ar

eas a

t risk

of fl

oodi

ng fr

om ri

vers

or th

e sea

.

Plan

ning

Pro

cess

•Re

gula

tory

role

in co

nsen

ting w

orks

carri

ed ou

t by o

ther

s in

or ad

jace

nt to

mai

n riv

ers a

nd se

a/tid

al d

efen

ces.

•St

atut

ory c

onsu

ltee a

nd ad

visor

to th

e pla

nnin

g sys

tem

for d

evelo

pmen

t (ex

cludi

ng m

inor

dev

elopm

ent)

in ar

eas o

f fluv

ial a

nd co

asta

l flo

od ri

sk.

•En

surin

g tha

t pro

pose

d de

velo

pmen

ts re

gard

floo

d ris

k and

do n

ot ca

use u

nnec

essa

ry en

viron

men

tal d

amag

e.•

Mon

itorin

g floo

d an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risks

.•

Supp

ortin

g em

erge

ncy r

espo

nder

s whe

n flo

ods o

ccur

.

29


Risk

Man

agem

ent

Auth

ority

Func

tion

Role

s, D

utie

s, P

ower

s and

Res

pons

ibili

ties i

n Flo

od R

isk M

anag

emen

t

Inte

rnal

Dra

inag

e Bo

ards

(Upp

er M

edwa

y and

Ro

mne

y Mar

shes

Are

a ID

Bs, C

uckm

ere a

nd

Peve

nsey

Leve

ls W

LMB)

Land

Dra

inag

e Au

thor

ity•

Man

agin

g wat

er le

vels

with

in d

efine

d in

tern

al d

rain

age d

istric

ts (I

DDs)

for l

and

drai

nage

, floo

d ris

k man

agem

ent,

irriga

tion

and

envir

onm

enta

l ben

efit.

•Un

derta

king r

outin

e mai

nten

ance

of d

rain

age c

hann

els, o

rdin

ary w

ater

cour

ses,

pum

ping

stat

ions

(alth

ough

resp

onsib

ility

of m

aint

enan

ce

rem

ains

with

ripa

rian

owne

r).

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng•

Cont

ribut

ing t

o the

dev

elopm

ent o

f mul

ti-ag

ency

floo

d pl

ans.

Deve

lopm

ent

Man

agem

ent

•Co

nsen

ting w

orks

carri

ed ou

t by o

ther

s in,

or ad

jace

nt to

, wat

erco

urse

s with

in th

e ope

ratio

nal d

istric

t.

Plan

ning

Gui

danc

e•

Prov

ide c

omm

ents

to LP

As on

dev

elopm

ents

in th

eir o

pera

tiona

l dist

rict a

nd w

hen

aske

d, m

ake r

ecom

men

datio

ns.

Wate

r and

Sew

erag

e Co

mpa

ny (S

outh

ern

Wate

r)

Wat

er an

d Se

wera

ge Co

mpa

ny•

Stat

utor

y con

sulte

e in

the d

evelo

pmen

t pla

nnin

g pro

cess

for s

hale

oil a

nd ga

s ext

racti

on.

•Re

spon

ding

to fl

oodi

ng in

ciden

ts in

volvi

ng th

eir a

sset

s.•

Prod

ucin

g rep

orts

of th

e floo

ding

incid

ents

.•

Mai

ntai

ning

a re

giste

r of p

rope

rties

at ri

sk of

floo

ding

due

to a

hydr

aulic

over

load

in th

e sew

erag

e net

work

(DG5

regis

ter).

•Un

derta

king c

apac

ity im

prov

emen

ts to

allev

iate

sewe

r floo

ding

on th

e DG5

regis

ter.

•Co

nsul

ting o

n lo

cal p

lann

ing a

pplic

atio

ns, o

ften

rega

rdin

g the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

SuDS

.

30


Othe

r Key

Par

tner

s and

Sta

keho

lder

s

Partn

er/S

take

hold

erFu

nctio

nAc

tiviti

es

Regi

onal

Floo

d an

d Co

asta

l Co

mm

ittee

s (RF

CC)

•Es

tabl

ished

with

a re

mit

to in

clude

bal

ancin

g loc

al p

riorit

ies, m

akin

g su

re th

at in

vest

men

t is c

o-or

dina

ted

at th

e cat

chm

ent a

nd sh

oreli

ne

scal

e.•

Prov

ide f

or lo

cal d

emoc

ratic

inpu

t thr

ough

mem

bers

hip

of LL

FA

repr

esen

tativ

es.

•As

sist i

n sc

rutin

y of l

ocal

auth

ority

risk

asse

ssm

ents

, map

s and

pla

ns,

requ

ired

by th

e Flo

od R

isk Re

gula

tions

.•

Help

to b

alan

ce lo

cal p

riorit

ies to

ensu

re co

-ord

inat

ed in

vest

men

t at a

ca

tchm

ent a

nd sh

oreli

ne sc

ale.

•ES

CC is

repr

esen

ted

on th

e Sou

ther

n Re

giona

l Flo

od an

d Coa

stal

Co

mm

ittee

that

take

s in

the C

ount

y Cou

ncils

of:

•Ea

st Su

ssex

•We

st Su

ssex

•Ke

nt•

Ham

pshi

re;

•an

d th

e Uni

tary

Auth

oriti

es of

:•

Brigh

ton

and

Hove

•M

edwa

y•

Ports

mou

th•

Sout

ham

pton

•Gu

idin

g floo

d an

d co

asta

l man

agem

ent a

ctivit

ies w

ithin

catch

men

ts an

d al

ong t

he co

ast

•Ad

visin

g on

and

appr

ove p

rogr

amm

es of

wor

k for

thei

r are

as•

Cont

inui

ng to

raise

loca

l levie

s und

er ex

istin

g arra

ngem

ents

to fu

nd

loca

l prio

rity p

rojec

ts an

d wo

rks.

•Di

strib

utin

g cen

tral g

over

nmen

t fun

ding

.

31


Othe

r Key

Par

tner

s and

Sta

keho

lder

s

Partn

er/S

take

hold

erFu

nctio

nAc

tiviti

es

The S

outh

Dow

ns N

atio

nal P

ark

Auth

ority

(SDN

PA)

As st

atut

ory p

lann

ing a

utho

rity f

or th

e nat

iona

l par

k are

a:

•De

term

inat

ion

of al

l pla

nnin

g app

licat

ions

whi

ch ar

e not

the

resp

onsib

ility

of th

e Cou

nty C

ounc

il.•

Cons

ider

floo

d ris

k whe

n all

ocat

ing s

ites f

or d

evelo

pmen

t in

deve

lopm

ent p

lans

•Un

derta

king a

stra

tegic

floo

d ris

k ass

essm

ent.

•En

surin

g tha

t, wh

ere a

ppro

pria

te, S

uDS

are i

mpl

emen

ted

in

deve

lopm

ents

. Sur

face

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Pla

ns (S

WM

Ps) m

ay b

e use

d to

info

rm d

ecisi

on m

akin

g in

settl

emen

ts w

ith a

high

surfa

ce w

ater

floo

d ris

k.•

Cons

ider

floo

d ris

k whe

n de

velo

ping

floo

d an

d co

asta

l ero

sion

risk

polic

ies in

thei

r are

a.

•Al

thou

gh n

ot a

RMA,

the S

DNPA

is a

key p

artn

er, d

ue to

the e

xtent

of it

s co

vera

ge in

the c

ount

y, in

tere

st in

wat

er su

stai

nabi

lity,

and

its ro

le as

a pl

anni

ng au

thor

ity an

d la

nd m

anag

er.

•Im

porta

nt co

nsul

tee t

o floo

d ris

k wor

ks an

d pl

ans.

High

ways

Engl

and

•Hi

ghwa

ys En

gland

(kno

wn as

the H

ighwa

ys A

genc

y, pr

ior t

o Apr

il 201

5)

is a n

ew go

vern

men

t com

pany

whi

ch w

orks

with

the D

epar

tmen

t for

Tra

nspo

rt.•

Oper

atin

g Eng

land

’s m

otor

ways

and

maj

or A

road

s. In

East

Suss

ex,

thes

e are

:•

A21;

•se

ction

s of b

oth

the A

27 an

d A2

59; a

nd•

A26

(sout

h of

the A

27).

• Re

spon

sible

for t

he d

rain

age o

f the

se m

ajor

A ro

ads

• M

ust e

nsur

e tha

t roa

d pr

ojec

ts d

o not

incr

ease

loca

l floo

d ris

k or

adve

rsely

affec

t loc

al w

ater

bod

ies.

• In

its D

elive

ry Pl

an 2

015-

2020

, High

ways

Engla

nd se

ts ou

t pla

ns to

de

velo

p a fl

ood

risk m

anag

emen

t stra

tegy

.

Asso

ciatio

n of

Dra

inag

e Au

thor

ities

(ADA

)•

(ADA

) is t

he m

embe

rshi

p or

gani

satio

n fo

r wat

er le

vel m

anag

emen

t au

thor

ities

in th

e UK.

•It

is al

so re

cogn

ised

as th

e nat

iona

l rep

rese

ntat

ive fo

r IDB

s in

Engla

nd

and

Wales

.

•Pr

ovid

ing t

echn

ical s

uppo

rt an

d in

form

atio

n to

mem

bers

;•

Work

ing w

ith G

over

nmen

t in

supp

ort o

f the

ir m

embe

rs;

•Lin

king m

embe

rs to

Euro

pe’s

othe

r wat

er le

vel m

anag

ers,

thro

ugh

the

Euro

pean

Uni

on of

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Aut

horit

ies.

Natio

nal F

arm

ers U

nion

•Th

e NFU

is th

e ‘vo

ice of

Brit

ish fa

rmin

g’; p

rovid

ing p

rofe

ssio

nal

repr

esen

tatio

n fo

r its

55,0

00 fa

rmer

and

grow

er m

embe

rs.

•Th

roug

h its

Bru

ssels

office

the N

FU al

so h

as a

voice

at th

e hea

rt of

Eu

rope

.

•Ra

ise ke

y con

cern

s reg

ardi

ng:

•th

e lac

k of i

nsur

ance

for a

gricu

ltura

l land

and

crops

agai

nst fl

ood

dam

age,

disa

dvan

tagin

g pro

ducti

ve la

nd d

urin

g cos

t-ben

efit a

nalys

is of

floo

d all

evia

tion

sche

mes

.•

the t

arge

ting o

f agr

icultu

ral la

nd fo

r the

stor

age o

f wat

er in

floo

d m

itiga

tion

work

s, wh

ich ca

n ha

ve si

gnifi

cant

fina

ncia

l impa

cts on

the

land

owne

r.

32


Othe

r Key

Par

tner

s and

Sta

keho

lder

s

Partn

er/S

take

hold

erFu

nctio

nAc

tiviti

es

The S

outh

East

Coas

tal G

roup

•St

rate

gic co

asta

l gro

up w

hich

brin

gs to

geth

er lo

cal a

utho

rities

, the

En

viron

men

t Age

ncy a

nd ot

her m

ariti

me o

pera

ting o

rgan

isatio

ns.

•Wo

rk to

deli

ver c

o-or

dina

ted

stra

tegic

man

agem

ent o

f the

shor

eline

be

twee

n th

e Isle

of G

rain

(on

the T

ham

es) a

nd S

elsey

Bill

(in

West

Su

ssex

).

•On

e of s

even

sim

ilar t

hat c

over

the c

oast

line o

f Eng

land

.•

Supp

ortin

g the

dev

elopm

ent a

nd d

elive

ry of

pla

ns, s

tudi

es an

d sc

hem

es

by p

rovid

ing c

o-or

dina

tion,

facil

itatin

g com

mun

icatio

n an

d off

erin

g ad

vice a

nd gu

idan

ce to

mem

ber o

rgan

isatio

ns.

•Pl

ay a

key r

ole i

n de

velo

pmen

t of S

hore

line M

anag

emen

t Pla

ns.

•Pr

ovid

ing a

foru

m fo

r the

exch

ange

of in

form

atio

n, st

aff an

d kn

owled

ge.

Utili

ty an

d In

frast

ruct

ure

Prov

ider

s•

Inclu

ding

Net

work

Rail,

ener

gy an

d te

lecom

mun

icatio

n co

mpa

nies

•Ar

e not

RMAs

, how

ever

thei

r ass

ets m

ay b

e of c

onsid

erab

le im

porta

nce

in re

gard

to p

lann

ing f

or fl

ood

even

ts.

•En

surin

g tha

t ess

entia

l infra

stru

cture

is re

silie

nt.

•Fa

ctorin

g floo

d ris

k man

agem

ent i

ssue

s int

o the

ir in

vest

men

t pla

ns, t

o en

sure

cont

inui

ty of

serv

ice in

an em

erge

ncy.

Paris

h Co

uncil

s and

Com

mun

ities

•Co

mm

uniti

es h

ave a

good

und

erst

andi

ng of

site

-spe

cific i

ssue

s and

can

ther

efor

e mak

e im

porta

nt co

ntrib

utio

ns to

the m

anag

emen

t of l

ocal

flo

od ri

sk.

•Pa

rish

coun

cils c

an ac

t as a

prim

ary m

eans

of in

form

ing a

nd en

gagin

g re

siden

ts ab

out l

ocal

floo

d ris

k iss

ues.

•Th

roug

h ne

ighbo

urho

od p

lann

ing,

coun

cils a

lso p

rovid

e a st

eer f

or lo

cal

deve

lopm

ent w

ithin

thei

r par

ish.

•Th

e Sus

sex a

nd Su

rrey A

ssoc

iatio

ns of

Loca

l Com

mun

ities

(SSA

LC)

prov

ide r

epre

sent

atio

n, ad

vice a

nd tr

aini

ng to

com

mun

ities

acro

ss W

est

and

East

Suss

ex.

•Th

e tow

n an

d pa

rish

coun

cils a

re fu

rther

coor

dina

ted

and

repr

esen

ted

by th

e Eas

t Sus

sex A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Loca

l Com

mun

ities

(ESA

LC).

•If

a par

ish is

at ri

sk fr

om fl

oodi

ng, t

he co

uncil

are a

dvise

d to

crea

te an

em

erge

ncy p

lan,

det

ailin

g:•

who c

an b

e con

tacte

d to

lead

and

assis

t in

an em

erge

ncy;

•wh

at eq

uipm

ent i

s ava

ilabl

e; an

d•

which

loca

tions

can

be u

sed

for a

ccom

mod

atio

n in

emer

genc

y sit

uatio

ns.

•As

sistin

g loc

al re

siden

ts in

emer

genc

y situ

atio

ns.

•M

onito

ring fl

oods

on gr

ound

at lo

cal le

vel.

•Pr

ovid

ing p

lann

ing p

olicy

for t

heir

loca

l are

a thr

ough

pro

ducin

g ne

ighbo

urho

od p

lans

, and

gran

t per

miss

ion

for c

erta

in fo

rms o

f de

velo

pmen

t thr

ough

nei

ghbo

urho

od d

evelo

pmen

t ord

ers.

33


Othe

r Key

Par

tner

s and

Sta

keho

lder

s

Partn

er/S

take

hold

erFu

nctio

nAc

tiviti

es

The N

atio

nal F

lood

Foru

m (N

FF)

•Th

e NFF

is a

natio

nal c

harit

y ded

icate

d to

supp

ortin

g and

repr

esen

ting

com

mun

ities

and

indi

vidua

ls at

risk

of fl

oodi

ng.

•It

also

wor

ks w

ith G

over

nmen

t, ag

encie

s and

loca

l aut

horit

ies on

issu

es

such

as fl

ood

risk i

nsur

ance

, pro

perty

leve

l pro

tecti

on an

d re

cove

ry to

en

sure

that

the n

eeds

of fl

ood

risk c

omm

uniti

es ar

e rep

rese

nted

.

•Th

e NFF

aids

resid

ents

and

com

mun

ities

by:

•He

lpin

g peo

ple t

o pre

pare

for fl

oodi

ng as

par

t of e

fforts

to p

reve

nt it

, or

min

imise

its i

mpa

cts;

•He

lpin

g com

mun

ities

to re

cove

r fro

m fl

oodi

ng;

• Fa

cilita

ting a

nd su

ppor

ting c

omm

unity

floo

d gr

oups

;•

Cam

paign

ing o

n be

half

of fl

ood

risk c

omm

uniti

es, w

orkin

g with

go

vern

men

t and

agen

cies t

o ens

ure t

hat t

hey d

evelo

p a c

omm

unity

pe

rspe

ctive

.•

The f

orum

pro

vides

supp

ort v

ia:

•A

dedi

cate

d te

lepho

ne h

elplin

e for

all fl

ood

rela

ted

enqu

iries

in

cludi

ng in

sura

nce;

•In

form

atio

n an

d gu

idan

ce th

roug

h th

eir w

ebsit

e and

regu

lar b

ullet

in;

•Flo

od su

rger

ies an

d ex

hibi

tions

to ra

ise aw

aren

ess;

•Th

eir b

lue p

ages

dire

ctory

of p

rodu

cts; a

nd•

Train

ing f

or lo

cal a

utho

rities

, age

ncies

and

the v

olun

tary

secto

r.

Loca

l Flo

od G

roup

s•

Loca

l floo

d gr

oups

repr

esen

t the

view

s of l

ocal

resid

ents

and

busin

esse

s, an

d th

eir p

urpo

se is

to w

ork t

o find

way

s of m

inim

ising

fu

ture

floo

d ris

k.

•Co

mm

unity

-led

grou

ps w

ork w

ith th

e Env

ironm

ent A

genc

y, lo

cal

auth

oriti

es, w

ater

com

pani

es an

d em

erge

ncy p

lann

ing a

utho

rities

in

East

Suss

ex in

orde

r to fi

nd so

lutio

ns to

, or a

chie

ve ac

cept

able

levels

of

floo

d ris

k.•

Prov

idin

g a m

eans

of vo

icing

loca

l con

cern

s and

prio

rities

in a

stru

cture

d m

anne

r.•

Mon

itorin

g floo

ds on

the g

roun

d at

loca

l leve

l.•

Prov

idin

g inf

orm

atio

n an

d as

sista

nce t

o loc

al re

siden

ts.

34


A4Revised Assessment of Local Flood RiskA4.1 The Assessment of Local Flood Risk aims to provide an overview of the nature and extent

of flood risk in East Sussex. The analysis of both recorded and predicted flood risk data, determines the distribution of flood risk in the county, and indicates where future issues are most likely to occur. This informs the focus of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, and allows the Council can focus its efforts and resources most effectively.

A4.2 An Assessment of Local Flood Risk was undertaken as part of the first Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2013 – 2016). Using data from the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment of East Sussex (PRFA) (2011) and modelled flood risk data, the assessment indicated 14 ‘hotspots’ of flood risk across the county (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Location of local flood risk hotspots in East Sussex, identified through analysis of outputs from the preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA), refined PFRA and local in-depth studies. Not to Scale.

35

Revised Assessment of Local Flood Risk

A4.3 These settlements became the focus of the Council’s flood risk management activities, and a number of further investigations were undertaken, including twelve Surface Water Management Plans and surface water modelling in Uckfield and Eastbourne Town Centre. This work has led to a better understanding as to the underlying causes of flood risk in East Sussex, as well as the issues experienced in urban settlements.

A4.4 However, since the initial Assessment of Local Flood Risk in 2012, there have been significant advances in the accuracy and reliability of flood risk data. As such, the numbers of people, properties and services at risk of flooding may have changed.

A4.5 Furthermore, through experience of delivering the Lead Local Flood Authority role, it has become apparent that flood risk in East Sussex can be disperse and localised. As such, a more detailed, graded analysis of flood risk was required for the revised assessment, to better indicate the relative distribution of flood risk across all of East Sussex, rather than focusing on urban areas at with the highest risk.

Figure 10: The distribution of overall flood risk in East Sussex (including fluvial, coastal, groundwater and surface water). Wards have been ranked by their overall flood risk score.

36


Method

A4.6 The assessment was undertaken using methods consistent with the 2013-2016 Assessment of Local Flood Risk. This involved dividing the county into a grid of 1km2 squares, and providing detailed property counts and an overall flood risk score for each square, based on the extent of flood risk data and the affected receptors within. In this assessment the same analysis was also undertaken over district and borough ward boundaries.

A4.7 All buildings across the county were classified into the following types of receptor:

• Residential properties• Non-residential properties• Monuments• Vulnerable infrastructure (including prisons, education facilities, energy production

facilities, water supply and treatment works, and residential accommodation)• Emergency services (fire, ambulance and police stations, and hospitals)

A4.8 Receptor counts were undertaken within each district and borough ward and 1km square. Where the outline of predicted or historic flood risk data intersected with the footprint of a building, it was classified as ‘at risk’.

A4.9 To generate an overall flood risk score for each ward and 1km square, the sources of flood risk and categories of receptor were weighted. A number of weightings were applied to the data.

Weighting 1: Sources of Flood Risk

A4.10 The sources of flood risk were weighted to emphasise the local sources of flooding for which East Sussex County has management responsibility, in particular groundwater and surface water.

A4.11 A lesser emphasis was placed on the flooding from main rivers and the sea, partially because they fall under the responsibility of the Environment Agency, but also because this risk was indirectly represented in the groundwater and surface water flood risk data, as well as the historic incidents.

Source of Flood Risk Extent Risk Weight Overall Source Weight

Predicted Rivers and Sea High 6% 10%Medium 3%Low 1%

Surface water 1 in 30 year 30% 50%1 in 100 year 10%1 in 1000 year 10%

Groundwater High 12% 20%Moderate 6%Low 2%

Historic Recorded flood incidents (all sources of flooding) 20%

Table 2: The weighting of flood risk data within the assessment.

37


Weighting 2: Receptor groups

A4.12 Emergency and vulnerable receptors were given the highest weighting, to reflect the greater impact which flooding would have to these groups, followed by residential properties. Non-residential properties and monuments were given the lowest ranking, as the threat to life was deemed to be low.

A4.13 Where there was a record of a receptor being affected by an historic flooding incident, this was also given a higher weighting, as it demonstrated the actual, rather than predicted risk.

Receptor Class Weight Assigned

Residential Property 10%

Non-residential Property 5%

Monument 5%

Emergency Receptor 15%

Vulnerable Receptor 15%

Historic Flood Event Point 50%

Table 3: The weighting of receptor classes in the assessment.

38


Findings of the revised Assessment of Local Flood Risk

A4.14 The top 20 ranked wards in terms of overall flood risk – surface water, groundwater, coastal and fluvial flood risk, as well as recorded flood incidents – are outlined in Table 4 below. The wards at highest risk are situated in the larger settlements on the coastal strip, in particular Eastbourne and Hastings, as well as smaller towns which lie on major river flood plains, such as Willingdon and Hellingly.

Rank Ward Name Rank Ward Name

1 Devonshire, Eastbourne 30 Heathfield North and Central

2 Meads, Eastbourne 31 Langney, Eastbourne

3 Upperton, Eastbourne 32 Uckfield Central

4 Lewes Bridge 33 Polegate South

5 Central St. Leonards, Hastings 34 Frant / Withyham

6 Castle, Hastings 35 Rother Levels

7 Willingdon 36 East Saltdean and Telscombe Cliffs

8 Newhaven, Denton and Meeching 37 Alfriston

9 Pevensey and Westham 38 Kewhurst, Bexhill

10 Lewes Priory 39 Crowborough North

11 St. Anthony’s, Eastbourne 40 Wishing Tree, Hastings

12 Sovereign, Eastbourne 41 Wadhurst

13 Ratton, Eastbourne 42 West St Leonards

14 Seaford Central 43 Newhaven Valley

15 Hampden Park, Eastbourne 44 Braybrooke, Hastings

16 Hellingly 45 Buxted and Maresfield

17 Ouse Valley and Ringmer 46 Peacehaven West

18 Gensing, Hastings 47 Seaford South

19 Hailsham Central and North 48 Battle Town

20 Old Town, Eastbourne 49 Salehurst

21 Eastern Rother 50 Seaford North

22 Hailsham South and West 51 Peacehaven North

23 Old Hastings 52 Plumpton, Streat, East Chilt & St John

24 Polegate North 53 Ditchling and Westmeston

25 Rye 54 Baird, Hastings

26 Forest Row 55 Chailey and Wivelsfield

27 Lewes Castle 56 Ashdown, Hastings

28 Central, Bexhill 57 Collington, Bexhill

29 Sackville, Bexhill 58 Hartfield

39


Rank Ward Name Rank Ward Name

59 Crowborough East 81 St Stephens, Bexhill

60 Uckfield North 82 Uckfield New Town

61 East Dean 83 Peacehaven East

62 Sidley 84 Seaford West

63 Hollington, Hastings 85 Mayfield

64 Maze Hill, Hastings 86 Ewhurst and Sedlescombe

65 St Helens, Hastings 87 Brede Valley

66 Crowborough West 88 Crowhurst

67 Crowborough St Johns 89 Darwell

68 Danehill / Fletching / Nutley 90 Framfield

69 Barcombe and Hamsey 91 Hailsham East

70 Tressell, Hastings 92 St Michaels, Bexhill

71 Conquest, Hastings 93 Bexhill Old Town, Bexhill

72 Marsham 94 Rotherfield

73 Ticehurst and Etchingham 95 Kingston

74 Seaford East 96 Uckfield Ridgewood

75 St Marks, Bexhill 97 Heathfield East

76 Crowborough Jarvis Brook 98 Ninfield and Hooe with Wartling

77 Horam 99 Herstmonceux

78 Silverhill, Hastings 100 Newick

79 Ore, Hastings 101 Cross in Hand / Five Ashes

80 Chiddingly and East Hoathly

Table 4: The 101 wards in East Sussex at highest overall risk, from all forms of flooding

A4.15 The numbers of properties affected under different sources of flood risk and probabilities of event were also considered in the assessment. The following tables (Tables 5 and 6) provide a ranking of settlements and wards according to the flood risk identified during the assessment process.

A4.16 Where there were concentrations of risk within a defined urban area (or study area in the case of Eastbourne and Southern Wealden) the settlement was identified. Where rural, and much larger, wards displayed a high risk these were included in the ranked list, as they often encompassed several smaller settlements.

A4.17 The towns with the highest numbers of properties affected by surface water flood risk were the Eastbourne Area (here defined as the wards within Eastbourne, North and South Polegate), Hastings and Bexhill, whereas the effects of groundwater flood risk were greatest in the Eastbourne Area, Newhaven and Lewes.

40


1 in 100 surface water flood risk

Rank Settlement/ward Banding1 Eastbourne Area >3000 properties2 Hastings

1500 – 3000 properties3 Bexhill4 Pevensey and Westham (ward)5 Seaford

1000 – 1500 properties6 Eastern Rother (ward)7 Lewes8 Uckfield

500 – 1000 propoerties9 Newhaven10 Peacehaven11 Hellingly (ward)12 Alfriston (ward)

<500 properties13 Ouse Valley and Ringmer (ward)14 Danehill/Fletching/Nutley (ward)15 Hailsham

Table 5: The number of properties (both residential and non-residential) at risk from surface water flooding within the top settlements and wards of East Sussex. Where a settlement is composed of several wards, the property counts from each ward are totalled to give the overall number of properties at risk in that settlement.

Groundwater – medium flood risk

Rank Settlement/ward Banding1 Eastbourne Area >1500 properties2 Newhaven

1000 – 1500 properties3 Lewes4 Eastern Rother (ward)5 Hastings

500 – 1000 properties6 Uckfield7 Rye8 Seaford

150 – 500 propoerties9 East Saltdean and Telscombe Cliffs (ward)10 Hailsham11 East Dean (ward)12 Bexhill

<150 properties13 Brede Valley (ward)14 Hellingly15 Ditchling and Westmeston (ward)

Table 6: The number of properties (both residential and non-residential) at risk from groundwater flooding within the top settlements and wards of East Sussex. Where a settlement is composed of several wards, the property counts from each ward are totalled to give the overall number of properties at risk in that settlement.

41


Comparison with previous assessment

A4.18 The results of the Revised Assessment of Local Flood Risk correspond relatively closely with the previous assessment. The highest risk areas largely remain the same, with the major settlements of Eastbourne, Hastings, Lewes, Newhaven, Seaford and Hailsham presenting the highest overall risk of flooding.

A4.19 There has been a difference in focus between the two assessments. The previous assessment concentrated on areas at highest surface water flood risk, which led to the identification of fourteen ‘hotspots’ centred around the most densely populated urban areas. The revised assessment has focused on the variability of risk across East Sussex and has provided more detailed flood risk analysis in both urban and rural areas of the county.

A4.20 Table 7 shows a direct comparison of results, over the same grid squares, between the 2013-2016 and 2016-2026 Assessments of Local Flood Risk.

42


SettlementResidential Properties at risk

2013-2016 Assessment 2016-2026 AssessmentEastbourne Greater than 1000 Greater than 1000Seaford 500 to 1000 500 to 1000Newhaven 50 to 150 50 to 150Peacehaven 150 to 500 150 to 500Lewes 50 to 150 50 to 150Hailsham 150 to 500 150 to 500Bexhill 500 to 1000 500 to 1000Battle 50 to 150 50 to 150Hastings Greater than 1000 Greater than 1000Rye Fewer than 50 Fewer than 50Heathfield 150 to 500 50 to 150Crowborough 50 to 150 50 to 150Uckfield Fewer than 50 Fewer than 50Forest Row Fewer than 50 Fewer than 50

Table 7: A comparison of residential properties at risk from a 1 in 30 year surface water flood event (3% chance in any given year) between the 2013-2016 and 2016-2026 Assessments of Local Flood Risk. Note: An average between deep and shallow flood depths was used for the 2013-2016 assessment.

SettlementNon-residential Properties at risk

2013-2016 Assessment 2016-2026 AssessmentEastbourne 100 to 200 Greater than 200Seaford 50 to 100 25 to 50Newhaven 25 to 50 Fewer than 25Peacehaven 25 to 50 Fewer than 25Lewes 50 to 100 Fewer than 25Hailsham Fewer than 25 25 to 50Bexhill 50 to 100 25 to 50Battle Fewer than 25 Fewer than 25Hastings 100 to 200 Greater than 200Rye Fewer than 25 Fewer than 25Heathfield Fewer than 25 Fewer than 25Crowborough 25 to 50 Fewer than 25Uckfield Fewer than 25 Fewer than 25Forest Row Fewer than 25 Fewer than 25

Table 8: A comparison of non-residential properties at risk from a 1 in 30 year surface water flood event (3% chance in any given year) between the 2013-2016 and 2016-2026 Assessments of Local Flood Risk. Note: An average between deep and shallow flood depths was used for the 2013-2016 assessment.

43


A4.21 Although there is relatively good correlation between the results, there are a number of differences between the original (2013-2016) and revised (2016-2026) assessments:

Changes in data analysed:

• The original assessment analysed two data sets, the predicted surface water flood risk and historic flood incidents. The revised assessment provides a more complete picture of flood risk in the county, through including predicted groundwater, fluvial and coastal flood risk data, as well as additional historic flood incident records.

• There have been several improvements made between the Environment Agency Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW) used to assess the surface water flood risk in the original assessment, and the updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW) used in the revised assessment. The two datasets were produced using distinctly different parameters, including storm duration, grid size and representation of buildings. In particular, the coverage of 1 in 30 and 1 in 200 year flood events in the FMfSW was increased in the uFMfSW to cover 1 in 30, 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year events. In general, the uFMfSW is more tightly constrained than in earlier versions of the mapping, however in some areas it picks out flowpaths previously unmapped by the FMfSW, This has led to variability between the numbers of receptors defined as at risk in the two assessments, as well as difficulties in directly comparing results from events of differing magnitudes and time periods.

Changes in method:

• The original assessment applied one weighting, to place more emphasis on predicted rather than historic flood risk data. In the revised assessment, additional weightings were applied, to account for the likelihood of each type of flooding. This has altered the ranking of settlements; with a greater emphasis placed on settlements at more immediate flood risk e.g. 1 in 30 year surface water flooding.

How will it inform flood risk management in East Sussex

A4.22 The revised assessment confirms our current understanding, that the majority of flood risk is concentrated in the highly populated coastal towns, and in settlements situated in the flood plains of the rivers Ouse, Cuckmere and Rother.

A4.23 However, this revised method provided a more comprehensive picture of flood risk across the county, and that highlighted the localised variability. This is particularly apparent in the level of flood risk identified in more rural wards, and inland settlements.

A4.24 The results of this assessment have directed the focus of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016-2026. A key message is ensuring that new drainage systems and works to watercourses remain sensitive to local conditions and flood risk to the immediate area.

A4.25 The results will also inform more detailed investigations in the areas of highest risk, to better understand the complex flood mechanisms present, and the most appropriate means of management.

44


Data Reliability

Dataset Use Limitations Implications for results

Environment AgencyUpdated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW)

The uFMfSW was used to map the extent of predicted surface water flooding at different intensities of rainfall events:High risk (1 in 30 year event)Medium risk (1 in 100 year event)Low risk (1 in 1000 year event)

As the modelled surface water collects on low points in topography and flatter surfaces, it overlies existing watercourses and the coastline. Where the uFMfSW is analysed alongside the RoFRS dataset, this can place a stronger emphasis on areas of fluvial or coastal flood risk.

The uFMfSW is the best indication of surface water flood risk which the Council currently hold. Due to the county-wide scale of analysis, the impacts of any ‘double counts’ of properties at risk of flooding will be relatively low.

Environment AgencyRisk of Flooding from Rivers and Sea (RoFRS)

The dataset was used to map the risk of flooding from rivers and seas. The data takes into account of local water levels and flood defences.High risk (greater/equal to 1 in 30 year event)Medium risk (less than 1 in 30 but greater/equal to 1 in 100 year event)Low risk (less than 1 in 100 but greater/equal to 1 in 1000 year event)

The dataset is supplied as 50m gridded squares, which is relatively coarse.The majority of data is suitable for town to county levels of analysis, which is suitable for this assessment; however certain sections are only suitable for national to county level analysis.

Property counts are likely to be less accurate in areas of East Sussex where the data is only suitable for national to county level analysis. However, the proportion of the county covered by this level of suitability is very low, so the impact on results should be minimal.

Environment Agency

Recorded Flood Outlines

The data was used to map the extent of recorded historic flood events from rivers, the sea and groundwater springs.

The dataset is provided as a polygon, which prevents interrogation of the individual properties affected, or details of the flooding.

In the assessment, the polygon coverage was beneficial, as it gave the opportunity for flood incident correlation with the point data of the ESCC Flood Incident Database.

Environment Agency

National Receptor Dataset (NRD)

The NRD was used to indicate the type of property at risk of flooding, which was used, alongside AddressBase Plus (see below) to classify the data into receptor groups.

The 2011 version of the NRD was used, which was four years old at the time of the assessment.

Since this period a number of receptors ae likely to have changed over this period

45


Dataset Use Limitations Implications for results

Ordnance Survey

AddressBase Plus

The dataset was used to represent receptor points. It marks the centre of the location of a property or site of interest.With the aid of the NRD, all relevant receptors were classified into the following groups:

Residential properties, non-residential properties, monuments, emergency receptors, and vulnerable receptors.

The previous addressed-base OS dataset, AddressPoint, has been shown to omit non-addressable receptors, or commercial properties which do not receive post at that site. The same limitations are likely to be present in AddressBase Plus.

Due to the omission of certain types of buildings, based on their postal arrangements, the number of receptors at risk may be underestimated using AddressBase Plus. However the limitations in receptor data were minimised by correlating the results from both the NRD and AddressBase Plus datasets.

Boundary-Line (District and Borough wards)

The Boundary-Line data was used to indicate the 101 District and Borough wards in East Sussex.

Ward boundaries in East Sussex are set to change by 2017-2019, which may slightly alter the distribution of property counts within wards.

Compared to other options, including parishes and Office for National Statistics output areas, ward boundaries gave the most continuous coverage across the county, with good representation in both rural and urban areas.

ESI Environmental

Groundwater Flood Map (GWFM)

The GWFM provides fine-scale data of the likelihood of a 1 in 100 (>1%) probability groundwater flooding event across East Sussex.

The data has four classifications, relating to the likelihood and severity of a 1 in 100 (1%) probability event:

High risk

Medium risk

Low risk

Negligible risk

The majority of the county is covered by the ‘negligible’ risk category, which due to its high coverage had the potential to skew results.A key advantage of the dataset is its Unlike many groundwater datasets, the GWFM indicates the risk rather than susceptibility of an area to groundwater flooding.

The negligible risk category was excluded from analysis, which prevented bias within the assessment results.

East Sussex County Council

Flood Incident Database

This database is a collation of flood incidents from all sources of flooding, as reported to the Risk Management Authorities.The reported incidents were included to represent the locations of historic flood events.

The reliability of the database depends on accurate reporting of incidents, and their mapped location. There are multiple reports of the some incidents.The database also includes sewer flooding incidents, which are not indicative of the natural flood risk.

The inclusion of multiple reports of the same incident may lead to overestimation of receptor counts, particularly due to the higher weighting applied to historic data.The inclusion of sewer flooding incidents may also lead to higher counts. However as sewer flooding often occurs as part of integrated flood mechanisms alongside surface water, groundwater, fluvial and coastal flooding, the impacts on results should be minimal.

46


A5Drainage Risk Areas: technical noteA5.1 The Drainage Risk Areas are intended to inform the preparation of drainage strategies within

development proposals, so that appropriate Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) techniques are implemented across the county.

A5.2 An overview of the DRAs and standing advice for drainage strategies can be found in Section 4: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in New Development within the main Strategy, whereas further detail is available within Section 2: Drainage Risk Areas within the appendix of the Strategy.

A5.3 This standing advice has been produced using the following information:

• Topography• Geology• Drainage issues raised in flood risk investigations• Surface Water Management Plans within East Sussex• Guide to Sustainable Drainage Systems in East Sussex (East Sussex County Council, 2015)• Sustainable Drainage Systems: Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage

systems. (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2015)• Water. People. Places – a guide for master planning sustainable drainage into

developments (Lead Local Flood Authorities of the South East of England, 2013)

Method

A5.4 In order to prevent arbitrary boundaries being drawn, the extent of the DRAs was determined statistically, by calculating the average characteristics of the drainage data. The following method was used:

a A database of constraints was created, using three datasets:

• British Geological Society (BGS) Depth to groundwater• British Geological Society (BGS) Potential for infiltration• Environment Agency updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW): flood

extent at a 1 in 30 year rainfall event (3% probability in any given year)

b East Sussex was divided into a grid of over 250,000 75m hexagons, to provide a relatively fine-scale assessment of conditions across the county.

c A computer script was run to produce four categories from the data, each containing a set of average surface water, groundwater and infiltration characteristics.

d Each hexagon was then sorted into one of these groups, depending on which of the four sets of characteristics their values corresponded most closely with.

Exceptions

A5.5 The settlements identified in each profile are classified based on the predominant coverage of that Drainage Risk Area.

A5.6 Due to the variability in conditions across the county, in many settlements, such as Hailsham, significant coverage of two or more DRAs can occur within a settlement. When this occurs, the settlement is included in several Drainage Risk Areas.

A5.7 The division may be clear-cut, for example, as in Eastbourne, where there is a distinct transition between DRAs, at the boundary between chalk to sandstone geologies (see Figure 11a).

47

Drainage Risk Areas: technical note

A5.8 Where are a number of DRAs lie in close proximity within a settlement, it suggests some complexity in the physical characteristics of the landscape. The potential for using certain drainage techniques is likely to vary considerably over a relatively small area, and as such further, further detailed site investigations are likely to be required to inform the drainage strategy.

A5.9 This variability is best seen in Hastings, where physical characteristics in the Borough vary significantly over short distances, resulting in all four DRAs being present within one settlement (Figure 11b). Due to this particularly complex combination of geology and topography, separate specific advice was produced for Hastings Borough.

A5.10 If the DRAs data is required on a more detailed scale, an enquiry should be placed with County Council via [email protected].

(a)

(b)

Figure 11: (a) The clear distinction between DRAs within Borough of Eastbourne. The transition between DRA 2 and DRAs 1 marks the boundary between the chalk geologies in west and clay in the east (b) In contrast, the large number of DRAs within the Borough of Hastings, reflecting the complexity in geology.

48


A6Local Study SummariesA6.1 A number of studies have already been undertaken across the county on local flood risk.

This section summarises the outcomes of each.

Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs)

A6.2 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) are studies undertaken to ascertain the risk of local flooding to an urban area. SWMPs are identified in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) ‘Future Water’ strategy as the primary vehicle for management of surface water flood risk in England, and this was further reflected in Recommendation 18 of the Pitt Review.

A6.3 The plans are supported by a partnership of flood risk management authorities who have responsibilities for aspects of local flooding. These include the County Council, District or Borough Council, Environment Agency, Sewerage Undertaker and Internal Drainage Boards.

A6.4 The Eastbourne and Hastings SWMPs, were funded by Defra and commissioned by the County and Borough Councils, respectively. The remaining SWMPs were commissioned by East Sussex County Council.

A6.5 For twelve of the fourteen flood risk hotspots as identified in the review of the 2011 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PRFA) within East Sussex (see section A5), Stage (or Phase) 1 Surface Water Management Plans were produced. These twelve are Battle, Bexhill, Crowborough, Eastbourne, Forest Row, Hailsham, Hastings, Heathfield, Newhaven, Peacehaven, Seaford and Rye.

A6.6 SWMPs were not undertaken in Lewes, where an Integrated Urban Drainage Pilot Study was produced, however the SWMP for Uckfield is underway and is due for completion in April 2016.

A6.7 These plans used similar methods. Surface water flood risk was determined through the compilation of flood incident records, drainage layouts and flood risk modelling data for each town. Significant flood prone areas were identified, where repeated flood incidents and complex flood mechanisms were present. These formed the focus for an action plan, in which operations to manage flood risk in each town were assigned to the relevant SWMP partners.

49

Local Study Summaries

Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Hast

ings

(201

1)Ha

stin

gs is

a m

ajor

conu

rbat

ion,

sit

uate

d on

the E

ast S

usse

x coa

st.

A nu

mbe

r of fl

ood

mec

hani

sms

inte

ract

to ca

use a

com

plex

floo

d ris

k in

Has

tings

. The

stee

p to

pogr

aphy

of

the H

igh W

eald

surro

undi

ng H

astin

gs

caus

es si

gnifi

cant

over

land

flow

pr

oblem

s, wh

ich ca

n be

com

poun

ded

by h

igh ri

ver fl

ows,

bloc

kage

s, hi

gh

tide a

nd gr

ound

wate

r.

Iden

tified

16 m

ediu

m to

la

rge fl

ood

hots

pots

acro

ss

the b

orou

gh, a

nd it

was

ag

reed

that

the f

ollo

wing

fo

ur fl

ood

hots

pots

wou

ld b

e lo

oked

at in

mor

e det

ail:

•To

wn Ce

ntre

•Ol

d Tow

n•

Holli

ngto

n Stre

am•

Warri

or S

quar

e

•Re

trofit

Sust

aina

ble D

rain

age S

yste

ms

(SuD

S) at

the H

ollin

gton

Prim

ary S

choo

l.•

Inst

alla

tion

of p

rope

rty le

vel fl

ood

resil

ienc

e mea

sure

s at p

ilot l

ocat

ions

(d

epen

dent

on av

aila

ble f

undi

ng).

•Re

stor

e fun

ction

ality

of p

enst

ocks

on

the U

pper

Hol

lingt

on S

tream

and

revie

w m

aint

enan

ce ar

rang

emen

ts.

•Re

view

mai

nten

ance

for a

ll ass

ets i

n ac

cord

ance

with

thei

r crit

icalit

y.

Hast

ings

Bor

ough

Co

uncil

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

East

bour

ne A

rea (

2012

)Ea

stbo

urne

was

rank

ed as

the 3

8th

mos

t sus

cept

ible

settl

emen

t in

Engla

nd to

surfa

ce w

ater

floo

ding

in

a nat

iona

l ass

essm

ent c

ondu

cted

by

the D

epar

tmen

t for

Envir

onm

ent,

Food

an

d Ru

ral A

ffairs

(Def

ra) i

n 20

09.

The S

WM

P are

a inc

lude

s the

Bor

ough

of

East

bour

ne an

d th

e set

tlem

ents

of

Poleg

ate,

Wan

nock

and

Will

ingd

on in

So

uthe

rn W

eald

en.

Thirt

y six

inte

rmed

iate

ho

tspo

t are

as w

ere i

dent

ified

in

tota

l acro

ss th

e dat

aset

.Th

e top

four

rank

ed

inte

rmed

iate

hot

spot

s we

re p

rogr

esse

d to

a m

ore

deta

iled

risk a

sses

smen

t/m

odell

ing s

tage

.

Mill

Stre

am G

arde

ns,

Will

ingd

on•

Lang

ley•

Firle

Road

and

Arnd

ale

Shop

ping

Cent

re,

East

bour

ne to

wn ce

ntre

•Bo

urne

Stre

am/M

otco

mbe

Pa

rk, e

ast o

f Eas

tbou

rne

town

cent

re

A nu

mbe

r of g

ener

ic ca

tchm

ent-w

ide a

ction

s an

d sp

ecifi

c acti

ons i

n th

e high

prio

rity

hots

pot a

reas

wer

e ide

ntifi

ed. T

he SW

MP

actio

n pl

an u

nder

goes

qua

rterly

revie

w, w

ith

actio

ns in

cludi

ng:

•Su

rvey

of as

sets

to fu

rther

und

erst

and

curre

nt co

nditi

on an

d pl

an fu

ture

m

aint

enan

ce e.

g. Ea

stbo

urne

Park

lake

s.•

Inve

stiga

tion

and

feasib

ility

stud

ies of

flo

od re

ducti

on m

easu

res i

n th

e prio

rity

hots

pots

.•

Prod

uctio

n of

a Bo

urne

Stre

am

Man

agem

ent P

lan

to b

ette

r und

erst

and

the

cond

ition

, mai

nten

ance

requ

irem

ents

and

oper

atio

nal r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s of t

he as

set.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

East

bour

ne B

orou

gh

Coun

cil

Weal

den

Dist

rict

Coun

cil

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

50


Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Fore

st R

ow (2

013)

Fore

st Ro

w is

situa

ted

on th

e edg

e of

the R

iver M

edwa

y floo

dpla

in, a

nd

is in

ters

ecte

d by

a nu

mbe

r of s

teep

ca

tchm

ents

, whi

ch d

rain

thro

ugh

the

villa

ge an

d ou

t int

o the

Med

way.

As in

othe

r set

tlem

ents

of th

e Hi

gh W

eald

, the

stee

p gr

adie

nts,

impe

rmea

ble g

eolo

gy an

d fa

st

resp

onse

to ra

infa

ll with

in th

e For

est

Row

catch

men

ts cu

lmin

ate i

n su

rface

wa

ter fl

oodi

ng is

sues

. Thi

s res

ults

in

a sig

nific

ant r

emov

al of

sedi

men

t fro

m th

e upp

er ca

tchm

ents

, and

its

depo

sitio

n wi

thin

the u

rban

area

of

Fore

st Ro

w.

•Ki

dbro

oke S

tream

area

–

long

Prio

ry Ro

ad, S

wans

Gh

yll an

d Ri

vers

ide

•Ha

rtfield

Road

•Sh

ales

broo

k are

a –

cove

ring P

ost H

orn

Lane

an

d Po

st H

orn C

lose

The v

illag

e has

an ac

tive l

ocal

floo

d gr

oup,

th

e For

est R

ow Fl

ood

Netw

ork (

FRFN

), wh

ich

is re

spon

sible

for m

onito

ring a

nd d

elive

ring

the a

ction

pla

n, an

d ob

serv

ing t

he p

rogr

ess

of ac

tions

on th

e gro

und.

The p

riorit

ised

actio

ns w

ithin

the k

ey fl

ood

pron

e are

as in

clude

:•

The c

omm

issio

n of

a st

udy t

o inv

estig

ate

flood

risk

man

agem

ent s

olut

ions

in th

e Sh

ales

broo

k cat

chm

ent,

wher

e sign

ifica

nt

risk i

s cau

sed

by in

tegr

ated

floo

d m

echa

nism

s•

An as

set i

nspe

ction

of h

ighwa

y gul

lies,

and

iden

tifica

tion

of w

hose

blo

ckag

es ar

e pr

oduc

ing s

urfa

ce w

ater

floo

ding

, bef

ore

unde

rtakin

g fur

ther

mai

nten

ance

•In

vest

igatin

g the

capa

city o

f the

foul

sewe

r ne

twor

k acro

ss al

l thr

ee fl

ood

pron

e are

as

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Fore

st Ro

w Flo

od

Netw

ork

Weal

den

Dist

rict

Coun

cil

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

51


Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Bexh

ill (d

raft)

(201

6)Lo

cate

d on

the c

oast

, Bex

hill i

s the

la

rges

t tow

n in

Roth

er D

istr

ict.

The

stee

p to

pogr

aphy

and

mixt

ure

in p

erm

eabi

lity o

f the

geol

ogy

com

poun

ds in

a hi

gh su

rface

wat

er

flood

risk

with

in B

exhi

ll. Th

ese s

teep

slo

pes a

lso re

sult

in a

num

ber o

f fla

shy w

ater

cour

ses,

with

small

ca

tchm

ent a

reas

and

urba

n in

flows

. M

any o

f the

se h

ave b

een

‘enm

aine

d’

by th

e Env

ironm

ent A

genc

y, du

e to

thei

r high

floo

d ris

k, h

owev

er so

me

rem

ain

ordi

nary

wate

rcour

ses.

•Co

lling

ton

Wood

;•

Bexh

ill D

own;

•Gr

eenl

eigh

Park

;•

Pick

nell G

reen

Stre

am;

•Si

dley

;•

Pebs

ham

; and

•Eg

erto

n Stre

am.

•As

set i

nspe

ction

and

docu

men

tatio

n of

floo

d ris

k ass

ets,

inclu

ding

pos

sible

culve

rted

wate

rcour

ses i

n th

e Col

lingt

on

Wood

and

Bexh

ill D

own

prio

rity a

reas

;•

Mai

nten

ance

of d

rain

age d

itche

s on T

urke

y Ro

ad; a

nd•

Deta

iled

flood

risk

map

ping

and

optio

ns

appr

aisa

l for t

he p

riorit

y are

as.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Roth

er D

istric

t Cou

ncil

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

Crow

boro

ugh

(201

4)Cr

owbo

roug

h is

the l

arge

st in

land

to

wn in

East

Suss

ex, s

ituat

ed in

the

north

of W

eald

en D

istric

t.A

com

bina

tion

of st

eep

relie

f, be

droc

k wi

th re

lativ

ely p

oorly

infil

tratio

n an

d in

crea

sing d

evelo

pmen

t aro

und

the

town

per

imet

er, h

as cu

lmin

ated

in

a con

sider

able

risk o

f sur

face

wat

er

flood

ing.

•Hi

gh S

treet

– co

verin

g Cr

owbo

roug

h Hi

gh S

treet

an

d th

e A26

Mill

Lane

to

Erid

ge G

arde

ns•

Whi

tehi

ll – co

verin

g Hur

tis

Hill,

Ferm

or Ro

ad an

d W

hite

hill R

oad

•Ja

rvis

Broo

k – co

verin

g We

ster

n Ro

ad an

d Cr

owbo

roug

h Hi

ll

With

in th

e Cro

wbor

ough

SWM

P acti

on p

lan

ther

e wer

e sev

eral

prio

ritise

d ac

tions

. The

se

inclu

ded:

•Co

mm

issio

n of

a st

udy t

o ide

ntify

solu

tions

fo

r man

agin

g the

inte

rconn

ecte

d su

rface

wa

ter a

nd se

wer fl

ood

risk i

n th

e Jar

vis

Broo

k are

a;•

Asse

t ins

pecti

on of

high

way g

ullie

s and

cu

lverts

, to b

e fol

lowe

d by

the u

nder

takin

g of

furth

er p

reve

ntat

ive m

aint

enan

ce in

the

Whi

tehi

ll and

High

Stre

et ar

eas,

wher

e bl

ocka

ges l

ead

to su

rface

wat

er fl

oodi

ng.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Weal

den

Dist

rict

Coun

cil

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

52


Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Heat

hfiel

d (2

014)

Heat

hfield

is a

small

town

situ

ated

in

the H

igh W

eald

AONB

, with

in W

eald

en

Dist

rict.

The t

own

cont

ains

a nu

mbe

r of

small

, urb

an ca

tchm

ents

, whi

ch ar

e re

spon

sive a

nd fl

ashy

in n

atur

e.

This

leads

to er

osio

n an

d iss

ues o

f se

dim

ent m

obili

satio

n an

d de

posit

ion

in d

rain

age s

yste

ms.

The h

igh

velo

cities

of th

is su

rface

wat

er ru

noff

are a

lso of

conc

ern,

as it

may

hav

e an

impa

ct on

floo

d ris

k dow

nstre

am.

•Wa

ldro

n Tho

rns –

cove

ring

Wald

ron T

horn

s, Til

smor

e Ro

ad an

d Gh

yll Ro

ad•

Mea

dow

Way –

cove

ring

Mea

dow

Way,

Sand

y Cro

ss

and

Ghyll

Road

The m

ajor

issu

es w

ithin

thes

e hot

spot

s we

re th

e high

leve

ls of

surfa

ce w

ater

runo

ff pr

oduc

ed b

y rai

nfall

, and

the b

lock

age o

f hi

ghwa

y gul

lies b

y high

leve

ls of

erod

ed

sedi

men

t. As

such

, the

resu

ltant

prio

ritise

d ac

tions

from

the S

WM

P acti

on p

lan

were

:•

To co

mm

issio

n a s

oil e

rosio

n st

udy t

o be

tter u

nder

stan

d th

e ero

sion m

echa

nism

s an

d la

nd u

se m

anag

emen

t pra

ctice

s wi

thin

the H

eath

field

catch

men

ts. T

he

inte

ntio

n is

to re

stric

t the

qua

ntiti

es of

se

dim

ent e

nter

ing t

he h

ighwa

y dra

inag

e ne

twor

k, an

d th

us m

anag

e sur

face

wat

er

flood

ing.

•En

cour

agin

g the

inte

rcept

ion

of su

rface

wa

ter b

y hom

eown

ers t

hrou

gh p

rom

otio

n of

Sou

ther

n Wa

ter’s

“You

r Wat

er M

eter

” ca

mpa

ign w

hich

pro

vides

wat

er b

utts

for

cust

omer

s. Th

e aim

is to

targ

et th

e sou

rce

of th

e floo

ding

.•

The i

nspe

ction

of h

ighwa

y gul

lies i

n th

e Wal

dron

Thor

ns an

d M

eado

w Wa

y, an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of a

prog

ram

me o

f pr

even

tativ

e mai

nten

ance

.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Weal

den

Dist

rict

Coun

cil

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

53


Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Peac

ehav

en, N

ewha

ven

and

Seaf

ord

(201

4)Th

e coa

stal

town

s of P

eace

have

n,

Newh

aven

and S

eafo

rd in

Lewe

s Di

stric

t are

situ

ated

with

in th

e Rive

r Ou

se ca

tchm

ent.

In ad

ditio

n to

fluv

ial fl

oodi

ng fr

om

the t

idall

y infl

uenc

ed R

iver O

use,

hi

gh le

vels

of u

rban

isatio

n an

d th

e un

derly

ing c

halk

geol

ogy l

ead

to a

cons

ider

able

risk o

f sur

face

wat

er an

d gr

ound

wate

r floo

ding

.

Ten

Loca

l Flo

od Ri

sk

Zone

s (LF

RZs)

were

id

entifi

ed ac

ross

the t

hree

to

wns,

wher

e sur

face

wa

ter fl

oodi

ng aff

ecte

d pr

oper

ties b

usin

esse

s an

d/or

infra

stru

cture

. Tw

o LFR

Zs w

ere i

dent

ified

in

Peac

ehav

en, fi

ve in

Ne

whav

en an

d th

ree i

n Se

afor

d:

P1. W

est o

f Tels

com

be Cl

iffs

P2. S

utto

n Ave

nue

N1. C

ourt

Farm

Road

and

Gibb

on Ro

ad

N2. S

outh

Road

and

the

north

ern

part

of Fo

rt Ro

ad.

N3. M

eech

ing V

alley

– Va

lley

Road

, Lew

es Ro

ad an

d W

illow

Wal

k.

N4. D

ento

n Ro

ad –

inclu

ding

We

lling

ton

Road

, The

Clos

e an

d Can

terc

row

Hill.

N5. I

ndus

trial

area

of A

vis

Road

and

New

Road

.

S1. J

uncti

on of

Earls

Clos

e an

d Pr

ince

ss D

rive.

S2. B

latch

ingt

on Ro

ad an

d Br

ookly

n Ro

ad.

•A

key fi

ndin

g was

that

floo

ding

in th

e thr

ee

town

s was

hea

vily i

nflue

nced

by e

xistin

g an

d hi

stor

ical w

ater

cour

se va

lleys

, and

as

such

furth

er re

sear

ch w

as re

com

men

ded

with

in ea

ch of

the L

FRZs

.•

Shor

t and

med

ium

term

actio

ns fo

r ESC

C an

d Le

wes D

istric

t Cou

ncil w

ere:

•To

com

mun

icate

the l

ocal

floo

d ris

k to

resid

ents

, and

raise

awar

enes

s of fl

ood

resil

ienc

e and

thei

r res

pons

ibili

ties f

or

prop

erty

drai

nage

.•

To in

form

resid

ents

of p

ossib

le m

easu

res

for m

itiga

ting s

urfa

ce w

ater

floo

ding

to/

arou

nd th

eir p

rope

rty.

•To

raise

awar

enes

s and

com

mun

icate

su

rface

wat

er fl

ood

risk t

o bot

h st

akeh

olde

rs an

d th

e pub

lic.

•To

impr

ove d

rain

age s

yste

m m

aint

enan

ce

regim

es to

targ

et ar

eas w

hich

regu

larly

flo

od, o

r are

know

n to

hav

e blo

ckag

es.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Lewe

s Dist

rict C

ounc

il

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

54


Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Battl

e (20

15)

Battl

e is a

small

hist

oric

town

with

in

the H

igh W

eald

AONB

in Ro

ther

Di

stric

t. Th

e tow

n is

situa

ted

on a

ridge

whi

ch se

para

tes t

hree

rive

r ca

tchm

ents

.

•Th

e Kni

ghts

Mea

dow

Broo

k ca

tchm

ent –

inclu

ding

Ha

rrier

Lane

and

Falco

ner

Drive

•No

rth Tr

ade R

oad

•Ba

ttle W

aste

wate

r Tre

atm

ent w

orks

•Re

gula

r ins

pecti

on an

d m

aint

enan

ce of

th

e tra

sh sc

reen

at B

attle

Was

tewa

ter

Treat

men

t Wor

ks.

•Pr

iorit

ised

mai

nten

ance

of th

e cur

b in

let

drai

nage

alon

g Nor

th Tr

ade R

oad.

•Re

view

of d

rain

age d

esign

at th

e Em

man

uel C

entre

and

rem

edia

l wor

ks to

re

plac

e bro

ken

drai

nage

.•

Cont

inui

ng to

mon

itor f

utur

e floo

d in

ciden

ts on

Har

rier L

ane a

nd Fa

lcone

r Dr

ive to

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e floo

d m

echa

nism

s in

oper

atio

n.

ESCC

High

ways

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

Roth

er D

istric

t Cou

ncil

Sout

hern

Wat

er

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

Hails

ham

and

Helli

ngly

(201

5)Ha

ilsha

m, a

mar

ket t

own,

and

Helli

ngly,

a sm

all vi

llage

, are

bot

h sit

uate

d in

the d

istric

t of W

eald

en.

The a

rea h

as u

nder

gone

sign

ifica

nt

grow

th si

nce t

he 19

70s,

and

is ex

pecte

d to

see f

urth

er gr

owth

in

futu

re ye

ars.

A hi

gh su

rface

wat

er fl

ood

risk i

s pr

oduc

ed b

y im

perm

eabl

e Wea

lden

Gr

oup

clays

, loc

alise

d st

eep

topo

grap

hy, a

nd in

crea

sing l

evels

of

urba

nisa

tion.

•Ha

rebe

atin

g Stre

am

catch

men

t – in

cludi

ng

Hare

beat

ing C

resc

ent,

Oak

Tree W

ay an

d Da

num

Clos

e•

Hors

e Eye

Sew

er

catch

men

t – in

cludi

ng

Stat

ion

Road

, But

ts Fi

eld

and

Bell B

anks

Road

•Kn

ockh

atch

Stre

am

catch

men

t – in

cludi

ng th

e Di

ploc

ks h

ousin

g est

ate

and

Dipl

ocks

trad

ing

esta

te

•Co

mm

issio

n a C

CTV s

urve

y to u

nder

stan

d th

e rou

te an

d co

nditi

on of

the c

ulve

rted

stre

ams,

in th

e Har

ebea

ting S

tream

pr

iorit

y are

a.•

Addr

ess t

he fl

y tip

ping

issu

e in

Hails

ham

at

But

ts Fi

eld, i

n th

e Hor

se Ey

e Sew

er

prio

rity a

rea a

nd D

anum

Clos

e, in

the

Hare

beat

ing S

tream

prio

rity a

rea.

•Ta

rget

high

way g

ully

mai

nten

ance

on

Stat

ion

Road

, in

the H

orse

Eye S

ewer

pr

iorit

y are

a.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Weal

den

Dist

rict

Coun

cil

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

Sout

hern

Wat

er

55


Surfa

ce W

ater

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

WM

P)Se

ttlem

ent c

hara

cter

istics

Iden

tified

Floo

d Pr

one

Area

s (or

‘Hot

spot

s’)

Prio

ritis

ed A

ctio

nsPa

rtner

s inv

olve

d

Rye

(201

5)Ry

e is a

n hi

stor

ic ha

rbou

r tow

n in

Roth

er

Dist

rict.

•Re

stric

ted

by W

allan

d M

arsh

es to

th

e eas

t and

the H

igh W

eald

AONB

to

the w

est,

deve

lopm

ent o

f the

town

is

cons

train

ed b

y env

ironm

enta

l feat

ures

.

•Th

e Stra

nd•

The T

illin

g Gre

en Es

tate

–

inclu

ding

Tilli

ng G

reen

Sc

hool

•No

rth S

alts

•Th

e Gro

ve

•Co

mm

issio

ning

a st

udy t

o und

erst

and

the

flood

mec

hani

sms o

pera

ting a

t the

Stra

nd.

•Ta

rget

ing h

ighwa

y gul

ly m

aint

enan

ce on

No

rth S

alts

.•

Unde

rtakin

g inv

estig

atio

n wo

rks t

o un

ders

tand

the c

ulve

rt co

nditi

on u

nder

Th

e Old

Bric

kyar

d.

ESCC

Floo

d Ri

sk

Man

agem

ent

ESCC

High

ways

Roth

er D

istric

t Cou

ncil

Rom

ney M

arsh

es A

rea

Inte

rnal

Dra

inag

e Bo

ard

Rye E

mer

genc

y Acti

on

Com

mun

ity Te

am

(REA

CT)

Envir

onm

ent A

genc

y

Sout

hern

Wat

er

56


A7Funding Mechanisms

Funding for Local Authorities

A7.1 Over recent years, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has provided a general formula grant to local authorities across England. Along with locally collected council tax, the two have provided the general resources to fund the wide range of local services provided by the County Council including flood risk management. In fact the range of local services provided is very broad including children’s services, adult social care, waste disposal, highways maintenance, as well as many others. Therefore, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) must decide how much to spend on local flood risk management, subject to overall cash limits and the need for investing in other service priorities. From time to time, funding may also be re-allocated from related service areas where joint benefits can be delivered; an example of this might be Highway Drainage.

A7.2 In April 2013, the formula grant was replaced in part by retaining a proportion of business rates locally. A nationally determined start point for funding will continue to constrain the remainder of the funding and thereby limit the overall spending of local authorities year on year, according to the Government’s on-going austerity programme.

A7.3 Defra also separately funds the lead local flood authority service. Funding is currently provided directly to county council or unitary authorities to deliver their risk management functions. The amount of money provided is dependent upon the overall level of local flood risk within each county or unitary area.

Figure 12. Diagram illustrating the funding avenues available for flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes and for delivering the County Council’s lead local flood authority service. (LA – Local Authority; RFCCs – Regional Flood and Coastal Committees; ESCC – East Sussex County Council; IDBs – internal drainage boards)

DCLG DEFRA

LEAD LOCAL AUTHORITIES

FLOOD AND COASTAL EROSION RISK MANAGEMENT

OTHER LA FUNDING

INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARDS

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING

RECOMMENDS ALLOCATION OF FUNDING

REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL

COMMITTEE

(UPPER TIER AUTHORITIES) (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) (LANDOWNERS AND/OR

LOCAL AUTHORITIES)

LOCAL LEVY

PARTNERSHIP FUNDING

DRAINAGE CHARGES &

SPECIAL LEVIES

57

Funding Mechanisms

A7.4 Defra continues to distribute, £15 million per annum, but the remaining £21 million now transfers into the general funding of the county council or unitary authority, as described above.

A7.5 These grant and revenue sources are also complemented by small incomes from ordinary watercourse consent applications, and pre-application advice on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) within development proposals. With recent changes to the planning system which make the Lead Local Flood Authorities statutory consultees to the planning system on major development applications, Government has provided one off funding to establish this new role. However, the level funding provided in subsequent years of this “new burden” is limited.

Funding for Schemes

Resilience Partnership Funding

A7.6 In the past Government funding for flood and coastal defence projects, Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA), could only be secured for schemes that offered the most cost-effective solutions, providing complete funding in an ‘all or nothing’ approach. However, this meant that only a limited number of schemes could be progressed.

A7.7 Defra has implemented a new system – resilience partnership funding – which allows a far greater number of schemes to achieve at least partial government FDGiA funding based upon the benefits that will be delivered (payment for outcomes). Benefits may include the number of households protected (a higher level of funding is available for deprived areas), damage prevented, or wider environmental/amenity benefits.

A7.8 Working with partners is key to delivering flood and coastal erosion risk management projects, helping to top-up centrally (or locally) secured funds. Partnership contributions (see Figure 12) can be made by risk management authorities or local stakeholders who may benefit from the project implementation, for example private sector developers, landowners, non-governmental organisations, or infrastructure providers. This approach encourages communities and stakeholders to take more responsibility for the flood risk they face and aims to increase overall investment beyond that which government can provide.

A7.9 Full funding is still available for schemes that can display significant cost-benefit values.

Regional Funding

A7.10 The ‘local levy’ is an Environment Agency levy placed upon upper tier authorities and it is administered and allocated by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees. Local Levy can be allocated to regional priority flood and coastal schemes that could not display high enough cost/benefits to be awarded central funding.

Additional Funding Sources

A7.11 Where flood and coastal erosion risk management projects help to deliver wider benefits then additional funding sources may be secured. For example, a scheme may help to deliver mitigation measures detailed within a river basin management plan. For East Sussex this is the Thames and South East River Basin Management Plans (Water Framework Directive).

A7.12 Following the flooding of Winter 2013/2014, Defra introduced the Repair and Renew Grant for homeowners and businesses which were flooded during these storms. Through the Local Authorities, up to £5000 could be claimed, in order to improve the resilience of properties to future flooding. Provision of the Repair and Renew Grant ended, however similar schemes may be implemented after future significant flood events.

58

Funding Mechanisms

A7.13 Top-up funds may also potentially be secured from the Community Infrastructure Levy or grants for Woodland Creation from the Forestry Commission.

Current Fluvial and Coastal Schemes

A7.14 A number of fluvial and coastal schemes are being progressed across East Sussex by the Environment Agency, district and borough councils. These schemes include ongoing maintenance of key assets such as beach management, outfalls and tidal walls; flood alleviation works and strategy development. They to have acquired funding through the new resilience partnership funding approach, though many schemes may still receive full funding from central government due to the high levels of protection they provide, such as tidal or fluvial defences.

A7.15 The full list of flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes, approved by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, for the coming year can be found online at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

Current Local Flood Risk Schemes

A7.16 The risk management authorities in East Sussex – including East Sussex County Council – will continue to bid for funds to deliver local flood risk management schemes across the county under the new partnership funding regime.

A7.17 Current local flood risk schemes and assessments that have received funding (either via FDGiA or local levy and topped up by partnership contributions) are detailed within the Strategy’s Delivery Plan. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy – informed by continuing local studies and assessments – will act as the evidence base for subsequent funding bids.

A7.18 Current flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes are also detailed online at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

59

Funding Mechanisms

East Sussex County CouncilCounty HallSt Anne’s CrescentLewes BN7 1UEPhone: 0345 60 80 190Fax: 01273 481261Website: eastsussex.gov.uk/contactus

September 2016 15-16 363

Documents

East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 – 2026€¦ · East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016 – 2026 Technical Appendices. A1 Overview of East Sussex: