Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Our ref: AB/YRFCC/23/07/2020 Your ref: Date: 23 July 2020
Dear Member,
YORKSHIRE REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE
I enclose the agenda and all supporting papers for your forthcoming meeting, which will be a formal meeting held on Thursday, 23th July 2020 at 10:15am to 12:30pm, and will now take place remotely.
The dial-in details are below;
1) To join the videoconference via the MS Teams App please use the link below. If your organisation supports MS Teams and if you do not have it downloaded already, the app can be downloaded onto a phone or laptop viahttps://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/microsoft-teams/download-app
2) The meeting link below can also be used to join the videoconference via a web browser if joining on a laptop which does not have MS Teams installed and you do not wish to download the app.
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
3) You can also choose to join via teleconference using the below details if you don’t have a camera facility on your laptop / phone or access to Microsoft Teams.*Please note this is instead of a vodaphone teleconference which will not beavailable for this meeting and there may be a usual standard cost associated with this call (please contact your provider for more details).
+44 20 3321 5273 United Kingdom, London (Toll) Conference ID: 497 650 431#
The local authority pre-meeting will also take place remotely and will start at 09:15am. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please let me know at your earliest convenience. For local authority elected members if you are unable to attend, can you please ensure that your nominated substitute elected member or another appropriate person appointed by your council attends on your behalf. Please let me know the name of the substitute in advance of the meeting so that I can notify the Chair.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries and/or if I can be of any further assistance. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Kind regards
Amer Bhatti Project Manager Flood & Coastal Risk Management
And YRFCC & Sub-regional Flood Risk Partnerships Secretary Environment Agency | Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AT YRFCC e-mail: [email protected]
Direct e-mail: [email protected] External: 020 302 56365 | Mobile: 07786 523779
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
YORKSHIRE REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE 10:15 – 12:30 | 23 July 2020
The meeting will take place remotely - lines will be opened at 10:00
AGENDA
No. Item Lead Relevant Paper
Relevant Appendices
1. Chairman’s Announcements
10:15 Welcome, Apologies for Absence and
Introductions
Colin Mellors
2. Governance Issues
2.1 Declarations of Interests Colin Mellors
2.2 Minutes of last YRFCC Meeting
o Confirmation of Accuracy Matters Arising
Colin Mellors Minutes
3. Items for Presentation
3.1 FCERM Strategy Update Julie Foley, EA PowerPoint Presentation
3.2 Environmental Land Management Scheme &
FCERM Chris Uttley, EA
D-J Gent, EA PowerPoint Presentation
4. General YRFCC Business Update
4.1
YRFCC Business Update:
o Chairman’s Update includes the following appendices: National FCERM Stakeholder Update Yorkshire Area EA Written Update
Colin Mellors YRFCC/299
5. Decision Items for Consideration: Asset Management and Investment
5.1
Programming & Investment Sub-Group Chair’s Report and Programme Update including Local Levy and the Sub-Regional Flood Risk Partnerships Meetings Updates
Bill Rodham YRFCC/300 A01-A08
5.2
2020/21 FCERM Grant in Aid (GiA) Indicative Allocation for Capital and Revenue Funding including update on additional GiA funding for 2020/21 & next 6 year programme – principles, prioritisation & metrics
Bill Rodham YRFCC/301
5.3 IDB Upland Water Contribution Martin Slater YRFCC/302
No. Item Lead Relevant Paper
Relevant Appendices
5.4 Use of Local Levy to Develop a Strategic
Approach to Natural Flood Management (NFM) Across the YRFCC Area
Jeremy Walker YRFCC/303
6. Items for Discussion
None
7. Items for Information (not for discussion at the meeting)
7.1 Environmental Land Management Scheme and FCERM Chris Uttley, EA YRFCC/304
7.2 Humber Strategy Update Philip Winn YRFCC/305
8. Committee Administration
Any Other Urgent Business Forward Plan of the Committee Date and Time of Future Meetings 2020 The arrangements for the remaining 2020 YRFCC meetings, see dates below, will be reviewed in due course. 1. Thursday 22 October 2020
Colin Mellors
12:30 **CLOSE OF MEETING**
List of Abbreviations: ABI Association of British Insurers LGYH Local Government Yorkshire and
Humber ADA Association of Drainage Authorities LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority
AIMS Asset Information Management System LEP Local Economic Partnership
AMP Asset Management Plan LPRG Large Projects Review Group
ANEC Association of North East Councils LTP Long Term Plan
ASSI Areas of Special Scientific Interest MTP Medium Term Plan
AMT Area Management Team MAFP Multi-agency Flood Plan
BAP Biodiversity Action Plan NCPMS National Capital Programme Management Service
CAMC Creating Asset Management Capacity NECG North East Coastal Group
CFMP Catchment Flood Risk Management Strategy NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
EA Environment Agency NFM Natural Flood Management
EC European Commission NFRR National Flood Resilience Review
EMF Elected Members' Forum OFERG Operational Flood Emergency Response Group
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area OM Outcome Measures
EU European Union OS Ordnance Survey
FAS Flood Alleviation Scheme PAB Project Assurance Board
FCERM Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management PDUs Programme Delivery Units
FCRM Flood and Coastal Risk Management PF Partnership Funding
FDGiA Flood Defence Grant in Aid (now renamed FCRM GiA) PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment
FCRM GiA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant in Aid PLP Property Level Protection
FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan PR19 Price Review 2019
FRR Flood Risk Regulations RMA Risk Management Authority
FWMA Flood and Water Management Act SAB SuDS Approval Body
FRP Flood Risk Partnerships SAC Special Area of Conservation
HECAG Humber Estuary Coastal Authorities Group SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
HFRMS Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
ICES International Council for Exploration of the Sea SMP Shoreline Management Plan
IDB Internal Drainage Board SPA Special Protection Area
JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee SuDS Sustainable Drainage System
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
LDF Local Development Framework SWMP Surface Water Management Plan
LRF Local Resilience Forum WFD Water Framework Directive
LFRMS Local Flood Risk Management Strategies RFCC Regional Flood and Coastal Committee
LFRS Local Flood Risk Strategy YRFCC Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee
LGA Local Government Association YW Yorkshire Water
OM Definition
OM2 Number of households moved out of any flood probability category to a lower probability category
OM2b The number of households moved from the very significant or significant probability category to the moderate or low probability category
OM2c The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas moved out of the significant or very significant probability categories to the moderate or low probability category.
OM3 The number of households with reduced risk of coastal erosion
OM3b The number of households protected against loss in 20 years from coastal erosion
OM3c The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas protected against loss in 20 years from coastal erosion
OM4a Hectares of water dependent habitat created or improved to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive
OM4b Hectares of intertidal habitat created to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive for areas protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive
OM4c Kilometres of rivers protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive improved to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Item No: 2.2
Back to agenda MINUTES OF MEETING OF YORKSHIRE REGIONAL FLOOD & COASTAL COMMITTEE
Meeting Held Via Teleconference and Zoom Call Thursday, 30 April 2020 AT 10.15
Present: Professor Colin Mellors Chair LLFAs Members Councillor Chris Lamb Barnsley Council Councillor Mike Ellis Bradford Council Councillor Jane Scullion Calderdale Council Councillor Andrew Waller City of York Council Councillor Garry Hickton Derbyshire County Council Councillor Chris Matthews East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Councillor Mohammed Rafique Leeds City Council Councillor Donald Firth Kirklees Council Councillor David Jeffels North Yorkshire County Council until agenda item 5 Councillor Dave Sheppard Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Councillor Mark Jones Sheffield City Council LLFAs Sub Members Mr Kyle Heydon Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Ms Rachel Glossop Hull City Council EA Appointed Independent Members Mr Andrew McLachlan EA Appointed Independent Member until agenda item 5 Mr Geoff Roberts EA Appointed Independent Member Ms Julie Gledhill EA Appointed Independent Member Mr Jeremy Walker EA Appointed Independent Member until agenda item 7 Mr Roger Falconer EA Appointed Independent Member EA Board Member and Officers: Mr Oliver Harmar EA Yorkshire Area Director Mr Adrian Gill EA Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager Mr Neil Longden EA Area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager Mr Bill Rodham EA Programme Team Manager Ms Lynne Frostick EA Board Member until agenda item 5 Mr Amer Bhatti YRFCC Secretary Mr Luke Waddington EA Programme Team Ms Hannah Copping EA Programme Team In Attendance: Councillor Sarah Tattersall Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Neil Fearnley Calderdale Council Ms Astrid Paget East Riding of Yorkshire Council (EYRC) Mr Rashid Mahmood Kirklees Council Mr Jonathon Moxon Leeds City Council Ms Emily Mellalieu North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) Mr Richard Jackson Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Steve Wragg City of York Council
Item No: 2.2
The majority of members joined the virtual meeting via a Zoom call, some members joined via teleconference. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Apologies were received, in advance of the meeting, from: Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) Members: Councillor Chris McGuinness (Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council), Councillor Mike Thompson (Hull City Council), and Councillor David Dagger (Wakefield Council). Others: Mr Simon Keys (EA Appointed Independent Member), Barrie Mason (North Yorkshire County Council) and Mr Martin Slater (EA Operations Manager) 1. CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.1 Welcome and Apologies for Absence: The Chair welcomed all present to the virtual meeting, especially Roger Falconer who had recently been appointed by the EA as its Independent Member, Coastal Lead. The Committee noted the apologies that had been received along with the substitute members (as shown above), who had been confirmed by LLFAs in advance of the meeting. The Chair informed members that the EA had advised that regulations at the time of the meeting did not allow for a remote RFCC attendance, as the Committee quorum can only be achieved by members “present” and voting can only be undertaken by members “present”. It was hoped that changes to these regulations would have been made by Defra by the time of the next meeting in July; however, as things stood, members would be registering that they were ‘minded to/notionally agree’ any recommendations, including those under item 5.1 (YRFCC/296). Such views could then be subsequently formally ratified at the next Committee meeting, whether taking place ‘in person’, or under modified arrangements that enabled remote decision making. The Chair and members passed on their best wishes to Simon Keys (Independent Member) for a quick and full recovery. 2. GOVERNANCE ISSUES
2.1 Declaration of Interests: The following members declared their respective interests, as follows:
The Chair declared an interest as a Board member of the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP Board; a member of the Derwent Partnership Board and an Independent Member of South Craven Academy Trust.
Cllr Andrew Waller declared an interest as a member of West Yorkshire Combined Authority / Leeds City Region LEP.
Cllr Jane Scullion declared an interest as a member of the Leeds City Region’s Investment Committee.
Councillor Mike Ellis declared an interest as a Board Member of Airedale Drainage Commission.
Mr Kyle Heydon declared an interest as a member of the Danvm Drainage Board. Mr Geoff Roberts declared an interest as Chair of the River Aire Trust. Mr Andy McLachlan declared an interest as Chief Executive of Ouse and Humber
Drainage Board (OHDB) and director of 5 other IDBs.
Item No: 2.2
2.2 Minutes of Last Meeting: 2.2.1 Confirmation of Accuracy: The Committee accepted the minutes as a true record of meeting held on 23 January 2020. 2.2.2 Matters Arising: there were no matters arising.
2.2.3 Key Actions from Previous Meeting: The Chair advised the meeting that the key actions emerging from the previous meeting were either completed or were in progress.
Resolved - Agenda item 2: The Committee agreed: To approve minutes of its meeting held on 23rd January 2020 as a true record.
3. ITEMS FOR PRESENTATION 3.1 February 2020 Flooding in Yorkshire and Recovery Update and Covid-19 Update: Adrian Gill, Neil Longden and Oliver Harmar provided an informative update on the February flooding in Yorkshire, ongoing recovery work and the Covid-19 outbreak. This included: Adrian Gill provided an update on the ongoing recovery works from the November flooding in South Yorkshire and February 2020 storm events. Members noted that, in line with the government guidance, the recovery work was still continuing to progress where deemed safe to do so. Members noted the importance of recovery work and meeting targets to ensure defences are ‘winter ready’. It was noted that Storm Ciara had swept across the UK on 9th February 2020, with winds of up to 97mph and widespread rainfall of 80mm in 24 hours. River levels rose to their highest or second highest on record at Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Dewsbury on the Calder and Gargrave on the Aire. Members noted the importance of flood resilience during these events, as demonstrated particularly by residents in the Calder Valley. Neil Longden updated members of the impact Storm Ciara in North Yorkshire. Members noted that a Severe Flood Warning was issued at Pateley Bridge and over 1,000 properties and businesses were impacted during the event across Yorkshire. Neil Longden indicated that whilst recovery from Storm Ciara was underway, attention turned to preparing for Storm Dennis, which impacted most parts of the country during mid-February. Strong winds over 90mph battered the country and brought down significant rain in Wales and the North of England. Members acknowledged the efforts of a number of organisations including the EA, the local authorities and partners in during these storms, and the additional support afforded by the military in Mytholmroyd and Ilkley. Members noted that Storm Denis caused flooding to a small number of properties across Yorkshire, mainly in the Upper Ouse catchment, with flood defences protecting hundreds of people across the county. Between the 8th and 16th February, the Environment Agency had issued over 110 Flood Warnings and deployed over 30 mobile pumps, as well as operating the Foss Barrier and the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier. In addition, Yorkshire Water operated their pumps at East Hull Pumping Station. River levels had risen significantly in North Yorkshire and several significant peaks on the River Ouse in York and other cases of property flooding was
Item No: 2.2
recorded at Hirst Courtney. At the peak of this operation, over 40 pumps were deployed in a multi-agency response, helping to move water away from impacted areas. Members praised the great partnership work displayed during this event and noted an impressive collective response from all partners including the emergency services, the IDBs, Yorkshire Water, EA, local authorities, the military and, most importantly. the affected communities themselves helping each-others through these challenging times. Oliver Harmar informed members that the EA’s incident rooms had been open for nearly 5 months, luckily with a brief break over Christmas, and they closed just 24 hours before the coronavirus lockdown had been announced. Members were pleased to observe the strong media presence, the cross partnership working and the visibility of the EA’s operational staff during the flooding events. Finally, members offered their sympathies to all individuals, communities and business affected by the flooding. Adrian noted that much effort was now going into understanding more precisely the events that had occurred, the causes, and what lessons could be learned. Oliver Harmar updated members on the Covid-19 situation and the EA’s response. Members noted that the EA’s staff had immediately moved to home working, following government guidelines, but that the EA’s design and construction works were still largely continuing, albeit under stricter rules to ensure the safety of the staff and workers. Members noted that priority asset maintenance was still ongoing during the lockdown as repairs were required due to the impacts of the November 2019 and February 2020 floods. Members were pleased to hear that the Environment Agency continued to be the category 1 responders, and would continue to respond in accordance to this responsibility and the government guidelines. Members discussed the impact of the Covid-19 outbreak on the capital programme and its delivery by March 2021. Oliver Harmar informed the Committee that work was still ongoing and progressing on the majority of the capital schemes. Members noted that Humber: Hull Frontages - a key scheme to achieving the national 300,000 homes better protected target - was continuing, although there might be minor delays to this and other schemes caused by the requirement social distancing. Nevertheless, it was hope that these would not materially affect the current six-year programme target. The Chair thanked Adrian, Neil and Oliver for the informative update and, on behalf of the Committee, expressed appreciation for all of the hard work undertaken by all partners during the event and added his personal sympathies for all those who had been so badly affected. Resolved - Agenda item 3: The Committee agreed:
To express their sympathy and good wishes to all those affected by the flooding. To thank the EA, the local councils, the military, the IDBs and YW, the emergency
services colleagues and very importantly the residents and volunteers who worked tirelessly during and after the floods.
To note the impacts of Covid-19 on productivity, on staff day-to day-working and onsite construction works.
To note the update provided by Adrian Gill, Neil Longden and Oliver Harmar, Environment Agency.
Item No: 2.2
4. GENERAL BUSINESS UPDATE 4.1 Chair’s Update [YRFCC/295]: The Chair provided his quarterly written report to the Committee and drew members’ attention to both local and national updates. Members noted and thanked the Chair for the informative report. Key updates from the quarterly Chair’s meeting in April included;
February 2020 Flooding and Recovery; highlighted the number of properties flooded following the wettest February on record. The Flood Information Service received approximately 22 million hits over the combined period of the two storms (Ciara and Dennis) were discussed. At the same time, previous FCERM measures had been effective in protecting many more properties.
Resilient Communities: included an update on the resilience of the communities in the Calder Valley.
Flood Insurance: discussion surrounded the issues that small businesses face in getting insurance to cover the damages caused by flooding.
Yorkshire Area EA Update: Members noted local and national updates and thanked Neil Longden and Adrian Gill for producing the informative report, which included updates on the following:
Leeds FAS Phase 2 Leeds FAS Phase 2 NFM Programme Wyke Beck Scarborough Spa – Opening Ceremony ‘Source to Sea’ NFM Drive (+ South Yorkshire Team Update) Development, Planning & Permitting Team Update Rotherham Renaissance FAS (RRFAS) The Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme (AEEFAS) Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme (COPFAS) Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defence Pocklington FAS (PockFAS)
Neil Longden provided verbal update and the following key points were noted:
The Leeds FAS Phase 2 had been split into two steps to aid delivery, Step 1 had started on site in 2019, Step 2, involved the construction of a large flood storage area on the River Aire upstream of Leeds, which would uplift the Phase 1 and Phase 2 schemes to a 0.5% AEP standard of protection.
Over the last two years, Leeds FAS NFM Programme had (at 13 different sites) planted 4,360 trees, 500m hedgerow planted, 10 wetland scrapes, 116 leaky barriers, 250m² of buffer strips, 800m of fencing and 8 field gates, and 1ha of soil aeration.
At the Wyke Beck Valley Scheme works at Killlingbeck Fields had resumed in April after heavy rain and soft ground led to a temporary pause on works.
On the 3rd March 2020 the Environment Agency’s Chair, Emma Howard Boyd, attended the opening of the £16m Scarborough Spa Slope Stabilisation Scheme. The scheme protects over 300 properties and is vitally important to the community of Scarborough.
A large number of partners from across the region gathered to launch the ‘Source to Sea’ NFM Drive, investment in nature based solutions like tree planting, peat
Item No: 2.2
restoration and wetland creation to slow the flow downstream and to complement traditional engineering schemes.
The EA’s Development, Planning and Permitting Team were able to advise a property in planning so that it was spared the devastating impact of flooding (November 2019 flooding) due to the planning system ensuring it was built in a flood resistant and resilient way.
In Rotherham (RRFAS), £5m of work was due to be constructed over 2020 and 2021, with works located upstream of the Rotherham United FC stadium (RRFAS2A) and on the Forge Island development site (RRFAS2B) which was progressing well at the time of the meeting.
AEEFAS and COPFAS sites were closed due to the exceptionally wet weather during February, some disruptions caused.
Finally, the Pocklington FAS was operational during November 2019 and February 2020 heavy rainfall. The initial allocation of £440,000 from the Local Levy for contingency funds, of which £44,000 was required.
National messages:
£5.2bn capital funding for the next six years (April 2021 to March 2027) to better protect 336,000 properties. It is significant that, in the next programme, properties will include both homes and non-residential properties, such as shops, businesses, schools, hospitals, etc.
An additional £200m for a place-based resilience programme over the six-year period. Discussions with Defra are still taking place about how this will be allocated and details will be announced in due course.
An additional £120m for recovery funding for 2020/21 to repair assets damaged in the autumn and winter floods (split £58m for capital and £62m for revenue).
Resolved - Agenda item 4: The Committee agreed to: Note the updates from the Chair and the EA.
5. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL / DECISION: ASSET MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT: 5.1 Programming & Investment (P&I) Sub-Group Chair’s Report and Programme Update including Local Levy and the Sub-Regional Flood Risk Partnership Meetings Updates [YRFCC/296]: Papers discussed at the last P&I Sub-Group (held on 26 March 2020) were referred to in the report and were provided in the separate Technical Appendix as A01 to A09. Bill Rodham drew the Committee’s attention to the following key highlights: Our baseline financial position for 2019/20 showed an affordable investment of £137.5m
across all funding schemes. Our forecast was for £119m. The investment of £110m in 2019/20 would deliver just over 19,556 properties better
protected from flooding or coastal erosion and create or improve 41Ha of biodiversity habitat.
The top 10 projects in terms of OM delivery from 2019/20 to 2020/21 deliver over 40,000 of the remaining 42,000 to be delivered. The EA had high confidence of delivering 9 out of the 10 projects with 1 project, Filey, having a lower confidence. An explanation of the confidence rating for Filey was provided in the paper.
Item No: 2.2
The programme showed a strong economic return on the investment from schemes delivering outcome measures. The present value of benefit for schemes delivering in the current investment period was over £5 billion.
Our position for asset condition in high consequence systems as at 17th March 2020 was 94.3% and 90.0% against targets of 97.0% and 90.9% for EA and Third party maintained assets respectively. However this did not take into account the effects of the recent flooding.
The EA continued to progress on our efficiency target with £3.62m of efficiencies accepted by Q3, and a further £2.2m already accepted for Q4. This remained a challenging target.
The budget provided an allocation of £5.2bn of capital funding from April 2021 to March 2027, together with further specific measures as set out in section 8 of the paper.
The EA reviewed the Local Levy programme in detail and noted that, following the Committee’s approval of in-year additions to the Levy programme in January 2020, the programmed value of work for 2019/20 was just under £3m.
As at the end of February 2020, just under £1.6 million has been spent, with a full year forecast of over £2.6 million. Due to the complexities of apportioning spend between funding sources these figures were indicative. Almost £850,000 of the remaining spend was dependent upon claims being made by other RMAs and the EA had been able to establish that claims have been submitted for over £800,000 of these.
The EA received a request to reallocate funding in 2019/20 for one project and had eight requests to re-profile funding allocations from 2019/20 into 2020/21 with a total value of £217,000.
We considered an update on the funding strategy for the Earby FAS (Phase 2) project ahead of a likely request for the next meeting.
We reviewed five new Levy requests totalling £343,000 for 2020/21. Which are detailed in Technical Appendices A07.
We received reports from the Sub-Regional Partnership Meetings. Members Discussion: Following the presentation, members discussed and were minded to support all six recommendations of the report [YRFCC/290] including new Local Levy and re-profiling requests, and the future year’s indicative Local Levy profile as detailed in Technical Appendix A06. The following key comments were noted. The Chair re-emphasised that, since current advice was that Committee regulations did
not allow for remote attendance, the Committee could only express ‘minded to support’ recommendations contained within the P&I report. These could be formally ratified at the next Committee meeting.
The Chair updated members on the Earby FAS Phase 2 scheme, he noted whilst there was a strong desire to capitalise on the ESIF funding that had already been secured there remained a funding gap. Accordingly, the project lead (Pendle Council) might be seeking Local Levy from the YRFCC. The West Yorkshire Flood Risk Partnership had encouraged Lancashire County Council to increase their contribution and it was agreed to progress this request on this basis although without any specific funding commitment at this stage.
Members noted that, as requested, a Local Levy Assurance and Approvals Process document had been included as Technical Appendix A08. The document outlined to the Committee the project assurance processes that support project approvals.
Members were minded to support the approval of Levy funding for the Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall capital maintenance scheme (Line 1, Technical Appendix A07) on the understanding that £64,000 of this is underwriting Scarborough Borough Council until such time as they are able to approve an additional contribution.
Item No: 2.2
5.2 2020/21 FCERM Grant in Aid (GiA) Indicative Allocation for Capital and Revenue Funding, including Yorkshire Area Update [YRFCC/297]: Bill Rodham explained that the purpose of this paper was to ask Committees to discuss and agree the recommendations of the paper [YRFCC/297] including their capital and revenue indicative allocations for 2020/21, with the following headline messages;
The Environment Agency Board approved the capital and revenue allocation for
2020/21, following RFCC Committee consent in January 2020. This allocation, and the associated targets were set out in appendix 1.
The Committee’s targets for 2020/21 were subject to the implications of Covid-19 and the various impacts this has had on all our work.
Future investment in FCRM was confirmed in the March Budget, with a £5.2bn capital investment for the next 6 years, from April 2021.
Draft allocations for the additional funding for 2020/21 for the £100m capital programme pipeline development fund, and the £120m asset recovery programme following this winter’s flood events, were set out in appendix 3.
The EA were currently reviewing the capital programme refresh timescales given the Cvod-19 lockdown situation. Regardless of timescales, local choices and the RFCCs involvement in programme development would continue to play a key role.
Members thanked Bill Rodham for the detailed reports. Resolved - Agenda item 5: 5.1 The Committee agreed the recommendations of the papers [YRFCC/296] that the YRFCC:
1. Consider the reallocation of £2,500 Levy for the Dearne Valley initial assessment;
2. Consider the re-profiling of allocations between 2019/20 and 2020/21; 3. Consider the 2019/20 Local Levy programme as detailed in Technical
Appendix A06 (Local Levy for Approval). 4. Consider the future year’s indicative Local Levy profile for projects in the
current programme as detailed in Technical Appendix A06. 5. Support an allocation of Levy to the Earby FAS (Phase 2) at its July 2020
meeting in principle, subject to Lancashire County Council providing a more proportionate contribution.
6. Consider allocations of Local Levy for 2020/21: a. Consider the allocation of £200,000 to the Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall
capital maintenance scheme (Line 1, Technical Appendix A07) on the understanding that £64,000 of this is underwriting Scarborough Borough Council until such time as they are able to approve an additional contribution.
b. Consider the allocation of £35,000 to the Wilder Waterways in the Lower Don (WiLD) project (Line 3, Technical Appendix A07).
c. Consider the allocation of £60,000 to Reid Park Beck, Horbury, Wakefield (Line 4, Technical Appendix A07).
d. Consider the allocation of £18,000 to the SME Indirect Costs and Flood Risk project (Line 5, Technical Appendix A07).
Item No: 2.2
5.2 The Committee agreed the recommendations of the papers [YRFCC/297] that theYRFCC:
7. Note the significant future investment announced in the spring Budget, and thesubsequent additional funding for 2020/21 as a result.
8. Note the targets associated with the existing 2020/21 funding allocation.9. Note changes to this year’s refresh process as a result of Covid-19.
6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: NONE
7. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION (not for discussion at the meeting):
7.1 Humber Strategy Update [YRFCC/298]: The Committee noted the report.
Resolved - Agenda item 7:
The Committee noted below reports.
7.1 Humber Strategy Update [YRFCC/298]
8. COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATION
8.1 Any Other Urgent Business: Members noted that it was pleasing to see other aspects of the FCRM work the EA was doing through the Development, Planning & Permitting Team Update in the EA’s Update (Appendix 2 – Chair’s Update [YRFCC/295]), and to see that the team’s advice was being taken and then protecting homes and livelihoods during the November 2019 floods.
8.2 Forward Plan of the Committee: Members were advised to let the Secretariat know if they wished to raise any particular issues as an agenda item at a future meeting.
8.3 Actions from Last Meeting: It was noted that all key actions from the January 2020 meeting were either completed or were in progress.
8.4 Date and Time of Future Meetings 2020:
Members noted the dates and times of the YRFCC 2020 meetings (listed below) which will be held virtually due to the current government guidance on travel restrictions and social distancing. As usual, the pre-local authority meeting will start at 9:15am and the main Committee meeting will start at 10:15am.
1. Thursday 23 July 20202. Thursday 22 October 2020
Back to agenda
National Flood andCoastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy
Item No. 3.1Back to agenda
ContentsWhy we need the FCERM Strategy - Slide 3
The vision and ambitions – Slides 4 to 10
Developing the new FCERM Strategy / wider links – Slides 11 to 13
The FCERM Strategy and climate change –Slide 14
Next steps – Slides 15
Action planning – Slide 16
Item No. 3.1
Why we need a new Strategy now
• Climate change is happening now and is already causing more frequent, intense flooding and sea level rise.
• The FCERM Strategy offers a new long-term approach to improve the resilience of the nation, setting out national ambitions for England that work for every place.
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
• The FCERM Strategy has close alignment with the Defra flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement
Item No. 3.1
Flood and Coast Strategy: the vision is….
… a nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change –today, tomorrow and to the year 2100.
“Climate change is making the UK warmer and wetter, and we will be visited by extreme weather more frequently in the future. So we need to shift gears, to ensure we adapt and become more resilient.” George Eustice, Secretary of State for DEFRA
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Strategy ambitions
Climate resilient places
Today’s growth and infrastructure resilient in tomorrow’s climate
A nation ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Climate resilient places
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
What will be better or different?
Risk management authorities will work with partners to:• Deliver practical and innovative actions that help to bolster
resilience to flood and coastal change in local places.
• Make greater use of nature-based solutions that take a catchment led approach to managing the flow of water to improve resilience to both floods and droughts.
• Maximise opportunities to work with farmers and land managers to help them adapt their businesses and practices to be resilient to flooding and coastal change.
• Develop adaptive pathways in local places that equip practitioners and policy makers to better plan for future flood and coastal change and adapt to future climate hazards.
Item No. 3.1
Embedding a new approach to resilience
IMPROVE PLACEMAKING:
Making the best land use and development choices to manage flooding and coastal change
BETTER PROTECT:
Building and maintaining defences
and managing the flow of water
READY TO RESPOND:
Preparing for and responding effectively
to incidents
RECOVER QUICKLY:
Getting back to normal and building back better
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
What are adaptive pathways?• Looking out to 2100, we need to help local
places better plan and adapt to future flooding and coastal change.
• This will mean being agile to the latest climate science, growth projections, investment opportunities and other changes to our local environment.
• ‘Adaptive pathways’ enable local places to better plan for future flooding and coastal change and adapt to future climate hazards.
• We need to improve the way we integrate adaptation to flooding and coastal change into daily activities and projects, as well as long term strategic investment plans and strategies.
Case study: Thames Estuary 2100 Plan
The Thames Estuary benefits from a world-class system of defencesproviding protection to 1.3 million people and £275 billion of property and infrastructure from flooding.
The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan was developed to provide strategic direction for managing flood risk to the end of the century.
Item No. 3.1
Today’s growth and infrastructure resilient in tomorrow’s climate
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
What will be better or different?
Risk management authorities will work with partners to:• Put greater focus on providing timely and quality planning advice that helps avoid
inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and coastal change.
• Leave the environment in a better state by contributing to environmental net gain for new development proposals.
• Ensure that spending on flood and coastal resilience contributes to job creation and sustainable growth in local places.
• Mainstream property flood resilience measures and to ‘build back better’ after flooding to reduce damages and enable faster recovery for local communities.
• Provide expert advice on how infrastructure providers (road, rail, water and power supplies) can ensure their investments are more resilient to future flooding and coastal change avoiding disruption to peoples’ lives and livelihoods.
Item No. 3.1
A nation ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
What will be better or different?
Risk management authorities will work with partners to:
• Support communities to better prepare and respond to flooding and coastal change, including transforming how people receive flood warnings
• Ensure people and businesses receive the support they need from all those involved in recovery so they can get back to normal quicker after flooding
• Help support communities with managing the long-term mental health impacts from flooding and coastal change
• Develop the skills and capabilities needed to better support communities to adapt to future flooding and coastal change
• Become a world leader in the research and innovation of flood and coastal risk management to better protect current and future generations
Item No. 3.1
Positive stakeholder support• Largest national consultation run by EA - 400 external responses received over Summer
2019• Significant support for Strategy’s ambitions, objectives and measures
• The Strategy provides a framework for guiding the operational activities and decision making of practitioners supporting the direction set by government policy – including Defra’s 2020 flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement.
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
From ‘draft’ to ‘final’ Strategy• Improved description of roles and responsibilities of risk
management authorities• Strengthened messages on resilience• Better recognition of climate change mitigation and adaptation• Strengthened text on flood risk and new development• Inclusion of the government’s commitment to achieving net zero• Greater emphasis on the Environment and Agriculture Bills • Strengthened text on the role of nature based solutions and
integrated catchment management• Better recognition of the role of farmers and land managers in
managing flood risk• Clearer proposals for working with infrastructure providers on flood
and coastal resilience• Inclusion of the Budget 2020 outcomes – including £5.2bn FCERM
programme and the £200m resilience programme. A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Supporting documents
• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
• Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
• Consultation response document
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Net Zero by 2030
We need to both limit future climate change as well as adapt to the climate change that now cannot be stopped.
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Next steps
Autumn / Winter 2020
• Final Strategy published following parliamentary scrutiny• Consultation response document published• SEA Statement of Environmental Particulars and Final HRA published
Summer 2020 to Spring 2021
• Action planning with stakeholders
Spring 2021• Partner action plan published
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Action Plan
• Work with partners to identify a shared set of practical actions for the first 5 years of the Strategy
• The action plan will be a national framework to inspire and drive local action.
• The action plan will be web based, accessible to our partners and the public where actions are owned and updated.
• We will report progress on the action plan to the Minister.
Item No. 3.1
• Strategy and other docs are athttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-billion-pound-investment-as-government-unveils-new-long-term-plan-to-tackle-flooding
• Contact the EnvironmentAgency’s Strategy Team [email protected]
A nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change
Item No. 3.1
Back to agenda
Yorkshire RFCC Committee Meeting July 2020
Environmental Land Management Scheme & FCERMChris UttleySenior Advisor Flood and Coastal Risk Management
D-J GentEnvironmental Land Management Scheme Manager
Item No. 3.2
Back to agenda
Future Farming and Countryside & FCERM Strategy
• Opportunity to address multiple environmental impacts and perverse outcomes of CAP.
• Transition away from BPS to payment for public goods
• New policy statements Jan 2020
• Mainstreaming Nature Based Solutions (NFM)
• Landowners and farmers working with RMAs to reduce risk
• Future adaptation for low lying farmlands
• Development and implementation of ELMs to reduce flood risk
2
Item No. 3.2
Land Management Practices, land use
& NFMTier 2
Landscape Scale Land Use choices
Tier 3
Compliance and basic resource
protection. Soils?Tier 1
3 Tier & FCERM Item No. 3.2
Risks and Challenges:
Risks:Unknown longevity and sustainability of fundingELM & FGiA – Potential competition or Trade offsClimate impacts to agricultural land and productivity.Landowner /reluctance to contribute to NFM/FCERM projects before ELM starts
Challenges:Spatial Priorities. Local, Regional, NationalELM Pilot & Resilience PilotsResourcing input from LLFAs
4
Item No. 3.2
Recommendations• RFCC’s are asked to:
• Note the Environmental Land Management (ELM) Scheme policydiscussion paper published by Defra (here) and the invitation tocomment before 31st July.
• Discuss the opportunities, potential benefits and possibleimplications of the ELM scheme to current and future plannedFCERM schemes being developed by the EA and other RiskManagement Authorities
• Use this national ELM briefing paper to support conversations ineach RFCC.
5
Item No. 3.2
Back to agenda
Item No: 4.1
Environment Agency Back to agenda Yorkshire Area Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: YRFCC Chair’s Update Report
Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/299
Preface 1. Sadly, we will be meeting again in virtual format this quarter, although it has now
been confirmed nationally that it is in order for RFCCs to conduct their formal business whilst meeting in this way. We will also take the opportunity, therefore, to confirm and ratify the ‘minded to’ decisions that we took last quarter. To make it more manageable, we are streamlining the agenda, asking that papers and reports are all written and circulated in advance so that we can focus our discussions, and reducing the number of presentations. Nevertheless, there will be much to consider and I am sure that we can conduct the business effectively and thoroughly.
2. It is proper that I begin by expressing the hope that members and their families remain well and safe and, of course, expressing our heartfelt wishes and support to those who, sadly, have been directly affected by the coronavirus outbreak.
3. This is also an opportunity to thank all those colleagues who have continued their
important work throughout these very difficult months. This includes those EA and RMA colleagues who have had to balance homeworking with domestic responsibilities but particularly the staff and contractors who have been able to continue working on site whilst ensuring their own safety and that of others. It is quite remarkable that so much FCERM has continued during the pandemic.
4. Our meeting is taking place at the end of Quarter 1 of the final year of the current
six-year programme. Not surprisingly, therefore, much of our energy for the next nine months will be focused on delivering the remaining elements of schemes that will deliver both our own six-year output targets and our contribution to the 300,000 homes better protected nationally. Accordingly, Bill Rodham’s updates in our P&I reports will be scrutinised especially closely to reassure us that we remain on track to achieve these targets. In that context, it is encouraging to see that these schemes are now almost all ranked as having ‘high levels of confidence’ in the P&I report. That said, in such uncertain times, there will be no room for complacency, in case things beyond our control change.
5. Bill gets a second mention this quarter since it is clear that he has derived
particular pleasure from announcing at our various partnership meetings that the region has successfully delivered a record level of spend last year (2019-20) - £123m that will reduce the risk from flooding and coastal erosion to over 19,500 homes. However, he has also reminded us that in the current year we need to do even better – investing £131m to deliver better protection to 22,700 properties. And then, of course, we will move onto the next six-year programme with even more ambitious targets supported by a significantly increased package
Item No: 4.1
of financial support. 6. The P&I report also includes the usual indication of the considerable economic
return that results from FCERM investment – estimated at over £5bn in our region. Much of this relates to non-residential benefits and it is encouraging to see that a recurring theme at YRFCC meetings - conveying that FCERM is an investment that supports other policy objectives, including protecting infrastructure and growth – continues to achieve traction amongst key stakeholders. It is good, therefore, that the relationships with our LEPs and our two combined authorities (Sheffield City Region and West Yorkshire Combined Authority) continue to strengthen and that both of the latter have been very effective in articulating the case to Government for FCERM investment in their particular areas (see below para 20).
7. As usual, I have divided the remainder of this update into short sections on the
national and local scenes respectively.
National Scene 8. The quarterly national Chairs’ meeting in June was intended to be based around
a site visit to look at schemes in the Exeter area. Instead, like my fellow chairs, we had to settle for a trip to our computers in the attic or spare bedroom. Like most virtual meetings, it had a sharper and more focused agenda.
9. The meeting took place at a time when two key documents – the Defra policy statement and the new National Flood Strategy – were imminent so that much of the time was spent outlining the themes that might underpin these documents rather than being able to discuss their actual contents. In fact, both have just been published today whilst I am writing this update (I held off producing it in the hope that they might appear in time) and I will make some reference to them below.
10. We were also able to talk about the extremely welcome news of the significantly
increased £5.2bn that is being made available to support the next six-year programme (including some funding for developing the project pipeline during the current year). This level of investment signifies both the crucial importance of FCERM (especially in the context of climate change) and, based on our performance in the current programme, the Government’s confidence in our abilities to deliver such an ambitious new programme over the next six years.
11. Defra expressed its appreciation for how the EA and RMAs had continued to
work hard to minimise the impact of Covid-19 on capital projects whilst working in a safe way. It was indicated that infrastructure investments would be an important aspect of post-pandemic economic recovery.
12. As on many occasions, concern was expressed about the need to prevent
developments in inappropriate locations and ways in which the EA’s voice in this respect might be strengthened. The Government was looking at the Planning framework we were told that thought would be given to how RFCCs might input into any such review (see Planning for the Future document
Item No: 4.1
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-for-the-future, esp see para 16 on p9).
13. Other topics included: a review into insurance cover; the HMT review of the
Green book (appraisal guidance) and how this is informed by local economic growth; and opportunities afforded by the autumn spending review, including the case for maintenance funding to support the new capital programme. The importance of RMA asset funding is, of course, a regular concern of RFCC Chairs and, no doubt, they will retain their strong interest in this topic.
14. David Jenkins (Chair, Wessex RFCC) submitted his report on surface water flooding in May. The report, along with its numerous recommendations, is currently being considered by Defra.
15. The review on the Toddbrook reservoir incident has now been published. The
report and its 22 recommendations can be accessed via the GOV.UK website [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/toddbrook-reservoir-incident-2019-independent-review].
16. We also had a useful presentation on Environmental Land Management
Schemes which is also a topic on today’s agenda. 17. In many ways, the June Chairs’ meeting was a prelude to a raft of important
announcements last Tuesday (14 July) concerning: Defra FCERM Policy, the much anticipated EA FCERM Strategy that has now been laid in Parliament, and funding for a number of schemes, several of which are in our region.
18. The Government’s Policy Statement
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management-policy-statement] sets out their long-term ambition to create a nation more resilient to flood and coastal erosion risk. In broad terms, the statement identifies five policy areas that will drive this ambition:
Upgrading and expanding flood defences and infrastructure across the
country; Managing the flow of water to both reduce flood risk and manage drought; Harnessing the power of nature to not only reduce flood risk, but deliver
benefits for the environment, nature, and communities; Better preparing communities for when flooding and erosion does occur; and Ensuring every area of England has a comprehensive local plan for dealing
with flooding and coastal erosion.
19. The Statement includes a number of actions in each of these areas that the Government intends to take forward.
20. Alongside the statement, details were provided of £170m to accelerate schemes, including a number in our region.
Item No: 4.1
Leeds FAS Up to £21m Sheffield Upper Don Valley & the Upper Don Catchment NFM Programme £16m
Hebden Bridge £12m Leeds FAS, Natural Flood Management £1.32m
In addition, parts of South and West Yorkshire will also benefit from the £960k funding for Peak District Peatland Restoration. 21. Also announced were further details of the £200m Innovative Resilience
Programme announced in the Budget. This funding will deliver innovative actions in 25 local areas such as nature-based solutions, sustainable drainage systems, proactive approaches for making existing properties more flood resilient, encouraging local businesses to improve their flood resilience, and building voluntary sector capacity to respond and recover.
22. It is intended to demonstrate how innovative actions can work individually, and in combination, to improve resilience to flooding and coastal erosion, and encourage strategic thinking and working across administrative boundaries. It is expected that funding will be around £6 million per area during 2021-27.
23. The Environment Agency will invite LLFAs and Coastal Protection Authorities to work with local partners on expressions of interest later this year. Once selected, the 25 areas will then work up their proposals in more detail before the programme begins in April 2021.
24. The programme will also support work in the Thames and Humber estuaries, the
Severn Valley and Yorkshire to trial and develop ways of planning ahead and making wise investment choices for the decades to come in the face of long-term uncertainties brought by climate change. The Thames and Humber work will continue and build on previous work looking at major investments to manage tidal flooding. In the Severn Valley and Yorkshire, this will be new work to explore how the approach might be applied to other situations where major investments in flood and coastal erosion risk are likely to be needed over the coming decades.
25. Another important announcement concerned a review of Flood Re. It is
understood that this will include: considering discounted premiums to households that have fitted property flood resilience (PFR) measures; including additional payments to build back better and in a more resilient way; looking at ways that Flood Re could accelerate uptake of PFR.
26. The other major event on 14 July was the laying in Parliament of the new Flood
and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy. We have, of course, had several opportunities to input into this major piece of work over the last couple of years and it is good that Julie Foley who has led on the scheme is joining us to say more about this important strategy and how it will be implemented.
27. I am pleased to have had the chance to input into this work through its Advisory
Committee but I do not want to steal Julie’s thunder and will simply limit myself
Item No: 4.1
to observing that this is a crucial document that will guide our future approach to FCERM. Suffice it to say that it is the product of working with over 90 organisations and extensive public consultation. Its vision is a nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change – today, tomorrow and to the year 2100. It is based on three key ambitions:
Climate resilient places Today’s growth and infrastructure to be resilient in tomorrow’s climate A nation ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change.
28. The Strategy is available on https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-billion-
pound-investment-as-government-unveils-new-long-term-plan-to-tackle-flooding and for those who are interested there is a slide pack and other useful materials available at [https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/fcrm/fcerm-national-strategy-info/ ] Do, please, look at the materials and encourage others to publicise the new strategy through appropriate channels.
29. I confess that I feel somewhat breathless simply listing these announcements
that all came out on a single day. Taken together, they represent a major juncture in how we will manage flood and coastal risks in the future. I was wondering how to summarise all of this when I received an email from an EA colleague. I do hope that she will not mind me using her words instead: ‘Today has been a very good day for everyone involved in this work. Great to get some cash in, but also the strong indication from central government that they see the scale of risk in Yorkshire, see us all working as a strong partnership to drive innovation, and continue to trust us to deliver on their investment.’ I reckon that this sums it all up pretty well.
Local Scene
30. Given the wealth of material for colleagues to absorb, I will be rather brief about
local matters, especially since Adrian and Neil will be doing their usual double act.
31. I will, though, mention briefly the Filey scheme which started on site on 24 June with surveys, erection of site compound and fencing, diversion of footpaths etc. Construction works started on 6 July. It is a nine-month programme but, fingers crossed, it will be completed by March next year. Once again, thanks are due to Stewart Rowe for his commitment and perseverance in making this happen.
32. The other scheme that I will mention in passing is Earby Phase 2 which is very important to the residents of the town. One reason for doing so is to acknowledge the efforts of Mark Wilkinson and David Oakes for the skillful way that they have enabled this scheme to proceed without needing Levy support. People
33. I usually conclude by mentioning one or two individuals for particular reason. This time, I will make it three people.
Item No: 4.1
34. The first is to welcome Helen Batt to her new role as the EA lead role for South Yorkshire. It will be good to work with her in her new guise and it also means that Adrian Gill will be able to focus exclusively on the large schemes across West Yorkshire.
35. Many of you will have met Lydia Cumiskey who attended a few of our meetings
whilst undertaking her research. That is now complete and her doctoral thesis, ‘Joining the Dots – A Framework for Assessing Integration in Flood Risk Management with Applications to England and Serbia’ was successful. For those who would like to know a little more about Lydia’s findings, I have attached a brief resume below.
36. This is the time of the year when I say thank you to those elected members who
have, sadly, stood down at the local elections. Of course, the elections were cancelled this year because of the pandemic. Nevertheless, there has been a change of responsibilities at CoYC which means that Cllr Andrew Waller will be leaving the Committee. Andrew has been a stalwart member of YRFCC for a number of years and is held in the highest esteem by other elected members on the Committee, EA colleagues and, not least, by me for his unswerving knowledge and wise counsel. I really am grateful to him…but have no doubt he will still be using other platforms to espouse the FCERM cause.
37. It is good, though, to welcome Cllr Paula Widdowson who I know is no less
passionate about our work and will be a very worthy replacement. 38. I will finish as I began by referring to the significance and scale of our work. We
are well on the way to the delivery of our current six-year targets by next March, have substantial funding secured for the next six-year period, and now have in place the policy framework and, subject to parliamentary approval, the strategy to guide the successful delivery of our ambitions. Also, of course, through these investments we are well placed to play our role in assisting the economic recovery that is now such an important national objective.
Colin Mellors
July 2020
Back to agenda
Item No: 4.1
Joining the dots: A framework for assessing integration in Flood Risk Management with applications to England and Serbia by Dr Lydia Cumiskey -http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/29624/. PhD Research Briefing Note 1: A journey to achieving integration in Flood Risk Management https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/30417/1/Cumiskey_ResearchBriefingNote1_IntegrationFRM.pdf This note provides an overview of the framework developed and pinpoints to specific parts of the PhD for more information. It also summarises some key practical lessons on integration in FRM (each of which are part of the illustration). A peer-reviewed article about the framework has also been published here: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss4/art17/ PhD Research Briefing Note 2: Embracing boundary spanning roles in Flood Risk Management. https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/30418/1/Cumiskey_ResearchBriefingNote2_BoundarySpanningRoles.pdf This note summarises the key findings from Chapter 7 which highlights the important role of boundary spanning in.
Back to agenda
Appendix 1 Item No. 4.1
FCERM update paper June 2020
1. Incident management Back to agenda 1.1 Protecting the Flood Warning Service during the coronavirus pandemic
Thank you for your support and swift consultation regarding the temporary changes to the Flood Warning Service during the coronavirus pandemic. These minor changes have ensured that we are able to focus our resources on the most important warnings, where flooding is expected or where there is a risk to life. They have also ensured we are not unduly alarming communities. Our incident teams will continue to work around the clock to ensure that people have the early warning and safety advice they need to stay safe during any potential flooding incidents.
Contact: [email protected] 1.2 Designing our new flood warning system Between January and March 2020, the Environment Agency ran a research project to understand how we can improve our flood warning service and supporting systems.
We held workshops, meetings and interviews with the public, professional partners, government and Environment Agency staff. Thank you to those that were a part of this, your feedback is invaluable. The most impactful findings we discovered are
Our service registration process is too complex, with only 52% of users completing registration online. It is important to design the internal facing system so it is clear and intuitive for duty officers to
use. This will ensure they can quickly and easily send high quality warning messages to external users
Government departments with public alerting responsibilities have similar needs and challenges to us. We believe we can better support Lead Local Flood Authorities to provide warnings for the flood risk they lead on.
Our existing flood warnings and messages are not clear, with users often confused about the severity and impacts.
Our flood warning services should be based on a deep understanding of our users’ needs and be flexible to changes of those needs.
We will soon begin prototyping ideas to meet these challenges and will be asking for feedback on our designs. You can find the full discovery report here: https://ea.sharefile.com/d-sfc5870bdbca4bd5b and mini discovery report: https://ea.sharefile.com/d-se031676dece46088. Contact: [email protected]
Appendix 1 Item No. 5.1
2. Planning for the future 2.1 Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy The Environment Agency has been working closely with Defra and Ministers to finalise the FCERM Strategy, strengthening the text and reflecting the 2020 budget outcomes. Ministers want the forthcoming Defra flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement to be published before the National FCERM Strategy is laid in parliament. Defra are seeking support for the policy statement from across government. We have also worked closely with Defra on the policy statement. We anticipate that we will lay the Strategy in parliament before the summer recess, as soon as the policy statement is published. Contact: [email protected] 2.2 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) Recent flooding events have brought the challenges of managing flood risk back to national attention, and climate change means these events are likely to become more frequent. Building on the previous Committee’s interim report on coastal flooding and adaptation to climate change, this inquiry focuses on the Government’s approach to managing the risk of inland flooding in England. The terms of reference for the inquiry can be viewed here. We submitted our written evidence to the Committee on 15 May 2020. Our evidence, along with several of our stakeholders (including ADA, Defra, Flood Hazard Research centre, Natural England, Met Office), will be published online. The next step is an oral evidence session in front of the Committee, we are waiting to hear when this will be. Contact: [email protected] 2.3 Investing now for the Future of FCERM On 17 April Defra and the Environment Agency published new guidance on partnership funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management. The changes are part of a suite of initiatives to help deliver the ambitions of the 25 Year Environment Plan and the new FCERM strategy. The Partnership Funding rule changes include:
updating payment rates to reflect inflation and new evidence on flood damages since 2011 (including people impacts such as mental health)
amending the flood risk bands for qualifying schemes to add a new intermediate risk band between high and medium risk. This will mean more schemes that reduce surface water flood risk are likely to receive government funding in the future
accounting for the future impacts of climate change by also including people and properties that would potentially become at risk over the lifetime of a project
improving the payment rates for environmental benefits to capture more fully the wider environmental benefits delivered by flood and coastal erosion risk management projects and to help support nature-based solutions.
We have supported the rollout through 25 webinars scheduled throughout May and June. Feedback has been very good from the initial sessions, questions from the sessions have been logged and included in an FAQ document which can be found on the Investment & Partnership Funding SharePoint site, available to all Risk Management Authority staff. We have started to modernise the FCERM appraisal guidance by adding a non-technical summary. These and subsequent improvements do not change the way appraisal should be done, they describe the steps involved, the importance of stakeholder engagement and the basis for option choice. Information on the capital refresh and how FCERM environmental outcomes will be delivered in the next 6 year programme is given in the Environmental outcomes capital refresh 2021-2027 guidance. There are still places for the briefing webinar for colleagues who work to improve the environment through FCERM projects. We will be publishing a recording of the briefing webinars on the SharePoint site so people can access them at their convenience. We encourage you to promote these resources to your Risk Management Authority partners. Contact: [email protected]
Appendix 1 Item No. 5.1
3. Working with others
3.1 New National Flood Risk Assessment project has started We have awarded the contract for the New National Flood Risk Assessment and the project is now live. The new National Flood Risk Assessment will be a huge improvement to flood risk information in England. It will bring our best local information into the national picture, with new national modelling to fill in the gaps. Jacobs/JBA are the successful suppliers and will be our commercial partners for the next four and a half years. During the first three and a half years, we will develop, build and test:
a new national modelling for rivers, the sea and surface water a new internal system, which will store and use national and
local modelling data to provide a rich and consistent range of flood risk data across England. We will publish this new flood risk information externally for you to access.
The following year will be used for support and maintenance. If you would like us to come and present the project at one of your future meetings, please get in touch. Contact: [email protected] 3.2 Flood resilient schools In 2019/20 we secured £2.5m of partnership funding from the Department for Education (DfE) towards schemes that better protect schools from flooding. After this success, DfE proposed to invest £5m more in 2020/21. Paul Wyse has been seconded from our National FCRM Stakeholder Engagement Team into the DfE for a year to support their flood resilience work. Through the secondment, we will be supporting the DfE to:
Assess flood risk across the school estate (over 22,000 schools in England)
Establish contracts to survey, recommend and mitigate flood risk using property level protection and resilience measures
Increase awareness of the impacts of flooding on physical and mental health on children
Ensure all schools at flood risk are signed up to flood warnings and have appropriate flood plans in place
Strengthen links to the Environment Agency capital programme including opportunities to support natural flood management schemes
Promote sustainable urban drainage systems at schools highlighting the multiple benefits they can provide over and above reducing flood risk
Work with the new build schools team to enhance green credentials and make schools climate resilient
Link directly into the EA skills teams providing supporting information to the curriculum
This work will support FCERM strategy aims helping ensure key infrastructure is flood resilient. Contact: [email protected]
Appendix 1 Item No. 5.1
3.3 NAO study of flooding & coastal erosion The National Audit Office (NAO) started a value for money study of flood and coastal erosion in March 2020. The NAO are actively engaged with the Environment Agency and Defra in their study into FCERM. We have agreed the scope of the study and received a formal letter of engagement. Due to coronavirus restrictions, the pace is slower than originally planned and contact with the NAO is limited to calls and on-line meetings. We have provided over 200 documents and numerous links to the NAO over the last three months. We are preparing for the next stage of the study which will include online interviews with key Environment Agency personnel in the FCRM directorate. Contact: Tony Andryszewski - [email protected]
Back to agenda
Appendix 2a Item No. 4.1
Environment Agency Back to agenda Yorkshire Area Meeting:
Yorkshire RFCC
Subject: Yorkshire Area EA Written Update
Date: 23 July 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper includes key Yorkshire Area and some relevant national highlights that are not covered elsewhere in the agenda.
1. FCRM National Strategy 1.1. Julie Foley, Director FCRM Strategy & National Adaptation will be updating members on the
Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy at the meeting.
1.2. The Government’s policy statement is now published, which sets out their long-term ambition to create a nation more resilient to flood and coastal erosion risk. Please see paragraph 18 of the YRFCC Chair’s quarterly update, which provides web-links to this.
2. Investing now for the Future of FCERM 2.1. On 17 April Defra and the Environment Agency published new guidance on partnership
funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management. The changes are part of a suite of initiatives to help deliver the ambitions of the 25 Year Environment Plan and the new FCERM strategy. They reflect changes we have flagged with you at RFCC meetings. Please see 2.3 (of the agenda item 4.1 Appendix 1) of the National FCERM Stakeholder update for further details.
3. Managing Capital Delivery 20/21 3.1. LLFA leads should have received an explanatory paper on the support available to tackle
key issues including COVID19 cost/delay impacts.
3.2. As a result of coronavirus we have made a controlled deviation from the existing Appraisal Guidance and Partnership Funding rules where required. The following key amendments now apply:
o FCRM Grant in Aid will be used to pay for cost increases due to coronavirus for EA and RMA schemes, including the Partnership Funding element, in most cases.
o FCRM Grant in Aid can be used to fund all projects up to Full Business Case, regardless of Partnership Funding score
o We should continue to enter into contracts, knowing that costs will be higher than planned as a result of coronavirus
3.3. Project cost increases as a direct result of coronavirus Many projects will experience cost increases through applying the government guidelines for safe working during the coronavirus outbreak. Some mitigation will be achieved through innovation, however we have also set out some principles to ensure clarity and consistency
Appendix 2a Item No. 4.1
in the investment of GiA. In support of these principles, Environment Agency Executive Directors have agreed:
o Grant in Aid (GiA) can be used to cover coronavirus cost increases in most cases; o The economic viability and partnership funding calculations for a project can exclude
coronavirus-specific costs; o Delivery Teams will have the option to raise Business Case Update Reports (BCURs) or a
FCERM4 form for projects to take account of coronavirus-specific costs; o In some cases, coronavirus related cost increases will reduce Partnership Funding Scores
below 100% at various stages of project development. There is a protocol for handling this situation.
4. FRMP Overview The Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) are reviewing and updating the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) we published in 2016. The next FRMPs (FRMP2) are due to be published in December 2021.
• FRMP2 is a partnership with LLFAs.
• The impact of multiple flood incidents over the winter, the resulting recovery work, and
coronavirus has impacted the programme of work for us and our partners.
• We are now having to change the timescales around FRMP delivery as these impacts are set to continue throughout summer 2020.
• We are working closely with Defra and others to ensure that internal and external
stakeholders are kept informed of developments and the implications for them of changes to the FRMPs2 timetable as these become clearer.
• We are adjusting the FRMP2 timetable to allow local authorities to prioritise their response
to coronavirus and ongoing flood recovery work where necessary.
• We are setting a new FRMP2 measures development phase deadline of 15 January 2021 for LLFAs and our teams.
• This new timetable will enable us to develop effective objectives and measures in partnership
with LLFAs, while allowing local authorities to prioritise their response to coronavirus.
• It will improve the sequencing of communications to partners on the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy, the delivery of which FRMPs will support.
• We are now planning to consult on FRMP2 in summer 2021. Once we have agreement and
support of partners we will announce the date of the consultation on draft plans.
• We are currently working with Defra, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) and the Local Government Association (LGA) on the implications of future timetable changes.
5. The Environmental Land Management Scheme 5.1. The Environmental Land Management (ELM) Scheme, being developed within Defra’s
Future Farming and Countryside Programme, will replace a number of existing Rural Development Programme schemes (including Basic Farm Payments and Agri Environment Schemes). Defra is planning to transition away from the current schemes to payments to farmers through the new ELM scheme in return for the provision of environmental public
Appendix 2a Item No. 4.1
goods. We have arranged a PowerPoint presentation, which will jointly be delivered by Chris Uttley and D-J Gent at the meeting. In addition please see agenda item 7.1, which includes a detailed paper (YRFCC/304) on this subject.
6. Flood resilient schools 6.1. In 2019/20 we secured £2.5m of partnership funding from the Department for Education (DfE)
towards schemes that better protect schools from flooding. After this success, DfE proposed to invest £5m more in 2020/21. The EA has seconded a member of the National FCRM Stakeholder Engagement Team into the DfE for a year to support their flood resilience work. Locally we have benefitted from some of this funding as partnership funding, and we have also engaged in joining up support to DfE. Please see 3.2 (of the agenda item 4.1 Appendix 1) of the National FCERM Stakeholder update for further details.
7. Local Schemes
Construction has continued on many of our EA and LLFA led schemes during Covid19.
Encouraging to see progress at Filey with construction starting imminently.
Progress made in York with schemes returning after the wet weather, and planning approvals
granted, with more in the pipeline.
Confirmation of the remaining partnership funding finalised on Humber Hull Frontages from Highways England.
8. Recovery Update Please see below key recovery highlights, although the information is correct at the time of writing this paper but please note that it is due to be updated on 21 July. We endeavour to provide revised verion at the meeting.
Appendix 2a Item No. 4.1
Neil Longden & Adrian Gill Area Flood and Coastal Risk Managers Yorkshire Area
Back to agenda
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Our Work Across Yorkshire Yorkshire FCRM Programme Update – July 2020
Back to agenda
Contents: Leeds FAS Phase 2 56
Leeds FAS Phase 2 NFM Programme 59
The Blacktoft Erosion Protection Project 61
Salmon to South Yorkshire 63
Sheffield’s River Sheaf Screen 65
Fishlake Recovery Improvement Works 67
Bentley Ings Refurbishment Works 69
Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme 70
Killingbeck Meadows 76
Yorkshire Development, Planning and Permitting update 77
The Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme 79
Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme (COPFAS) 82
Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defence 86
Pocklington Flood Alleviation Scheme 90
Humber: Hull Frontage Flood Defence Improvement Scheme 94
Hull River Defences 99
York 5 Year Plan – Summary Update 103
York Flood Alleviation Scheme – EA Newsletter 111
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Leeds City Council are leading on the second phase of the Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme in partnership with the Environment Agency, which addresses flood risk from the River Aire. Phase 1 and Phase 2 reduce flood risk to thousands of residential and commercial properties, as well as supporting sustainable growth in the city. Phase 1 was completed in 2017 at a cost of £50m and provides a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) standard of protection to the city centre downstream of the train station. Phase 2 is ongoing and has been split into two steps to aid delivery, figure 1 shows the spatial extent of the scheme. Step 1 started on site in 2019, less than four years after the devastating 2015 Boxing Day floods. It will provide a 1% AEP standard of protection upstream of the train station at a cost of £85m through raised defences. It also includes a large Natural Flood Management Programme, focused in the Upper Aire, see figure 2. Step 2, involves the construction of a large flood storage area on the River Aire upstream of Leeds, which will uplift the Phase 1 and Phase 2 schemes to a 0.5% AEP standard of protection. The additional cost of step 2 is £25m, which is currently not fully funded. Leeds City Council are in discussions with Floods Minister and Secretary of State around closing the funding gap. The overall cost of Phase 2 is over £100m, which means it is defined as a Major Project and requires HM Treasury sign off. The scheme is looking to set an exemplar approach, and is following the CEEQUAL methodology for sustainable construction.
Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase 2
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Figure 1: Spatial Extent of Phase 2
Figure 2: Examples of NFM works
Key updates this quarter: - The Full Business Case for Phase 2, including Step 2 has been supported by
the EA’s FCRM Committee (23/4/20) and has been recently reviewed by Defra’s Investment Committee (24/6/20) who will make a recommendation to the Floods Minister on whether to fund the £23.7m funding gap.
- Construction (Figure 3) and design works continue at pace with minimal impact from COVID. The project team are making full use of remote working technologies to maintain progress on the scheme.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Figure 3: Ongoing flood wall construction work in the Kirkstall Road area
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The Leeds FAS NFM Project will be delivered between 2018 and 2025; but the wide ranging benefits of the scheme will be realised from 2039 to 2069. This project plans to build greater climate resilience within the River Aire catchment in the face of the current Climate Emergency. With the aim to reduce peak flow in the River Aire from a 1 in 200 flood event (0.5% AEP) to help protect Leeds, in any given year. This is to complement engineering solutions currently being built by Leeds City Council, and take account of the anticipated climate uplift in river levels. The project study area covers 687km2 of the River Aire catchment, and flows through a number of large towns and cities including Skipton, Keighley and Bradford. Delivering Natural Flood Management at this scale is unprecedented in the United Kingdom.
Figure 1 River Aire Catchment
Works on site were paused in the spring due to Covid-19 restrictions. The project has since been planning for the next delivery phase, in autumn 2020. This has included identifying a number of sites with partner organisations suitable for woodland creation. The project continues to work with a number of large estates in the catchment to develop detailed Natural Flood Management plans. The project is working with Leeds University to develop a demonstration site. Several innovative ideas have been put forward to trial at the pilot site at Brownlee Triathlon
Leeds Flood Alleviation NFM Programme
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Centre in Leeds. These ideas include the demonstration of how to build your own leaky dam to test how to use natural solutions to slow the flow of water, helping reduce flood risk, the life-cycle of a tree and a sand pit where you can re-meander a straightened water channel. Other educational and interactive proposals for the site include: an interactive information board to educate visitors about the benefits of each type of NFM measure and a two-tier grass covered amphitheatre, formed as an earth bund, which would provide a group teaching area.
Figure 2 Brownlee Triathlon Centre, Leeds
The project is also exploring options to re-meander the river within the catchment. Contracts will be awarded in July 2020 for suppliers to undertake a re-meander feasibility study, to determine a suitable location for this larger intervention. The Landowner Engagement Framework Contract shall also be awarded. Due to Covid-19 restrictions, on site engagement works may be delayed until the autumn, however training and preparation works shall be undertaken in the interim, until teams are able to engage with landowners. The development of a number of GIS tools to be used on site continues; a trial version of the GIS platform is due to be available in October 2020. The tools will enable the landowner engagement teams to have site level information available as they speak to landowners, to enable a landowner led design process. The project is keen to find willing landowners and interested parties, to participate in the project. Any interested bodies should get in touch if they would like to know more by emailing: [email protected].
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The aim of the Blacktoft Erosion Protection (BEP) project is to deliver approx. 70m of remedial works to a section of embankment which has been identified as experiencing erosion at Blacktoft (East Yorkshire, situated on the lower Ouse north bank).
The erosion is caused by a combination of processes, including tidal forces, shipping movements and hydrological processes, which are slowly removing the protective rock armour from the site and transporting it down river. As a result, areas of the embankment are becoming undercut which increases the risk of a breach.
Due to the flat topography of Flood Cell 11 (of the Humber Estuary), a breach in the defence is likely to cause wide spread damage as far in land as Gilberdyke, potentially impacting 120 properties, businesses, key infrastructure (the M62 motorway and train links to Hull) and damaging several hundred hectares of grade 2 (very good quality) agricultural land.
The Blacktoft Erosion Protection Project
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
This site was identified through the Humber Estuary Erosion Protection (HEEP) project in 2019 as requiring works and the BEP project was subsequently set up in January 2020 to address this need. Due to delegations of the site (SAC, SPA, Ramsar and SSSI) there is a requirement to deliver the works before the 2020 winter migration season, so as to better protect properties and ensure the associated 120 OM2s can be claimed within the current 6-year programme. As a result the project has been running an ambitious programme to achieve this deadline. Having achieved SOC sign off in May, and award of the Appraisal and Early Supplier Engagement (ESE1) contracts in June, the project is now progressing towards an OBC submission target of mid-July, with FBC due to follow in mid-August. This should enable the works to commence in mid-September. A preferred option of rock bags has been identified and is in the process of being costed. This option was chosen due to it having the following associated benefits: It meets the requirements for the provision of new protective layer of rock, capable
of withstanding tidal and shipping movements. The formation of the rock bags encourages siltation and colonisation, which has
ecological benefits as well as quickly reducing their visual impact. The bags can be quickly and easily installed from the bank with no need for a
geotextile or ground preparation. This reduces the time required on site and need for working in/close to the water, making it beneficial from a health and safety perspective.
The rock can be sourced locally and the bags filled on site to reduce time and costs.
They have a design life of 30 years and are not expected to require any additional maintenance in this time.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The final piece in the jigsaw of a 20 year vision to enable salmon to return to the River Don has been completed. People passing by Forge Island in Rotherham will now be able to see the Masbrough Weir fish pass, thanks to a partnership between Don Catchment Rivers Trust, Canal & River Trust, the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. A combination of better regulation, changes in industry and greater investment in water quality has improved water quality in the Don such that salmon can now return. The only thing preventing this was the 20 barriers to migration. For the last seventeen years many organisations have been working in partnership to remove these barriers so that salmon and other species can return. It was in the early 1990s that there were reports of salmon being caught in the lower Don around Doncaster, which was a strong sign that more life was returning to the river. These sightings of salmon set the wheels in motion for organisations to start talking about how to enable them to return to spawning habitat in the Pennines. The removal of Crimpsall sluice in Doncaster, and water quality improving on the river Don gave the inspiration for organisations to work together on a vision to enable salmon to get back up to spawning grounds in the upper catchment for the first time in 200 years. Masbrough weir is 18th major obstruction that has been made passable, allowing salmon to move freely up and down the river. With Sheffield City Council also completing the Fish Pass on Sanderson’s Weir this will open the entire migratory route from the North Sea to spawning grounds upstream of Sheffield. Sanderson’s Weir on the River Don in Sheffield was led and project-managed by Sheffield City Council, taking advantage of the existing relationships built and knowledge gained by the same team during the delivery of the Lower Don Flood Alleviation Scheme. Delivering both WFD improvements and mitigation for the Lower Don Valley Scheme this brought in £350k spend from the FCRM budget with £100k of match funding from the European Marine Fisheries Fund, (EMFF). This weir was the penultimate barrier to fish migration between the sea and the ‘first, best’ spawning grounds for salmon in the River Don. A fish pass for the remaining weir at Masborough in Rotherham has been delivered in parallel by the Don Catchment Rivers linking salmon spawning grounds to the sea for the first time since the industrial revolution.
Salmon to South Yorkshire
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Sanderson’s Weir dates from the C16th and was built by the lord of the manor of Sheffield the Earl of Shrewsbury, who lived at Sheffield Castle and is best known as the jailer of Mary Queen of Scots, but also as a key figure in the industrial history of Sheffield. It is representative of the earliest phase of industrialisation of the iron and steel production in the area. It is a particularly complete and well-constructed example and consequently is a listed historic structure and an important feature of the Five Weirs Walk.
Above - Sanderson’s weir Fish Pass
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
A trash screen used to collect debris and reduce the risk of flooding to Sheffield city centre is getting a major upgrade. Work has started this month on a £3 million project to improve the screen and replace the mechanical arm used to clear it. The upgrade work is being done while adhering to strict Government guidelines on social distancing and is expected to be complete by the end of the year. The Sheaf Screen prevents debris from travelling underground along the river where it may become lodged, creating a blockage. Blockages underground, in culverts, which are tunnels that carry water under roads, railways and buildings, are very difficult to clear and can result in flooding to the local area. The screen currently needs regularly clearing using a combination of the mechanical arm controlled by an operator and manual labour, which can be very resource intensive during an incident. The current screen is in poor condition with some of the screen bars damaged or missing, so the screen is being replaced and two ‘grabs’ will be installed on an overhead monorail, making it easier to clear debris when it collects on the screen. The Sheaf Screen in Sheffield city centre is located at the upstream end of a 750m culvert which carries the River Sheaf below the central train station and the markets area. It joins up with the Porter Brook which is also largely hidden from view in the city and heads towards its confluence with the River Don. As well as natural vegetation, the Sheaf Screen regularly collects larger objects including mattresses, tree trunks, bikes, branches and pipes. If these weren’t caught by the screen they could cause a significant blockage and increase the risk of flooding to the city.
Sheffield’s River Sheaf Screen
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Above – Artist impression of the New Sheaf Screen
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Since the devastating floods in November 2019 we have worked closely with both Partners and the Local Community. Since November, we have inspected over 3,000 flood defence assets along the Rivers Don, Rother, and Aire, carried out urgent repairs, and continued work to improve local flood defences, including those in Fishlake. The total costs of work following the floods is expected to be in excess of £12 million across South Yorkshire. Immediately after the November flood we were available to talk and offer advice to residents on a daily basis through our presence at the Fishlake Community Hub which was established following the flood incident. In addition we worked with partners to hold a number of post flood events including:
Operation Duxford, a police-led multi-agency day of community engagement at Fishlake took place with 14 Environment Agency staff supporting.
A Flood Drop in/Information event at Fishlake village hall on 16th December 2020 which was attended by over 200 residents.
A Meeting with Fishlake Parish Council in February. We responded in detail to more than 50 questions sent to us from the Parish Council regarding the incident and reported back on these in February when we attended the Parish Council monthly meeting. Since February we have had to postpone face to face events as a result of the restrictions imposed by COVID 19 lockdown. However, we have ensured we continue to maintain proactive contact with local stakeholders throughout this period (flood wardens, the flood action group, Fishlake Parish Council, Councillors, DMBC, MPS and residents) via phone, email and newsletters. Towards the end of June we carried out a newsletter drop to 267 homes and worked with local organisations to disseminate the update via local distribution lists and social media. In line with Government advice, site visits to Fishlake have now re-commenced. Residents will see our staff and contractors gathering additional information through land surveys, ground investigations and inspections to inform work to improve flood defences. Week on week, our presence in and around the village will increase. We will continue to work closely with residents, voluntary groups and flood wardens to ensure the local community is kept informed.
Fishlake Recovery Improvement
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Recovering from flooding is always incredibly hard for impacted communities and the coronavirus pandemic has added to this greatly. We are continuing to work within Government restrictions to keep up the maintenance programme of our flood banks and we’re pleased to be moving towards the point where we can commence work on the ground to reduce flood risk to the community.
Above – Pumping operations underway following the flood incident in November 2019
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Bentley Ings Refurbishment works is part of an £11million project to significantly improve this important flood risk management asset and better protect 1,669 properties and 698 businesses. £4 million of the recovery funding has been allocated to increase resilience measures at Bentley Pumping Station and £1.5M capital funding coming from the Coal Authority. The new pumps have been installed. They have been tested in situ, and all appear to be running properly. They will be fully commissioned in the weeks to come with the appropriate permanent MEICA works. As well as the pumps, the high level causeway to the main pumping station has been completed, the concrete pads around the pump canisters and pressure chamber roof have been cast and the steps and walkways to the raised kiosks have been installed. All in all, a great effort to bring everything together under difficult circumstances over these past couple of months. The completion of these works is estimated to be October 2020.
Above – Works underway at Bentley Pumping Station
Bentley Ings Refurbishment Work
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The risk of flooding in Mytholmroyd is greater than 20% (1 in 5 years) in any given year and due to the rapid onset of flooding and fast overland flows poses a significant risk to life. The flood alleviation scheme currently being delivered includes:
• New, raised and improved walls; • The strengthening and water proofing of structures adjacent to the channel; • The widening of the channel in a number of key locations; • The relocation of Caldene Bridge.
The scheme will deliver a step change reduction to the current flood risk for Mytholmroyd reducing the risk to 2% (1 in 50 years) in any given year and will better protect nearly 400 homes and businesses. This will not only significantly reduce the risk of flooding, but also give the community valuable time to respond and stay safe.
We are continuing to carry out a review of the significant flood event on 9th February 2020 to fully understand the causes/source/timeline of flooding. However, this has had to be slowed due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Initial data gathering suggests Mytholmroyd flooded as a result of both surface water unable to discharge into the river due to high river levels, and as a result of existing (located at White Houses), new (adjacent to St Michaels Church) and temporary (Burnley Road) defences becoming overwhelmed/overtopped.
The ongoing Coronavirus pandemic has had an impact on the construction completion date. In the early stages (late March/early April 2020) there were many aspects of the project which we had to slow or pause due to not being able to maintain social distancing or suppliers/sub-contractors were unavailable. However, as we have moved through the pandemic new ways of working have been found and suppliers/sub-contractors have returned. The project team have worked hard to ensure the project has continued to move forward during these unprecedented times and taken advantage of the dry weather conditions.
As a result of the February flooding and the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic we now forecast the project to be completed towards the end of this calendar year.
Due to the size and complexity of the Mytholmroyd FAS, progress updates have been split into work areas below.
Area Progress
Area B – Greenhill Industrial Estate
Works continue to progress well at Area B with the left and right bank walls complete including the access ramp (see Picture 1) alongside Vale Upholstery’s building. The final steps are to install the two flood gates either side of the private access bridge over the River Calder.
Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Picture 1 – Access ramp
Area C – St Michael’s Church
Hard and soft landscaping has been completed immediately adjacent to St Michael’s Church (see Picture 2). The full widening of the River Calder is now visible in this area as the walls are nearing completion and the stone setts (see Picture 4) are all but complete in the channel as we have taken advantage of the dry weather and low river levels. Hard and soft landscaping is complete at the site of the old post office and this area is now open to the public (see Picture 3).
The majority of the work to the rear of Burnley Road cottages is complete. The only outstanding items are the flood proof doors. The new wall linking the cottages to the existing defences is nearing completion.
Pictures 2 & 3 – hard and soft landscaping
Picture 4 – stone setts and river widening
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Area D – River Calder/Cragg Brook Confluence
New flood walls in the rear gardens of Streamside Fold are complete along with garden re-instatement. Some of the walls are already beginning to change colour and blend into the local environment. Also glass panels and flap valves have been installed on the left and right banks of the River Calder. There is an ongoing repair (see Pictures 5 and 6) to the confluence wall following the movement of the existing structure during the February flooding. The repair will be masonry clad in similar coloured stone.
Picture 5 – before showing movement and cracking
Picture 6 - now
Area E – Caldene Bridge
The new bridge (see Picture 7) was opened to traffic and pedestrians on Monday 18th May. Demolition of Caldene Bridge began on Tuesday 26th May and the final stages of this (lifting of bridge beams – see Picture 8) took place on Friday 19th June. This is a significant milestone for the project. The second span of the new bridge (high level bypass) has been excavated now so it is becoming very clear how wide the channel will be beneath the new deck. The new two span bridge is nearly 13m wider than the old Caldene Bridge.
Picture 7 – April 2020 aerial photo of both bridges
Picture 8
Area F – White Houses
Work has progressed well and nearing completion. The outstanding works include installation of the glass panels on top of the existing strengthened and new flood wall to the rear of the properties (see Picture 9) and the access ramp and flood gate at the
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
downstream end of the terrace. The section of new wall and river bank stabilisation between White Houses and Hawksclough (see Picture 10) also continues to progress well. Upstream, works to the rear of Hawksclough terrace has also started including vegetation clearance and Property Flood Resilience (e.g. flood proof windows).
Picture 9 – frames for glass panels Picture 10
Area H – White Lee Clough
This area is complete which includes the new overflow outfall structure (see Picture 11), pipework connection into the existing culvert within Midgley Road, boundary fencing, soft landscaping (see Picture 12) and road re-instatement.
Picture 11 – outfall structure into Rochdale Canal
Picture 12 – soft landscaping on Mabel Street
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Area I3 – Brearley Fields Canal Spillway
The canal towpath has now re-opened following the installation of the new footbridge (see Picture 13) over the new completed concrete spillway. The embankment has been re-graded and the scour protection is underway adjacent to the spillway (see Picture 14). The new footpath at the base of the embankment is being installed as part of the Brearley Fields Wetland Nature Reserve.
Picture 13 – footbridge open to public Picture 14 – embankment sprayed with hydro-seed
Area L1 – Brearley & Area L2 – Luddenden Foot
Wall construction continues at Brearley both upstream and downstream of Brearley Bridge.
Wall construction, ramps and steps are completed in the rear gardens of the bungalows at Tillotson Holme and some garden re-instatement has been completed (see Picture 15). The construction of ramps either side of the bungalows (see Picture 16) and road repairs are also complete. Works to the towpath wall continues adjacent to Tillotson Holme. The final stages in this area include boundary fencing and the installation of Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures to a number of properties.
Picture 15 – flood wall and re-instatement Picture 16 – flood wall and ramp
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Area K – Scar Bottom Cottages
Planning permission has been granted for Area K (Scar Bottom Cottages) and work has commenced including vegetation clearance and wall construction at no.1 Scar Bottom Cottage. The majority of the surveys for PFR, i.e. flood proof windows, doors, air brick covers, have now taken place throughout the project and windows have started to be installed following the return to work of the PFR specialists StormMeister.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Contractors have continued to work throughout the Covid 19 pandemic on the flood storage area at Killingbeck Meadows, while following the latest government guidelines. The flood storage area is now substantively complete with contractors expected to be off site within weeks. River meander works are all complete including creation of new wetland habitat. Final touches including footpaths, installation of telemetry, reinstatement of site entrance etc. are nearing completion
Above – Killingbeck Meadows progress
Killingbeck Meadows
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The last 12 months in Development, Planning and Permitting: In the last update to the YRFCC we spoke of the challenges of winter 19/20 in the context of some of the worst flooding of recent times across multiple Yorkshire catchments. Following this, the country has entered unusual times that has affected us all in different ways. One thing that has continued unabated is the volume of work with planning and permitting work streams in Yorkshire. The lockdown has posed some unexpected challenges to this work, including technology, and the initial phases posed challenges to us being able to access and process information within our statutory timescales. We know that we have not been alone, for example Local Planning Authorities have had to consider new ways to make decisions on planning applications without being able to hold committee meetings. Over the last 12months we have responded to over a 1000 planning consultations; and over 97% of those within our formal timescales (usually 21 days) – quite an achievement given the year we’ve had. On top of that, we are now progressing approximately 250 sites where recovery works are required through our permitting regime, ensuring this is carried out in a timely and efficient way. We’ve also seen particular challenges in the field, for example instances of unpermitted works being done – with a reduced presence in recent months, and tighter controls on site visits, we’ve had to adapt our approach. Forward Look: We also continue to have a forward look. For example, where Local Plans are progressing we have been working closely with our Sustainable Places team to help with the preparation of key documents such as Strategic Flood Risk Assessments, reflecting how flood risk issues are identified and mitigated through spatial planning. This will help ensure that moving forwards our advice continues to provide significant value:
In reducing inappropriate development in the floodplain, and advising on remaining development so as to reduce the causes and consequences of flooding
Identifying local flood risk context and helping developers and LPAs to consider approaches to managing that flood risk
Helping to keep people and property safe from the effects of flooding, now and in the future, working alongside others to resolve holistic flood risk issues
Working across Environment Agency teams to identify and resolve issues spanning different fields of work, balancing conflicts or tensions with opportunities where there may be multiple benefits
As the Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme continues to progress, we’ve also been looking at how that interacts alongside growth ambitions in the city. We often speak about the
Yorkshire Development, Planning and Permitting
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
development that is going on now, but there also continues to be lots going on thinking about the future. For example, around the Humber Estuary there are a number of major projects associated with economic growth potential – the A63 Highways scheme which is expected to improve connections and reduce congestion in Hull obtained a Development Consent Order in May 2020. One of many schemes that is expected to deliver local benefits as well as wider Yorkshire interests.
Above - Hull Daily Mail: How the A63 Highways Upgrade could look
Continuing the forward look, the ongoing recovery of the country and economy to recent events is likely to pose further challenges. Some of those will also present opportunities, and our continued input to local issues where these interact with flood risk, will see people and the environment better protected.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme (AEEFAS) is a project to reduce the risk of surface water flooding to over 4000 residential properties in the Anlaby and East Ella area at a cost of £20m. It was developed by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council in partnership with the Environment Agency, and jointly funded by FDGiA and LGF. The scheme is the second of the three sister schemes in the area that have been designed using information obtained from extensive flood risk modelling, which was carried out following the devastating floods of 2007. The other schemes being the Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation scheme (WADFAS), completed in 2017, and the Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme (COPFAS), detailed below. The construction works for this scheme are being delivered by East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The modelling was able to verify that water inundating properties in Anlaby and East Ella had originated in the west of the catchment. In order to intercept and attenuate this surface water the scheme links an existing Environment Agency lagoon at Anlaby Common to a new storage lagoon, constructed on the site of the former Sydney Smith School. In addition, a new watercourse and connecting tunnel is being created to capture water from upstream and channel it away from residential areas to the storage lagoons.
Above - AEEFAS Schematic
There are three phases to this scheme:
The Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme
(AEEFAS)
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Phase 1 took the form of improvements to the New Marr Bridge over the Western Drain at Beverley Road, Anlaby. This work started in 2016 and was completed in 2018. Phase 2 included the construction of a new spillway structure alongside the existing EA lagoon and channels to connect this to the new 130,000 m³ lagoon on the site of the old Sydney Smith School. Note that when not storing water, the Sydney Smith Lagoon will be used as sports pitches, meaning there has been no net loss of recreational facilities in the area. Phase 2 has achieved hydraulic completion, and is already providing a reduction in the risk of flooding to over 430 homes. The contractual completion certificate was issued earlier this year (although there are still some minor seasonal landscaping tasks outstanding). Phase 3 consisted of the creation of connecting watercourses and infrastructure designed to link the north eastern Tranby catchment in to the two lagoons. This includes the construction of a tunnel 1.5km long and 1.8m in diameter, up to 14m deep, and an energy dissipation unit at the outfall of the tunnel. Minor outstanding works continue on Phase 3. The scheme was highly successful at the recent RICS Yorkshire and Humber Social Impact Awards 2020 winning two awards; in the Infrastructure Category and winning Project of the Year. It will now go forward to the National Grand Final in September. The scheme has a total budget of £20 million, funded by £15 million of Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding and a grant of £5 million from the Humber LEP’s Local Growth Fund. In common with the sister schemes (WADFAS and COPFAS) AEEFAS was constructed to an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of 1.33% and an allowance has been made within this to account for predicted future climate change. It is not anticipated that COVID-19 will have any significant impacts on the completion of the outstanding works. Any decisions regarding the ongoing mobilisation of the site, and nature of works undertaken will be taken in line with the latest government advice.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Phase 2 Sydney Smith Lagoon sports pitch seeding
Phase 3: The Energy Dissipation Unit
Phase 3: Kerry Pit Inlet.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme (COPFAS) is the third of the three sister schemes to be conceived as a result of the flood and rainfall modelling following the events of 2007. In 2007 the village of Cottingham was flooded, as were parts of Orchard Park in Hull. This surface water scheme will reduce risk to 4000 properties at a cost of £22m. Modelling showed that the floodwater flowing into Cottingham had originated around the Raywell Valley, and the water which caused damage to Orchard Park had come from the area known as Northmoor, near Dunswell. To counteract this, a series of lagoons and structures designed to capture and temporarily store the water in the event of heavy rainfall were devised.
Above - COPFAS Schematic COPFAS is constructed in two separate phases. Phase 1 consists of improvements to Millhouse Beck and nearby ditches and watercourses, leading to a flow control structure in Creyke Beck. This connects via a siphon to a large lagoon on land at Orchard Park. As the original recreational facilities had to be removed to allow the lagoon to be constructed, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council worked together with Hull City Council to improve community amenities here;
Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation
Scheme (COPFAS)
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
refurbishing the open spaces and creating a public fishing pond near the lagoon, which has now been handed back to HCC. The completion certificate for Phase 1 was issued in summer 2019. This lagoon has a capacity of 148,000m³ and provides a reduction in the risk of flooding to around 1000 homes. Runoff from the rainfall events in winter 2019/20 meant that Orchard Park Lagoon was substantially filled for the first time since completion. This generated positive publicity for this project along with the sister schemes WADFAS and AEEFAS. Phase 1 was recently the recipient of a prestigious ICE Smeaton Award, for the best scheme in the Yorkshire and Humber area between £500,000 and £5 million. Phase 2 Phase 2 is nearing functional completion. Outstanding civils work to four of the Phase 2 lagoons is progressing well. It is important to note there are potential issues with the supply chain for this scheme. Any decisions regarding the ongoing mobilisation of the site, and nature of works undertaken will be taken in line with the latest government advice on COVID-19. The scheme has a total budget of £22 million, funded by £17 million of Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding and a grant of £5 million from the Humber LEP’s Local Growth Fund. In common with the other similar flood alleviation schemes, COPFAS was constructed to an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of 1.33% and an allowance has been made within this for predicted future climate change. When all phases of the scheme are complete there will be over 4,000 properties at a reduced risk of flooding.
Above - Railway North Lagoon spillway pour.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Above - A164 South Lagoon, installation of the scour protection on the inlet pipe
Above - Railway South Lagoon - Scour Protection Installation
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Above - Green Lane Lagoon - seeded and preparation for the installation of the scour protection
Above - Castle Hill Lagoon earthworks, continuing in improved ground conditions
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defence (HFTD) is a project to construct a combination of concrete and glass wall defences in the vulnerable area of low lying land between the base of the Humber Bridge and Livingstone Road on the foreshore at Hessle at a cost of £11m. It will reduce risk to 4000 residential and commercial properties when complete. The new wall will tie in to existing defences and higher ground at its eastern extent. The project also includes improvements to the sluice structure at Hessle Clough, which will reduce the risk of a tidal surge inundating properties along the Fleet Drain in Hessle itself. Work by both the Council and the Environment Agency to improve the tidal defences along the length of the Humber Estuary has been ongoing for a number of years. This work assumed a high level of importance following the tidal surge of December 2013. This tidal surge had a devastating effect on the East coast, and was the highest for at least 60 years. At Hessle foreshore the tidal surge affected over 80 homes and businesses, but could have been significantly worse if the weather conditions had been different at the time.
Above - Schematic showing the location and extent of the tidal defences
Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defence
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
The work has been divided into three operational stages. Stage 1 Hessle Clough Sluice Structure involves the raising of the existing wall around Hessle Clough Sluice by approximately 1m to prevent overtopping during a tidal surge event. Work will also include improvements and repairs to the sluice itself. The contract for Hessle Haven Sluice has been awarded and Network Rail agreements are in place. The contractor is on site and works are underway and progressing well. Stage 2 A63 (Clive Sullivan Way), Highways England will work in partnership with the Council to deliver a defence in the form of a concrete wall alongside the A63, which will double as a vehicle restraint barrier for the dual carriageway. Highways England are continuing with the construction of the barrier along the A63 and slip forming of the concrete barrier is due for completion in early July 2020. Stage 3 Cliff Road involves raising of the road under the Humber Bridge and the construction of a wall along the southern side of Cliff Road. This wall will include flood gates at various points which can be closed during a tidal surge event. The wall will be constructed of glass to preserve the iconic views of the Humber Bridge and estuary. This will be similar to the glass wall constructed in Paull Village to the east of Hull. The contract for Cliff Road has been awarded and the contractor has completed the compound set up. Work has commenced on section 2 of the Stage 3 works and traffic management has been implemented. The scheme has a total budget of £11 million, funded by £7 million of Flood defence Grant in Aid funding, a grant of £2 million from the Humber LEP’s Local Growth Fund, and a grant of £2 million from the European Structural and Investment Funds. The tidal defence scheme will be constructed to a 0.5%AEP and an allowance has been made within this for climate change. By March 2021 when all phases of the scheme are complete it will reduce the risk of flooding to over 4000 homes and businesses in the area.
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Work underway at Hessle Haven Sluice
Above - Work underway at Hessle Haven Sluice
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Above - Work underway at Cliff Road
Above - Work underway at Cliff Road
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Pocklington town centre is built around the beck which has historically been vulnerable to flash flooding. It was badly hit in 2007, twice more in 2012 and then again on Boxing Day 2015 when homes and businesses were damaged. In response to these events, and to reduce the long term risk of flooding, Pocklington Flood Alleviation Scheme, (PockFAS) at a cost of £5m was conceived.
Above - Diagram showing the bund structure and water storage area
The source of Pocklington Beck, Main River, is high in the Wolds to the north east of the town and has a relatively large catchment. Culverted through the town centre, in the event of heavy rain flows exceed capacity leading to flooding in the commercial area of the town. To reduce the risk of floodwater reaching the town, a large dam has been constructed which spans the beck. Within the structure is a flow control device – a HydroSlide. In the event of heavy rain, the water will be held back in the lagoon and slowly released after the threat of flooding has passed. The scheme has been tested twice already with the lagoon partially filling in the heavy rainfall experienced in November 2019 and again in February 2020. The scheme has a total budget of just under £5 million, funded by £0.5 million from the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP’s Local Growth Fund and £3million from a local property developer Persimmon Homes. This funding was provided
Pocklington Flood Alleviation Scheme
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
through a section106 Agreement following the allocation of POC-C for housing (207 properties). As of June 2020, records show that 68 properties have legally completed and are occupied, and the site has created 71 full time jobs. The FAS construction site has employed 135 separate individuals, and created the FTE equivalent of 13 jobs. The Council has covered the upfront costs of the scheme and the developer has released 10 staged payments based on housing completion targets. In addition the project received a grant of £0.9 million of the Environment Agency’s Grant in Aid funding and also had an initial allocation of £440,000 from the Local Levy for contingency funds, of which £44,000 was required. PockFAS was constructed to an annual exceedance probability (AEP) 1.33% and an allowance has been made within this for climate change. Work is now complete and the scheme is operational, reducing the risk of flooding to over 130 homes and businesses in the area.
Above - Overview of PockFAS in operation during the storms of winter 2019/20
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Above - PockFAS in operation winter 19/20, view from the bund looking downstream
Above - PockFAS in operation winter 19/20, Debris on the trash screens
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Above- The HydroSlide flow control structure, winter 2019/20
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
Humber: Hull Frontage Flood Defence Improvement Scheme Key Features:
Delivering the recommendation of the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy (2008).
113,000 homes forecast to be at reduced risk of tidal flooding (28,364 OM2).
7km of improved defences at 8 locations along a 20km stretch of the Humber north bank through Hull.
Lead Authority: Environment Agency Lead Supplier: BMM JV
Construction start: Winter 2018.
Forecast completion: Spring 2021.
Contributions from Highways England.
Humber: Hull Frontage Flood Defence Improvement
Scheme
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
Background - Reducing Tidal Flood Risk in Hull
The Humber: Hull Frontage (HHF) Flood Defence Improvement Scheme is a £42 million flood defence scheme to better protect 113,000 properties at risk of flooding from extreme tides in the Humber estuary. The scheme provides a mixture of new and upgraded tidal defences along the north bank of the estuary at eight different locations, improving over seven kilometres of tidal defences – see figure 1.
Figure 1: The HHF project provides improvements to flood defences at eight different locations, starting at St Andrew's Retail Park. It will also include the industrial areas of St Andrew's Dock, William Wright Dock and Albert Dock as well as Victoria Pier and the residential area of Victoria Dock Village.
Hull has been impacted by three significant tidal events in the past 65 years, most notably in the December 2013 tidal surge when properties were flooded due to overtopping of the existing defences. The HHF Flood Defence Improvement scheme is part of the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy, which promotes solutions to manage tidal flooding in the Humber Estuary over the next 100 years.
The project provides a 1:200 (0.5%) standard of protection (SoP) in 2040 from tidal flooding to the city of Hull. In addition to improving the current SoP, works allow adaptation to anticipated sea level rise to 2115.
The delivery of this project aligns with Hull City Council’s strategic approach to flood risk.
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
In addition the work to improve flood defences as part of the HHF project is supported by a further four kilometres of new and raised tidal defences on either side of the city, at Hessle and Paull. This work is being undertaken by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in partnership with the Environment Agency.
Current Update - Reducing Tidal Flood Risk in Hull Funding for the scheme was secured in December 2017 and construction on the project began in winter 2018. Work started at St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park, creating a new flood defence wall from a mixture of pre-cast concrete units and in-situ concrete works, which is now nearing completion – see figure 2.
In other locations such as Victoria Dock Village – West the new concrete flood defence walls completed earlier this year have now been finished with brick slips and coping units to match the surrounding residential area – see figure 3. Specific areas of the new flood defence wall at Victoria Dock Village will also incorporate glass panels to maintain views of the Humber Estuary.
Work began on site at Victoria Pier in March this year and has continued throughout the Covid-19 pandemic in line with Public Health England (PHE) advice. The site team have adopted Covid-19 best practice guidance from the Construction Leadership Council at Victoria Pier and other locations across the project to continue constructing the flood defences.
At Victoria Pier new steel sheet piles are being installed in the Humber Estuary, 2.5m in front of the existing piles, which currently support the quayside and have reached the end of their useful life – see figure 4. A secondary row of new anchor piles are also being installed – see image 5. The two lines of piles will be tied together with steel rods, installed underground, to form a rigid structure on which the new flood defence all will sit upon. The new flood defence wall at Victoria Pier will contain flood gates and glazed panels to maintain views of the Humber Estuary. Behind it will sit a raised promenade, incorporating steps and ramps leading to the historic area of Nelson Street, which will be landscaped at the end of the work – see figure 6.
Improvements at other locations across the project, due to take place this year, at William Wright Dock and Island Wharf will protect against overtopping by increasing the height of the existing flood defence wall along the current defence alignment. New flood defence walls across the HHF scheme will be, on average, 1.3 metres high. The project is due to be completed in spring 2021.
For more information visit;
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/yorkshire/humber-hull-frontages/
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
Humber: Hull Frontage Flood Defence Improvement Scheme Figures
Figure 2: New concrete flood defence wall at St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park.
Figure 3: New concrete flood defence wall, with brick cladding and coping units at Victoria Dock Village – West
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
Humber: Hull Frontage Flood Defence Improvement Scheme Figures
Figure 4: New steel sheet piles at Victoria Pier. Figure 5: New anchor piles at Victoria Pier
Figure 6: Visualisation of new flood defence at Victoria Pier
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
The River Hull runs through the middle of the city of Kingston-upon-Hull. The city is protected from flooding by the river by defences that currently provide a 1 in 200 year (0.5%) standard of protection. The defences through the city comprise of both hard and soft defences. As the river approaches the city centre the defences become predominantly hard defences.
The soft defences are typically earth flood embankments maintained by the Environment Agency and are generally in good condition. The hard defences comprise of a variety of brick, concrete, timber and piled wharfs, buildings and other structures, and have been built up over a long period of time in an unplanned and uncoordinated way. The hard defences are of variable quality, and subject to varying standards of maintenance. Nearly all of the hard defences through the lower catchment are owned by third parties and many have suffered from neglect over the years. In the event of defences failing, or being breached, approximately 63,000 properties in Hull are at risk of flooding.
River Hull Defences
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
The original business case was approved in 2016 and we secured £36.5million funding, including an allocated Local Growth Fund contribution, to allow detailed design and construction to begin. In 2018 several sites were brought forward into Phase 1 to take advantage of efficiencies increasing the approval by £8.3m. In 2019 Phase 2 was added to the current project and a business case was approved for a further £17.6m of funding. This took the overall project approval to £62.4m.
In total we’re replacing and improving 68no individual sites along the river that are at greatest risk of failure. Since commencing onsite in April 2017 we have installed over 2500m of flood defences. The solutions delivered include:
Combi Piles Walls Full Height Sheet piles Setback Legato Block walls and slabs
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
Capping Beam repairs Waterproofing existing buildings
Following seven weeks of critical path delay caused by the impact of COVID-19 our construction completion date has been delayed until March 2021. The project team have investigated if this date can be brought forward however due to the nature of the construction method it is not possible. We are confident that the works will be completed before the end of March 2021 as we are continuing to liaise with stakeholders to allow continued access to the river in order to deliver the works as planned.
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Introduction: Following the floods of December 2015, the government allocated an additional £45.2 million to the Environment Agency to better protect 2,000 properties in York.
Historically we and our partners have invested substantially in York which has significantly reduced the risk of flooding for thousands of residents and businesses. However, the recent floods and the increased frequency of high river levels on the Rivers Ouse and Foss have demonstrated that the flood defences in York are no longer providing the standard of protection for which they were designed. Our 5 Year Plan will improve the standard of protection to York, taking into account the impact of climate change.
Our ambition is to achieve a consistent standard of flood protection across the city against floods with a 1% probability, plus climate change to 2039. In some areas, raising or installing new defences to achieve a consistent level may not be acceptable or feasible and we may need to consider other options, such as Property Flood Resilience (PFR).
Here is an update on our work throughout the City and some of the challenges which we have faced.
Public Engagement post lockdown Our City centre community Hub has been temporarily closed and public drop-ins cancelled in line with government guidance to limit any unnecessary travel and close public contact. We are looking at ways to ensure we continue to communicate with the public. We have sent digital newsletters to everyone on our mailing list and arranged for delivery of paper letters to residents directly impacted by our work. We are also delivering messages through social and local media as well as placing signs up in advance of work which will affect residents and commuters. We are aware that not everyone will see or receive our messages and are working with CYC to get messages straight to people’s doors.
To enable the community to meet with us virtually we are developing an online forum which will allow us to deliver our messages whilst engaging with the community live. In June we held a live event for the residents of Skeldergate. A recording of the event can be found on the Environment Agency YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/J_XvCmRnU0M.
York 5 Year Plan – Summary Update
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
B4: Scarborough Bridge to Ouse Bridge Last year, we started work on improving the existing flood defences in this area to better protect 39 homes and businesses from flooding. We have raised the flood wall along North Street and built a new flood wall along the front of the Memorial Gardens. We have replaced all the flood gates along North Street with larger gates including widening the first gate to improve ease of access into North Street Gardens.
To complete the new line of flood defence, we need to raise the flood gate under Lendal Bridge.
B7: Queen’s Staith and Skeldergate Our final Options Appraisal Report has identified PFR as the most technically viable option for this area. We held our first virtual public meeting to deliver this information to the community and allow them to raise their concerns or questions.
B8: Clementhorpe We are investing £7m to protect 135 properties in Clementhorpe from flooding, we plan to construct a new line of flood defence between Skeldergate Bridge and
Figure 1: Road closure at Skeldergate during flooding
Figure 1: New gate at slipway on North Street
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Rowntree Park. Our planning application was approved by City of York Council on 11th June.
We are preparing to start work on site in Autumn this year. This will include the installation of a bi-fold flood gate on Clementhorpe Road, a flood wall in front of Waterfront House and underground grouting. In the interest of public safety, a section of Terry Avenue will be closed for up to 12 months. We are working closely with local residents, businesses and councillors to minimise the impacts of this work.
B8: South Bank: Property Flood Resilience We are offering Property Flood Resilience (PFR) to 50 properties at risk of flooding. We have appointed JBA to carry out the initial surveys, however, these have been delayed due to the Coronavirus pandemic. In the meantime we are working with City of York Council and the ward councillors to boost PFR understanding and take up of our free survey offer to eligible properties.
B10: Clifton and Rawcliffe We are investing £13 million of government funding to improve flood defences in the Clifton and Rawcliffe area and better protect 140 properties from flooding. In July 2020 we will start upgrading the Clifton Ings with our contractor BAM Nutall. This work will include raising and extending the barrier bank whilst also widening its footprint to improve stability.
This work will take place over two spring/summer seasons. During this time, there will be periods when public access to Rawcliffe Meadows is limited.
We have worked with CYC to overcome technical issues including obtaining physical signatures during a time of lockdown. We appreciate how CYC have taken a flexible approach to solving these problems.
Figure 3: Artist impression of Clementhorpe Gate and wall
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
B11: Coppins Farm to Scarborough Bridge By raising the existing flood defences in Lower Bootham, we will better protect 57 properties from flooding. Last summer, our contractors started work on raising and extending the existing flood embankment in St Peter’s School Fields. This connects to a flood wall and gates in the gardens of Almery Terrace which will be raised with glass panels in Spring this year. During this time, access to the riverside footpath along the Terrace will be restricted and a diversion put in place.
B12: Scarborough Bridge to Lendal Bridge We are proposing to raise the existing flood defences between Scarborough Bridge and Museum Gardens. This will include raising the flood wall and gates in the gardens of Earlsborough Terrace and the Marygate flood wall. We will install demountable panels on top of the detracting flood gate on Marygate and store these in a container attached to the dry side of the wall. We also plan to raise the embankment in Museum Gardens and extend it to meet higher ground. It is inevitable that this will cause disruption to the gardens and some trees and vegetation will need to be removed before we start work on site. We are working closely with York Museums Trust to minimise the impact of construction and agree a landscape plan for the area.
Figure 4: Clifton Ings Barrier Bank
Figure 5: Public foot and cycle path in front of Almery Terrace
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
We are aiming to submit a planning application for this work to City of York Council early this summer. If planning permission is granted, we plan to start work on Earlsborough Terrace in Spring 2021, and in Museum Gardens in August 2021.
B15: Kings Staith
We are unable to offer a scheme at this location. We still however need to address the flow route of water over Tower Street from the Ouse into the Foss effectively bypassing the Foss Barrier in high order events.
We are in support of the City of York Council (CYC) Castle Gateway development and have been in discussions whether road raising in this location could be incorporated into their plans to improve the road network. It is our understanding that this element of the planning is not being looked at in detail at this time and appreciate that CYC are willing to discuss any possibilities with ourselves when the time is right.
B16: New Walk We are in the process of delivering Property Flood Resilience (PFR) to 55 properties in this cell. It is unfortunate that work at this location has been subjected to a number of unforeseeable delays. We are currently working with our contractors to progress as much as is possible whilst Covid-19 restrictions are in place.
C1: Bishopthorpe Bishopthorpe floods when water from the River Ouse flows into the wooded area next to Bishopthorpe Palace and onto Chantry Lane. We are proposing to construct a short flood wall and bi-fold gate along Chantry Lane. We will install a penstock underground to stop river water from backing up into the drains, and supply a pump which will pump surface water over the wall and into the river.
We submitted a planning application to City of York Council in December 2019. The CYC planning decision has been delayed, and whilst disappointing, we understand
Figure 6: The hospitium and flood embankment within Museum Gardens
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
that the planning team need to make sure that all issues are resolved and that residents get an opportunity to comment on the latest plans.
C2: Acaster Malbis We will be offering Property Flood Resilience (PFR) to eligible properties in this cell. We are yet to engage with the community.
C3: Naburn We will be offering PFR to eligible properties in this cell. We have had significant engagement with the Naburn Flood Group however we are yet to extend this out to the community.
F4/F5: Tang Hall and Osbaldwick Becks We are investigating whether it is feasible to create a new channel for Osbaldwick Beck through St Nick’s nature reserve. We have completed ground investigations at the reserve and are now in the process of detailed design ahead of submitting a planning application in Autumn this year.
In addition we will be offering PFR to eligible properties which do not directly benefit from the scheme.
F8/10/11: Foss Flood Storage Area We are planning on investing £14m to construct a flood storage area on the River Foss north-east of Strensall to better protect almost 500 properties from flooding. We have submitted a planning application to City of York Council and Ryedale District Council.
We are currently working with our partner organisations to resolve objections to our planning application and establish the best outcome for the wider landscape.
Figure 7: St Andrews old Church on Chantry Lane
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
F12: Westfield Beck We are awaiting completion of the Options Appraisal Report, once in place further discussion required with CYC and Yorkshire Water (YW) due to significant surface water flooding and interaction with YW asset.
Foss Barrier
At the Foss Barrier we have increased the pumping capacity by 67%, installed new infrastructure and power supplies. All this has been achieved whilst ensuring the station remains fully operational throughout.
Due to the ongoing pandemic, installation of the new gate is likely to be postponed until late 2020 or next year. Meanwhile we are working to ensure that we have enough trained and competent staff to maintain and operate the Foss Barrier once it is fully completed.
St Georges Field car park We are in discussions with CYC to establish working relationship to ensure the floodwall raising around St George’s Car Park takes place at same time as the multi-story Car Park construction. Jacobs, our contractors, have provided outline drawings of the wall raising and strengthening requirements which have been shared with CYC. Further trial pits are required to understand the underground details of the existing wall and what if any impact this work will have on the car park design.
Figure 8: Artist impression of the completed Foss Barrier
Appendix 2b Item No: 4.1
Annex A. Map of York 5 Year Plan Flood Cells
Keeping you informed York Flood Alleviation Scheme
June 2020
Appendix 2b Item No. 4.1
We are dedicated to better protecting 2,000 properties in York from flooding. The aim of this newsletter is to update you on
our progress with the scheme and inform you of upcoming public events.
Approval for Clementhorpe Flood Scheme Clementhorpe
On Thursday 11 June, City of York Council approved our plans for the Clementhorpe Flood Alleviation Scheme. This will provide protection against flooding for 135 properties in an area formerly unprotected against flooding.
The decision has come several months after we initially submitted our proposals for planning approval. During this time, we have listened carefully to the views of the public and our statutory consultees, and done everything within our ability to reduce the negative impact of the scheme on the community.
Over the next few months, we will continue to work with the council and the community to meet the planning conditions that have been set, before starting work on site in autumn this year.
We will be hosting a public meeting on Zoom at 6:30pm on 29 July to provide residents with an opportunity to talk directly to the project team about the scheme and find out more about what will be
happening over the next three months. To receive more information about this event and sign up to our Clementhorpe newsletter, email us at [email protected].
Join our virtual public meeting Museum Gardens
Due to the current social distancing measures in place, we are unable to hold public meetings at present and rely mostly on our website, email and social media to provide updates on our schemes. We have also been trialling virtual public meetings to replace our usual public drop-in events.
Last week we organised a virtual Zoom meeting with residents from Skeldergate to explain our proposals to reduce flood risk in this area. A recording of this meeting can be viewed on YouTube at:
https://youtu.be/J_XvCmRnU0M
Following the success of this meeting, we are hosting another similar event to provide an update on our plans to raise the flood embankment in Museum Gardens. In late July we will be live-streaming a presentation and Q&A session hosted by the York FAS project team. This will be available to view on our YouTube and Facebook pages, and you will have the option of submitting questions for the team via a web-based option called Slido. The date and time of this event will be shared on our social media pages and with those on our mailing list within the next few weeks.
Clementhorpe flooding in February 2020
Spotlight on Lower Bootham
There are over 156 properties at risk of
flooding from the River Ouse in Lower
Bootham. We built flood defences here in
the early 1980s, but since then they have
come close to being overtopped by flood
water.
What we’re doing
Last year, we started work on raising and extending the flood embankment in St Peter’s School fields. This is being done as part of a wider scheme to improve the flood defences on the northern side of Scarborough Bridge. We have recently returned to the site to complete work on the embankment this summer. We have also started work on raising the flood wall and gates along Almery Terrace. Over the next few months, you may see our contractors working in the Almery area. They will be preparing the existing Almery flood wall to install glass panels on top, and installing new, glass-topped gates.
Access and traffic management
As you may have already noticed, we have already fenced off the perimeter of the flood embankment between Westminster Road and Almery Terrace. The site compound is located at the end of Westminster Road in St Peter’s School fields. Construction traffic will access
the site from Westminster Road and leave via the Avenue.
Work on the Almery Terrace defences started on 22 June, and will take approximately four months. During this time, the section of riverside path in front of the terraces will be closed intermittently so that our construction vehicles can safely access the area. The rest of the riverside path will remain open. For updates on footpath closures, visit our Facebook page or website. We will also have signs on site indicating when footpaths are expected to be closed.
Next steps
We will be sharing updates on our scheme via our website, email newsletters and social media pages. To sign up to our Lower Bootham newsletters, email us at [email protected] .
A visualisation of the glass panels we are installing along Almery Terrace
Item No 4.1Appendix 2bb
What’s happening in our other flood cells?
Westfield Beck (F12) We are carrying out some more appraisal work to find the best solution for this flood cell. We are continuing discussions with Yorkshire Water regarding their sewer infrastructure and City of York Council regarding surface water flooding.
Clifton and Rawcliffe (B10) We are developing a programme for work to start in Autumn 2020. We will provide more information about our construction work and timescales closer to the time.
New Walk (B16) Property Flood Resilience surveys at eligible properties are now completed. Our suppliers will be installing the agreed measures within the next few months.
Acaster Malbis (C2) Property Flood Resilience has been determined as the best option for this flood cell.
Lower Bootham (B11) We are raising the existing flood embankment, wall and gates between Scarborough Bridge and Lendal Bridge. Work on the flood embankment and Almery Terrace flood defences started at the beginning of June.
Skeldergate and Queen’s Staith (B7) Property flood resilience has been determined as the best option for this flood cell.
Scarborough Bridge to Ouse Bridge (B4) We have completed work on improving the flood wall and gates on North Street. We will return later in the year to install a taller flood gate under Lendal Bridge.
Tang Hall and Osbaldwick Becks (F4&F5) We have completed ground investigations at St Nick’s Nature Reserve and are still assessing the feasibility of creating a new channel for Osbaldwick Beck in the nature reserve.
Marygate (B12) We are raising the flood walls and gates in the Marygate area and the flood embankment in Museum Gardens. We will be submitting a planning application to City of York Council this summer.
Foss Storage Area (F8, F10, F11) We have submitted a planning application to City of York Council and Ryedale District Council. We are working with partner organisations to ensure the best outcome for this scheme.
Naburn (C3) PFR has been confirmed as the best option for this area. We are currently developing a programme for delivery and engagement.
Fulford (B9) Flood defence work in this cell will be led and delivered by City of York Council in partnership with us.
Bishopthorpe (C1) We have submitted a planning application to City of York Council to install a flood wall and gate on Chantry Lane.
Item No 4.1Appendix 2b
COVID-19 Update York FAS
Following government advice we are clear that the safety of everyone is our priority. We are also clear that much of our work has been identified as essential by the government and they are keen for us to continue to do this, where it remains safe to do so.
We will therefore continue to work on our projects to build new flood defences for your protection. Following Public Health England’s advice, our contractors have been trained in safe ways of working and will not put anyone at risk. If the work cannot be done safely it will stop.
York FAS website update York FAS
Over the past few months, we have been reviewing our online webpages and have now updated them to improve their accessibility and readability. You will be able to read about what we are doing in each area of the city, and download the most recent newsletters and updates. Our website can be found at: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/yorkshire/yorkfas/
Putting people and wildlife first York FAS
At the Environment Agency, we put people and wildlife first to create a better place for them. This means building flood defences to protect lives, but also finding opportunities to improve local habitat whilst doing so. In York, we appreciate that constructing flood defences will cause some temporary damage to the environment, and are doing everything we can to keep it to an absolute minimum.
Before starting work on site, our contractors carry out surveys for rare species, including bats, great-crested newts, water voles and tansy beetle. Where we encounter them, we must put mitigation measures in place to protect these species before we start work on site.
Where trees need to be felled to make room for construction access or new flood defences, we are replanting them at a ratio of 5:1, according to our York FAS Tree Strategy. Where possible, we will remove trees and hedgerows outside of the bird nesting season, and enlist the help of an Ecologist to check for the presence of nests before doing so.
Where possible, we are using the flood defence works as an opportunity to improve habitats for wildlife. Examples include the storage area on the River Foss and the new channel for Tang Hall Beck at St Nick’s, which will provide new wetland environments.
Remember that even homes and businesses which are protected by flood defences are still at risk of flooding. Our free flood warning service provides up-to-date information about flood risk in York straight to your mobile. You can sign up to receive flood alerts and flood warnings at:
https://www.gov.uk/sign-up-for-flood-warnings
Item No 4.1Appendix 2b
Back to agenda
Item No: 5.1
Environment Agency Back to agenda
Yorkshire Area Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: Programming and Investment
Sub-Group Chair’s Report
Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/300
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE:
a) The Committee is requested to formally ratify the recommendations (given below) of the paper YRFCC/296, arising from the Programming and Investment Sub-Group 26th March 2020, which members were ‘minded to approve’ at the informal meeting of the Committee held on 24th April 2020.
b) To note the considerations, and approve recommendations of the paper YRFCC/300 (in bold type), arising from the Programming and Investment Sub-Group meeting held on 25th June 2020. Papers discussed at the P&I Sub-Group referred to in this paper are provided in the separate Technical Appendix as A01 to A08.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS:
1. We had a strong financial and delivery performance in 2019/20 investing £123m to reduce the risk from flooding and coastal erosion to over 19,500 homes.
2. Our baseline financial position for 2020/21 shows a forecast investment of £131m across all funding schemes.
3. The investment of £131m in 2020/21 will deliver just over 22,700 properties better protected from flooding or coastal erosion.
4. The top 10 projects in terms of OM delivery in 2020/21 deliver over 22,200 of the remaining 22,719 to be delivered. We have high confidence of delivering 9 out of the 10 projects with 1 project, Filey, having a slightly lower confidence. An explanation of the confidence rating for Filey is provided in the paper.
5. The programme shows a strong economic return on the investment from schemes delivering outcome measures. The present value of benefit for schemes delivering in the current investment period is over £5 billion.
6. Our position for asset condition in high consequence systems as at 1st June 2020 was
94% and 90.0% against targets of 97.0% and 91.6% for EA and Third party maintained assets respectively.
7. We achieved our efficiency target for 2019/20 with £9.7m of efficiencies accepted. This remains a challenging target for the remainder of the programme
8. The budget provided an additional capital allocation of £36m for pipeline development, asset repair and recovery finding. We received and additional £10.24 of revenue funding for asset recovery following the winter flooding.
Item No: 5.1
9. The outputs from the programme refresh indicate a need for investment of £592m between 2021/22 and 2026/27, but significant contributions of the order of £193m will also be required based on the previous funding formula.
10. The Levy outturn in 2019/20 was just over £3.4 million, leaving just under £2.4 million to be carried into 2020/21.
11. A total of just under £5 million of Levy funding is available for investment in 2020/21 and the baseline programme utilises just under £4.1 million of this, leaving just over £900,000 unallocated.
12. £3,000 of Levy from the previously approved programme has been released for reallocation as it is no longer required.
13. As at the end of May 2020, just under £200,000 of Levy has been spent, with an indicative full year forecast of just under £2.9 million.
14. We have received new Levy requests totalling just under £200,000. These are outlined in section 6 with details in Technical Appendices A08.
15. We received reports from the Sub-Regional Partnership Meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) P&I paper YRFCC/296 recommendations (arising from the March 2020 informal meeting) requiring formal ratification:
1. Approve the reallocation of £2,500 Levy for the Dearne Valley initial assessment;
2. Approve the re-profiling of allocations between 2019/20 and 2020/21;
3. Approve the 2019/20 Local Levy programme (Local Levy for Approval).
4. Approve the future year’s indicative Local Levy profile for projects in the current programme as detailed in Technical Appendix A06.
5. Support in principle an allocation of Levy to the Earby FAS (Phase 2) to be presented to the July 2020 meeting, subject to Lancashire County Council providing a more proportionate contribution.
6. Approve allocations of Local Levy for 2020/21:
a. Allocate £200,000 to the Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall capital maintenance scheme on the understanding that £64,000 of this is underwriting Scarborough Borough Council until such time as they are able to approve an additional contribution.
b. Allocate £35,000 to the Wilder Waterways in the Lower Don (WiLD) project c. Allocate £60,000 to Reid Park Beck, Horbury, Wakefield d. Allocate £18,000 to the SME Indirect Costs and Flood Risk project
Item No: 5.1
b) P&I paper YRFCC/300 recommendations (June meeting) requiring approval:
1. Note the release of £3,000 allocation back into the Levy programme for reallocation;
2. Approve the 2020/21 baselined Local Levy programme as detailed in Technical Appendix A06 to the Committee; and
3. Approve allocations of Local Levy:
a) Allocate £116,400 Local Levy over three years to the Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer.
b) Allocate £81,000 Local Levy over three years to Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (CoP).
Item No: 5.1
1. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
1.1 The Chair welcomed all who were able to dial-in, since this was a ‘virtual’ meeting, and introductions were made.
1.2 The YRFCC’s Programming and Investment Sub-Group met on 25th June 2020 to consider a number of issues as listed in the summary above.
1.3 The following were present at the meeting:
YRFCC: Colin Mellors
LLFAs Elected Members: Councillors: Jane Scullion (Calderdale Council), Chris McGuiness (Doncaster Council), Chris Matthews (East Riding of Yorkshire Council), and David Jeffels (North Yorkshire County Council).
EA Independent Members: Roger Falconer, Jeremy Walker.
LLFA Officers: Neil Fearnley, Steve Wragg, Kyle Heydon, Astrid Paget, Rachel Glossop and Paul Maddison.
EA Officers Present: Amer Bhatti, Hannah Copping, Sarah Ducker, Adrian Gill, Neil Longden, Bill Rodham, and Luke Waddington.
1.4 Apologies for absence were received from:
LLFA Elected Members: Councillors Paula Widdowson (City of York Council), and Mike Thompson (Hull City Council)
EA Independent Members and Officers: N/A
LLFA Officers: Wayne Atkins
EA Officers: Helen Batt and Martin Slater.
2. Formal Ratification of recommendations of April YRFCC Meeting
2.1 The Committee is reminded at the 24th April 2020 meeting of the Committee, that due to
the implications of virtual attendance on meeting formality, members were ‘minded to approve’ the recommendations of paper YRFCC/296, arising from the Programming and Investment Sub-Group held on the 26th March 2020.
2.2 The Committee is requested to formally ratify these recommendations at this meeting,
following the necessary amendments to RFCC legislation that have been made to allow for remote decision making. The recommendations are detailed in the executive summary of this paper, under section a) numbered 1-6, and member’s discussions points can be found in the minutes of the meeting, under item 2.2.
3. NATIONAL AND YORKSHIRE AREA EA UPDATE
3.1 Adrian Gill and Neil Longden presented the following National and Yorkshire Area EA Update:
3.2 FCRM National Strategy
Item No: 5.1
3.2.1 Ministers have indicated that they envisaged the forthcoming Defra Flood Policy Statement and FCERM Strategy to be published at the same time. The Policy Statement is now expected to have cross-department support. Given the demands on Ministerial time due to Covid-19, this could understandably take a little more time than usual.
3.2.2 Accordingly, the clearance process for both the Policy Statement and the Strategy will be delayed by about a month. Defra hope to have the Strategy laid in Parliament and active as soon as possible.
3.3 Investing now for the Future of FCERM
3.3.1 On 17 April Defra and the Environment Agency published new guidance on Partnership Funding for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management. The changes are part of a suite of initiatives to help deliver the ambitions of the 25 Year Environment Plan and the new FCERM strategy. The reflected changes have been flagged at RFCC meetings.
3.3.2 Partnership Funding rule changes include:
o Updating payment rates to reflect inflation and new evidence on flood damages since 2011 (including people impacts such as mental health);
o Amending the flood risk bands for qualifying schemes to add a new intermediate risk band between high and medium risk. This will mean more schemes that reduce surface water flood risk are likely to receive government funding in the future;
o Accounting for the future impacts of climate change by also including people and properties that would potentially become at risk over the lifetime of a project;
o Improving the payment rates for environmental benefits to capture more fully the wider environmental benefits delivered by flood and coastal erosion risk management projects and to help support nature-based solutions.
3.3.3 The rollout has been supported by 25 webinars scheduled throughout May and June.
Feedback has been positive and questions from the sessions have been logged and included in an FAQ document which can be found on the Investment & Partnership Funding SharePoint site, available to all Risk Management Authority staff.
3.3.4 FCERM appraisal guidance has been modernised by adding a non-technical summary. These and subsequent improvements do not change the way appraisal should be conducted but describe the steps involved, the importance of stakeholder engagement and the basis for option choice.
3.4 Managing Capital Delivery 20/21
3.4.1 LLFA leads have received an explanatory paper on the support available to tackle key issues including Covid-19 cost/delay impacts.
3.4.2 As a result of Covid-19 there has been a controlled deviation from the existing Appraisal Guidance and Partnership Funding rules where required. The following key amendments now apply:
o FCRM Grant in Aid will be used to pay for cost increases due to Covid-19 for EA and RMA schemes, including the Partnership Funding element, in most cases.
o FCRM Grant in Aid can be used to fund all projects up to Full Business Case, regardless of Partnership Funding score.
o We should continue to enter into contracts, knowing that costs will be higher than planned as a result of coronavirus.
Item No: 5.1
3.4.3 Project costs increases as a direct result of coronavirus
Many projects will experience cost increases through applying the government guidelines for safe working during the Covid-19 outbreak. Some mitigation will be achieved through innovation; however, we have also set out some principles to ensure clarity and consistency in the investment of GiA. In support of these principles, Environment Agency Executive Directors have agreed:
o Grant in Aid (GiA) can be used to cover Covid-19 cost increases in most cases; o The economic viability and partnership funding calculations for a project can exclude
coronavirus-specific costs; o Delivery Teams will have the option to raise Business Case Update Reports (BCURs)
or a FCERM4 form for projects to take account of coronavirus-specific costs; o In some cases, coronavirus related cost increases will reduce Partnership Funding
Scores below 100% at various stages of project development, for this there is a protocol.
3.5 FRMP Overview
The Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) are reviewing and updating the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) published in 2016. The next FRMPs (FRMP2) are due to be published in December 2021.
FRMP2 is a partnership with LLFAs.
The impact of multiple flood incidents over the winter, the resulting recovery work, and coronavirus has impacted the programme of work for us and our partners.
We are now having to change the timescales around FRMP delivery as these impacts
are set to continue throughout summer 2020.
We are working closely with Defra and others to ensure that internal and external stakeholders are kept informed of developments and the implications for them of changes to the FRMP2 timetable as these become clearer.
We are adjusting the FRMP2 timetable to allow local authorities to prioritise their
response to coronavirus and ongoing flood recovery work where necessary.
We are setting a new FRMP2 measures development phase deadline of 15th January 2021 for LLFAs and our teams.
This new timetable will enable us to develop effective objectives and measures in
partnership with LLFAs, while allowing Local Authorities to prioritise their response to coronavirus.
It will improve the sequencing of communications to partners on the National Flood
and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy, the delivery of which FRMPs will support.
We are now planning to consult on FRMP2 in summer 2021. Once we have agreement
and support of partners we will announce the date of the consultation on draft plans.
Item No: 5.1
We are currently working with Defra, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) and the Local Government Association (LGA) on the implications of future timetable changes.
3.6 The Environmental Land Management Scheme
3.6.1 The Environmental Land Management (ELM) Scheme, being developed within Defra’s
Future Farming and Countryside Programme, will replace a number of existing Rural Development Programme schemes (including Basic Farm Payments and Agri Environment Schemes). Defra is planning to transition away from the current schemes to payments to farmers through the new ELM scheme in return for the provision of environmental public goods.
3.6.2 The new scheme will pay public money to support the provision of environmental public goods identified within the Government’s 25 Year Environment plan, including work to mitigate and reduce the impact of natural hazards such as flooding and coastal change. These benefits will sit alongside the wider range of ‘environmental goods and benefits e.g. thriving plants and wildlife, climate change mitigation/adaptation, clean and plentiful water etc.
3.6.3 The draft FCRM Strategy included a specific commitment that the EA would work with all parties to ensure that farmers and landowners are able to manage land in ways that help to reduce flood risk and our work to help Defra develop the ELM scheme is a core part of that commitment.
3.6.4 National Pilot
The ELM National Pilot will be the vehicle to understand real world situations with a wide range of land managers. It will begin in late 2021 and run for three years until late 2024. ALBs were selected to partner Defra on the National Pilot to deliver transactional (customer) services, subject matter/ technical expertise and advisor functions. We do not yet know the structure or location of the National Pilot, but we expect action to reduce impact of and enhanced resilience to flooding will part of the piloting.
EA teams have been specifically asked to assist with the provision of technical subject
matter expertise, advice and guidance in the development and delivery of the ELM Pilot. Flood risk teams are helping shape the future scheme with the following objectives:
o Managing and reducing flood and coastal change impacts are recognised as a public
good and can be supported by future ELMS payments; ELMS becomes a tool which can be used to support the delivery of the FCERM investment programme;
o The new approach is flexible and supports a wide range of land management and land use change interventions that can reduce risk, increase resilience and provide other benefits, including support for managing land within major FCERM schemes such coastal realignment projects. ELM retains and improves certain measures available within Countryside Stewardship for wider use, including Making Space for Water, woodland creation and Natural Flood Management options;
o To ensure that any farmers and landowners already participating in RFCC supported
schemes to reduce risk using NFM and managing land as part of FCERM schemes are able to participate in and benefit from any transition arrangements, including those participating in future Place Based Resilience Pilots;
Item No: 5.1
o ELM provides certainty to ensure longer-term management and maintenance funding
for permanent measures of those that take longer to achieve benefits.
3.6.5 There is significant opportunity to shape this scheme and the outcomes that may be achieved for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management specifically, but also to ensure that multiple benefits are achieved for carbon, nature recovery and water quality.
3.6.6 We know that many different land management and land use change actions can contribute to reducing risk, and we are basing our advice on four key areas: 1) Supporting future land management that accommodates and facilitates large scale
flood storage, coastal realignment or floodplain restoration areas – blending FGiA and ELM will be a key requirement;
2) Small scale capital works on farms, including construction of leaky woody structures, earth bunds and dry ponds. – ELM could potentially provide both capital and on-going management payments which current schemes find challenging;
3) Changes to farm management to reduce run-off, including soil management, changing livestock and crop management – these works will have multiple benefits and could be part of Tier 1;
4) Supporting landscape scale land use change such as woodland creation, and peatland restoration – Tier 3 will support these long term changes that could reduce peak flows over time helping us to adapt to climate change.
3.7 Flood Resilient Schools
3.7.1 In 2019/20 we secured £2.5m of Partnership Funding from the Department for Education
(DfE) towards schemes that better protect schools from flooding. After this success, DfE proposed to invest £5m more in 2020/21. The EA has seconded a member of the National FCRM Stakeholder Engagement Team into the DfE for a year to support their flood resilience work. Locally we have benefitted from some of this funding as Partnership Funding, and we have also engaged in joining up support to DfE.
3.7.2 Through the secondment, we will be supporting the DfE to:
o Assess flood risk across the school estate (over 22,000 schools in England); o Establish contracts to survey, recommend and mitigate flood risk using property level
protection and resilience measures; o Increase awareness of the impacts of flooding on physical and mental health on
children; o Ensure all schools at flood risk are signed up to flood warnings and have appropriate
flood plans in place; o Strengthen links to the Environment Agency capital programme including opportunities
to support natural flood management schemes; o Promote sustainable urban drainage systems at schools highlighting the multiple
benefits they can provide over and above reducing flood risk; o Work with the new build schools team to enhance green credentials and make schools
climate resilient; o Link directly into the EA skills teams providing supporting information to the curriculum
3.8 Local Schemes
Construction has continued on many EA and LLFA led schemes during Covid19.
Encouraging to see progress at Filey with construction starting imminently.
Item No: 5.1
Progress made in York with schemes returning after the wet weather, and planning
approvals granted, with more in the pipeline.
Confirmation of the remaining partnership funding finalised on Humber: Hull Frontage from Highways England.
Government is keen to encourage schemes that will assist post-pandemic economic
recovery, including identifying schemes that could deliver more quickly than anticipated if early additional funding was made available. A request from HM Treasury had been received requiring a very tight turnaround time. Some ideas were put forward building on the agreed future project priorities. We await the outcome of this work.
3.9 The meeting’s discussions points are noted below:
3.9.1 Members expressed the need to look further into the refurbishment of pumping stations
- and damages caused during the November and February floods - that remained in need of repair. Members agreed that maintenance and repair works could be as important for protecting homes as new capital schemes. Members asked about the proposed Flood Summit in Yorkshire, and whether a new date had been agreed. It was indicated that the Summit was still expected to take place as an actual rather than virtual meeting, when safe to do so, although, no official date had been given.
3.9.2 Adrian Gill informed members of the challenges facing the Recovery works during the Covid-19 lockdown, as public meetings and drop-ins had to be cancelled and engaging with communities was challenging under such circumstances, but further work was ongoing to improve this.
3.9.3 Members discussed a potential new proposed beaver release trail in South Yorkshire, near Doncaster. Cllr David Jeffels updated members on the beaver trial project North of Pickering, at Cropton Beck which had been quite successful. However, it could not be guaranteed that resultant woody debris dams would be built in the desired locations. Bill Rodham informed members that the Environment Sub-Group had had a presentation in December 2019 on the beaver release trial at Cropton Beck, and the presentation showed a good insight to their behaviours, movements and their impacts to a watercourse. It was also mentioned that, from the trial, it might be possible to encourage the building of dams in appropriate locations.
Back to agenda
Item No: 5.1
4. PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
4.1 Bill Rodham presented a paper on the performance of the Yorkshire Flood and Coastal Risk Management programme for 2020/21 and beyond. The paper is reproduced below and the accompanying appendices presented to the P&I Sub-Group are provided as Technical Appendices A01 to A04.
4.2 Financial Outturn 2019/20
4.2.1 Since the last meeting of the Programme & Investment Subgroup in March, we have the final financial outturn position for 2019/20 (subject to audit). There was once again a strong financial and delivery performance. Figure 1 (adjacent) indicates that we invested £123m in in flood risk reduction, the largest ever capital investment in the Committee’s Area. As a result of this investment we have reduced risk to more than 19,561 homes from flooding or coastal erosion and created or improved 41Ha of habitat.
4.3 Baseline and Forecast Position for 2020/21
4.3.1 In May, we establish our baseline position for the new financial year. This provides an opportunity to take account of the outturn position for the previous year and make an objective assessment of funding needs for the year ahead. The pie chart at figure 2 shows the distribution of funding for our baseline position across all funding streams based on the May data and show an overall investment forecast of £131.4m This currently excludes the additional funding we received for recovery and acceleration of pipeline development schemes. We are finalising our forecasts for this work and will report against these in subsequent partnership & Programme and investment sub-group meetings
4.3.2 Figure 3 below shows the baseline position across all funding streams as a line graph. The May forecast data will form the baseline for the financial year and is set at £131.4m against an affordable programme of £144.5m across all funding sources. The forecast is below the consented programme for two main reasons. Firstly we brought forward expenditure of approximately £6m that was in the consented programme for 2020/21 into 2019/20 to strengthen the national programme position and ensure GiA was fully utilised. Secondly, the May forecast reflects the potential impact of the Covid-19 slow down. Whilst good progress is being maintained on the majority of sites we estimate that we are only operating at 80%-90% of fully effective. Our planning assumption was based
Item No: 5.1
on a return to full capacity from July, this may yet prove to be optimistic and we may see further reductions in forecast expenditure as we move through the year.
Fig. 3 Expenditure Forecast for all Funding Sources based on May data
4.3.3 Figure 4 below sets out the position for FCRM Grant in Aid where the May forecast data and baseline is £101.9m compared to an affordable budget of £107.5m. The programme is carrying approximately £20m as risk contingency, so if these risks were to materialise then the expenditure would increase. We are therefore not actively seeking to strengthen the programme as we believe this would deflect attention from delivery of the current schemes on the programme. However should any straightforward opportunities arise we will look to incorporate those into the programme.
Fig. 4 Expenditure Baseline for FCRM GiA based on May data
Item No: 5.1
4.3.4 It can be seen from both figures 3 and 4 that the expenditure profile up to the end of the financial year is relatively linear without the significant expenditure spike in the final month of the year often seen in previous years.
4.3.5 Our forecast for delivery of Outcome Measures 2 and 3 in 2020/21 is 22,684 and 35 respectively. This will bring out forecast OM2 and 3 delivery to 66,584. This is just below the Area’s delivery commitment of 67,000 and we are working with National colleagues to understand what this means in the national context. We do have some options to review delivery outcomes on some schemes which could enable us to achieve the 67,000 target. Figure 5 below shows our delivery performance to date for OM 2 and 3
4.4 Top 10 Schemes in 2019/20
4.4.1 A full summary of the 2019/20 programme is provided as Technical Appendix A03.
4.4.2 The following tables pull out the top 10 schemes against key criteria. Table 1 below shows the top 10 schemes by expenditure 2020/21.
Table 1:Top 10 Schemes by Expenditure 2020/21 (£k)
Project Name Year-end forecast (£k)
Remaining spend (£k)
Leeds FAS Phase 2 21,326 18,439
Humber: Hull frontage 11,103 9,018
Hull River Defences - Phase 1 10,932 9,464
Holderness Drain FAS 7,505 6,982
Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme 6,567 3,514
Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defences (HeFTD) 6,002 6,002
Foss Barrier Recovery Scheme 4,839 4,692
Sheffield Upper Don Flood Alleviation Scheme 4,005 4,005
Bentley PS Replacement 3,995 3,672
Temple Hirst to Hirst Courtney Bank Replacement 3,430 2,858
Hebden Bridge FAS 3,426 3,122
Top 10 Total 83,130 71,767 Other Schemes outside of the top 10 48,276 44,837
Grand Total 131,406 116,605
Item No: 5.1
All of the above schemes are on track to achieve the above spend in this financial year.
4.4.3 Table 2 below shows the top 10 schemes by Outcome Measure 2 or 3 delivery in 2019/20. OM 2 and 3 refer to properties at reduced risk of flooding or coastal erosion respectively.
Table 2: Top Schemes by OM2 + OM3
Project Name OM2 + OM3 Forecst
Humber: Hull frontage 11,344 Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defences (HeFTD) 4,464 Bentley PS Replacement 1,669 Hull River Defences - Phase 1 1,603 Foss Barrier Recovery Scheme 1,184 Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme 1,042 Filey Flood Alleviation Works 494 Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme 186 Sheffield Watercourses Culvert Renewal Programme 150 Kirklees Culvert Programme 135 Top 10 Total 22,271
Other Schemes outside of the top 10 448
Grand Total 22,719
4.4.4 Table 3 shows the top 10 schemes by contribution required in 2019/20. Overall this shows a strong position for the year with all the projects showing that the contributions are secure.
Project Name
Contributions (Pub + Priv)
F'cstHessle Foreshore Tidal Defences (HeFTD) 4,211Holderness Drain FAS 3,442Rotherham To Kilnhurst Flood Alleviation Scheme (Phase 2) 2,462Sheffield Upper Don Flood Alleviation Scheme 2,262Humber: Hull frontage 1,727Hebden Bridge FAS 1,435Wyke Beck Improvements, Leeds 1,356Leeds FAS Phase 2 NFM Programme (EA delivery) 1,209Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme 1,207Malton and Norton Flood Alleviation Scheme, North Yorkshire 1,058Top 10 Total 20,368
Other Schemes outside of the top 10 6,216Grand Total 26,584
Table 3:Top 10 by Contribution
Item No: 5.1
4.5 Risks to Programme 2020/21
4.5.1 In the final year of the investment programme, as might be expected there is increasing confidence in delivering our target of 67,000 OM2 & 3 although there are continuing risks relating to the challenges of construction in a demanding environment. As reported in paragraph 2.5, our current forecast is 66,584. However we have some options to increase this marginally to achieve the 67,000 target should this be necessary in the national context. Table 4 shows the top 10 schemes by outcome measure 2 and 3 for the final year of the investment programme, alongside the contributions supporting the delivery of the schemes.
4.5.2 The delivery confidence rating is shown on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 is low confidence;
2 is Medium to Low Confidence; 3 is Medium to High confidence and 4 is High confidence.
4.5.3 Confidence in delivery by March 2021 remains predominantly high with only one scheme in the top 10 with a delivery confidence below 4, namely Filey FAS
4.5.4 Filey: The contract has now been let with a construction start in June, with completion by December 2020. We are maintaining a confidence level of 3, recognising there is minimal float in the programme. The sequencing of work is being planned to ensure that work is completed in such a way as to maximise up front delivery of OMs.
4.6 Economic Benefit of the Investment Programme
4.6.1. Whilst, currently the main driver for the programme is to better protect 300,000 residential properties (nationally), there are significant residual economic benefits from the programme. Table 5 below shows the residual economic benefit of the programme by sub-regional partnership area.
Table 4 Top 10 projects by OM2+3 in 2020/21
Project OM2 + OM3 20/21Total Spend 20/21GiA 20/21Booster 20/21 total
Local Levy 20/21
Public Contributions 20/21
Provate Contribuiton 20/2
Other EA 20/21
Further Contr required 20/21 Conf. Rating
Humber: Hull frontage 11,344 12,395 10,467 0 0 1,928 0 0 0 4Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defences (HeFTD) 4,464 6,002 1,791 0 0 4,211 0 0 0 4Bentley PS Replacement 1,669 213 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Hull River Defences - Phase 1 1,603 8,483 8,483 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Foss Barrier Recovery Scheme 1,184 833 833 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme1,042 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Filey Flood Alleviation Works 494 1,814 1,789 0 25 0 0 0 0 3Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme 186 7,684 959 5,313 0 1,412 0 0 0 4Sheffield Watercourses Culvert Renewal Programme 150 1,667 731 0 0 937 0 0 0 4Kirklees Culvert Programme 135 245 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Grand Total 22,271 40,836 27,011 5,313 25 8,488 0 0 0 39
Other Schemes outside of the top 10 632 90,570 18,144 51,418 2,875 16,850 1,245 38 0Grand Total 22,903 131,406 45,155 56,730 2,900 25,338 1,245 38 0
Item No: 5.1
4.6.2. Whilst this is a high-level assessment and the data will be variable depending on the
stage each project is at, it does provide a good indicator of economic benefits. The benefit is based on the present value of flood damage avoided.
4.6.3. Table 6 shows the economic benefit of those schemes where there is a contribution from Local Levy.
Table 6: Economic Benefit of YRFCC with a LL Element projects which deliver their outcomes between 2015/16 - 2020/21
Partnership Local Levy Investment
Total PV Benefit £(m)
OM2 +OM3 Benefit of OM2/3 £(m)
Non Residential Benefits £(m)
East Yorkshire 2.1 166 2163 24 142 North Yorkshire 2.9 177 1134 13 165 South Yorkshire 1.0 129 740 8 121 West Yorkshire 2.2 285 650 7 278 Total 8.1 758 4687 52 706
4.7 Asset Condition 4.7.1 Our targets for asset condition are yet to be agreed for 2020/21 but, based on our
2019/20 targets, the target for EA assets in high consequence systems would be 97.0%, and for third party assets the target would be 91.6%.
Figure 6 is based on the data as at the 1st June 2020 and shows that the percentage of assets at target condition for EA assets is 94% and 89.9% for other RMA assets. We are forecasting to achieve the target for 3rd party assets largely as a result of the Hull River Defences work where a number of the assets are unknown 3rd party assets. Our current forecast for EA assets is that we will be under the target. We continue to target repairs to assets which have the highest consequence and are most urgent, rather than artificially target the number of assets.
Table 5: Economic Benefit of YRFCC projects which deliver their outcomes between 2015/16 - 2020/21
Partnership Total PV Benefit £(m)
OM2 +OM3 Benefit of OM2/3 £(m)
Non Residential Benefits £(m)
East Yorkshire 3,613 57,124 635 2,979 North Yorkshire 771 3,607 40 731 South Yorkshire 656 6,561 73 583 West Yorkshire 285 1,922 21 264 Total 5,326 69,214 769 4,557
Item No: 5.1
4.8 Efficiency 4.8.1 One of the key conditions of the 6-year programme settlement is that all Risk
Management Authorities contribute to achieving a 10% efficiency target. Table 7 below shows the indicative targets for efficiency assuming 10% of the GiA allocation (including “booster” funding), gives us a target for 2020/21 of 10.7m, distributed as £8.5m for EA delivered projects and £2.2m for other RMAs. In Q4 we had £1.7m of EA reported efficiencies accepted and £1.8m from other RMAs, £1.2m of which was from Scarborough BC. We also had £9.4m of reported efficiencies withheld pending further information being supplied, this will be the focus of our efforts in the early part of the new financial year. The indicative target for the new financial year will undoubtedly be challenging and we will need the support of our delivery partners to achieve it.
Table 7: Progress Against Capital Efficiency Target/£m
15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Total EA 5.1 2.6 2.6 7.2 7.0 8.5 33 Other RMAs 0 3.7 4.8 3.2 2.3 2.2 16.2 Area Total Target 5.1 6.3 7.4 10.4 9.3 10.7 49.2 EA 2.7 3.3 6.7 Other RMAs 4.4 5.0 3 Actual Total Actual 5.2 4.5 7.1 8.3 9.7 34.7
4.9 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 4.9.1 The core budget for 2020/21 is £144.5m across all funding streams of which £107.5m
(Including 2.1m on capital salaries) is GiA & Booster funding. Based on the current forecast we believe this is sufficient to deliver the current programme.
4.9.2 In addition to the core budget we have been allocated additional funding following the
March budget. The additional funding is as follows:
Capital Revenue Pipeline development £3.96m Recovery £22.98m £10.24m Asset Repair fund* £9.48m
*This is yet to be formally allocated & relates to specific asset repairs
4.10 FUTURE PROGRAMME 4.10.1 Looking ahead to the next 6-year period, there is very positive news arising from the
budget with where we have been allocated £5.2bn of capital funding from April 2021 to March 2027 to better protect 336,000 properties, with a key difference being that it includes both homes and non-residential properties. Non-residential properties includes shops, business premises, industrial sites, emergency services stations, schools, public services building, hospitals, utility sites, road and rail stations.
Item No: 5.1
4.10.2 Whilst this is generally positive news, capacity to deliver such a step change in investment will be a challenge.
4.10.3 Locally, at Area level, we still have further work to do to improve our confidence in the
future programme and look at how we can accelerate work in areas that have been affected by the winter floods. The additional funding for pipeline development indicated in 8.2 above will assist in this task.
4.10.4 The schemes identified in the 2019 refresh of the programme for the 6 years April 21 to
March 27 indicate that there is an investment need of £588m of which £320m is FCRM GiA and legacy booster funding (based on the current funding rules), £61m of potential contributions have been identified, including £4m of local levy and £193m of further contributions still required. £193m of investment has a partnership funding score of over 80%. Whilst it is anticipated that the proposed changes in funding rules will provide an uplift in the GiA available to schemes, there will remain significant challenges to identifying and drawing in additional funding contributions. Approximately 26,000 homes would be better protected through this investment.
Back to agenda
Item No: 5.1
5. USE OF LOCAL LEVY TO DEVELOP A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO NFM ACROSS THE YRFCC AREA
5.1 The NFM Task & Finish Group presented a paper on using Local Levy to develop a
strategic approach to Natural Flood Management (NFM) across the YRFCC area which will discussed in detailed as Agenda item 5.4 (YRFCC/303).
5.2 The following key discussion points were noted:
5.2.1 Members agreed that natural measures need, where appropriate, to be better integrated with engineered schemes, rather than viewed as distinct separate activities, thus creating additional FCERM capacity. The proposal would encourage this. Members were keen to develop understanding and research into NFM measures and the evidence of the additional capacity they can provide.
5.2.2 Members noted the Five Point Plan and were supportive of the proposal in principal and the paper’s aspirations including its recommendations. Future bids for precise elements should be considered in the context of this support.
Back to agenda
Item No: 5.1
6. LOCAL LEVY PROGRAMME
6.1 Sarah Ducker presented the Local Levy programme update (Technical Appendix A05). Financial performance of the Levy programme was noted (Table 1, Technical Appendix A05), with investment in 2019/20 on locally-important flood and coastal erosion risk management projects of just over £3.4 million, leaving a balance to carry forward into 2020/21 of just under £2.4 million.
6.2 This funding was being used on 34 projects which, over their lifetimes, have the potential
to contribute to the delivery of over 3,000 households (Outcome Measures 2 and 3) and reduce the risks to many more. We noted that levy funding for Filey Flood Alleviation Works previously allocated in 2020/21 had been advanced into 2019/20 in order to achieve end of year targets for both Local Levy and FCRM GiA. This and other changes to the programme are all detailed in Technical Appendix A06.
Baseline Programme
6.3 The Committee raised a Local Levy for 2020/21 of just under £2.6 million which, when supplemented by the £2.4 million carried from previous years, gives a total of just under £5 million available for investment.
6.4 The programme for 2020/21 has been baselined to adjust for work not completed or claimed for in 2019/20 and grant claims paid earlier than previously anticipated. There have been no requests to re-profile Levy from 2020/21 into future years. All requests are outlined in Section 3 of Technical Appendix A05 and are presented in Technical Appendix A06, with all changes to the programme shown in red font. These Technical Appendices and all subsequent tables in this paper have been enhanced to show the impact of indicative pipeline requests expected as a result of the last annual programme refresh. They also assume that the Levy allocations agreed to in principle at the April 2020 YRFCC meeting will be ratified at this (July 2020) meeting and allocations for those four projects appear in the programme (with project names shown in light green). We noted that the remaining £3,000 Levy allocation for Strategy and delivery in the Eastburn/Glusburn Beck catchment has been returned to the Local Levy programme for reallocation. The resulting value of the programme for 2020/21 is just over £4 million, leaving just over £900,000 of the available funding unallocated and available for investment as shown in Table 8. An overview of the baselined 2020/21 programme and its anticipated deliverables is shown in Technical Appendix A08
Table 8 – YRFCC Local Levy 2020/21 Financial Summary (£k)
2020/21 Levy Raised 2,593
Plus Balances carried forward from 2019/20 2,393
Total levy budget 2020/21 4,986
Baseline allocation to projects in 2020/21 4,057
Balance to carry at year-end 929
6.5 It is recommended that the YRFCC approve the 2020/21 baselined Local Levy programme as detailed in Technical Appendix A06 (Local Levy for Approval) to the Committee.
Item No: 5.1
6.6 We did not receive any requests to make changes to the indicative future Levy programme.
6.7 We noted that the current indicative full-year forecast is just under £2.9 million and were reminded that £64,000 of the ‘in principle’ allocation to Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall capital maintenance scheme (Scarborough Borough Council, line 62) in 2020/21 is on the understanding that this is underwriting Scarborough Borough Council until such time as they are able to approve an additional contribution, so as such £64,000 could be returned to the programme for reallocation.
New requests for Levy funding
6.8 Following the baselining of this year’s programme and taking into account the current knowledge we have of pipeline Levy needs, just over £900,000 worth of work could be added into the programme during this financial year without the programme becoming overcommitted in the future.
6.9 We were advised that the anticipated request for a Local Levy contribution towards the Earby FAS (Phase 2) is not now expected following the identification of other funding sources by Pendle DC and recalculation of Grant-in-Aid towards the project. Thanks were expressed to both Mark Wilkinson and David Oake of the Environment Agency for their work on this.
6.10 Requests have been received from two Risk Management Authorities to allocate Levy towards two projects with a total value of £197,400. The requests are summarised in Technical Appendix A08, to which the following line numbers refer. One of the requests is for Levy in support of a project already in the Committee’s Levy programme; the other request is for Levy in support of a project not previously supported by the Committee.
6.11 Before considering these requests, we were reminded that the current pipeline levy needs appearing in Technical Appendix A06 originate from only around one third of RMAs, with the majority of these (both by number and value) from a single RMA. The Sub-Group has already been made aware of the prospect of further requests for Levy (in the order of £3 million) for the next few years that that are not currently included in Technical Appendix A06, and we are therefore expecting that further needs will continue to arise. These needs include those identified through the recent Natural Flood Management task group discussion (see section 4 above and paper YRFCC/303); these have been included in Technical Appendix A06 following support from Members.
6.12 We noted that continued early notification of future requests for use of Levy funding is helpful to enable the most efficient management and utilisation of the Levy funds. At the same time, it was stressed that such notifications, whilst helpful for planning purposes should not be taken as an agreement to allocate funding and all ‘requests’ would need to follow the appropriate formal process.
6.13 Each of the Levy requests were then discussed in detail, some discussion points follow below:
Derbyshire County Council - Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer: Accelerating NFM Impact in the Upper Rother Catchment
Members noted the moderate confidence rating in relation to benefits sections seemed reasonable, although no benefit cost ratio was provided, and that the financial information in Technical Appendix A08 excluded the likely capital cost of any NFM interventions that will be delivered as a result of this Levy investment. Members agreed it would be important to have regular updates on progress and planned works from the
Item No: 5.1
officer and that such updates might be best considered by the Committee’s Environment Sub-Group at their quarterly meeting. Members were supportive of the request.
Leeds City Council – Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (CoP)
Members were reminded that this was one of the five strands of the NFM Task & Finish Group proposal on developing a strategic overview of NFM across Yorkshire. Members noted that the Community of Practice, previously funded by iCASP, is a platform for sharing knowledge and best practices by partners across the region. Members agreed that there is need to further develop evidence for NFM benefits and drawbacks, so that NFM can be considered and embedded in scheme appraisals and to encourage greater investment in NFM measures. Members agreed and noted that a positive outcome would be that it becomes routine to consider NFM measures alongside engineering measures, to combine both measures to provide the best protection. Members also urged Local Authorities to lobby Defra for national funding for this type of work so that Local Levy did not become the default funder. Members were supportive of the request.
Post meeting note: Following a request from members to clarify the amount of Levy being asked for, Leeds City Council have confirmed that the request is based on a projected cost for continuing the existing and established NFM CoP utilising the same delivery method and have amended the profile of the funding request to reflect the likely claim profile. LCC are keen to see the CoP continue into the future but would also like to have the flexibility to review delivery options with a view to realising efficiencies and therefore may not ultimately need to draw on the full extent of the Local Levy requested. Contributions in kind from Community of Practice members are expected to continue.
6.14 It is recommended that the YRFCC allocate £116,400 over three years to the Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer.
6.15 It is recommended that the YRFCC allocate £81,000 over three years to Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (CoP).
6.16 The current Local Levy programme with the recommended additions highlighted in dark green is presented in Technical Appendix A06. This is summarised in Table 9 to provide a forward look of future profiled programme spend in bold. If all recommended additions to the programme are approved, just over £900,000 would remain available for allocation to the end of 2020/21 without the programme being overcommitted.
Item No: 5.1
Table 9 - YRFCC Local Levy Programme 2020/21 to 2024/25 (£k)
with all new requests added 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Local Levy raised (assumed) 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593
Balances carried from previous year 2,393 715 2,580 3,674 4,862
Total Local Levy available in year 4,986 3,307 5,173 6,267 7,455
Total programmed spend (Current Programme) if all requests recommended
4,071 337 234 148 60
Total YRFCC Levy pipeline 200 390 1,265 1,257 507
Total programmed spend if all requests recommended and incl. Pipeline (not yet approved)
4,271 727 1,499 1,404 567
Balance to carry at year-end 715 2,580 3,674 4,862 6,888
6.17 It is recommended that the YRFCC approve the indicative allocations for future years, noting that the fulfilment of these is subject to the amount of Levy raised annually.
7. YRFCC STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE: The meeting noted the following agenda items:
7.1 Sub-regional Flood Risk Partnerships Update:
7.1.1 The NFM Task & Finish Group presented a paper on a proposal for Local Levy to
develop a strategic plan targeted at the development of NFM across Yorkshire. Overall, the Flood Risk Partnerships were supportive of the proposal ‘in principle’ to earmark a sum of up to £600,000 Levy to develop the strategic approach through the five strands presented in the paper. Members were keen to see NFM embedded more into scheme appraisals so that it would be considered always as an option to go along side hard engineering measures. Members expressed their thoughts that further research is needed into NFM measures and the additional capacity they provide to build support for NFM to be mainstreamed. Members noted that one of the five strands had been progressed early due to financial time constraint, this strand was attached as an appendix to the paper as a proforma for requesting £81k Levy over three years to continue and prolong the Community of Practice platform as way to share knowledge and good practice across Yorkshire. At the time of drafting the request, a lead RMA had not been found as different options were being explored. Members from all partnerships were supportive of both the paper and Local Levy request for the Community of Practice and endorsed both to progress to the P&I Sub-Group meeting.
7.1.2 North Yorkshire: Members noted Bill Rodham’s detailed Investment Programme, In-
Year Performance and Future Programme presentation. Members discussed the schemes with confidence ratings of 3 or below, to explain the reasons behind the rating. Members discussed the potential impacts of Covid-19 on productivity and funding
Item No: 5.1
arrangements. Members noted John Burbidge’s update on Asset Condition and Performance. Members considered a request for £45k for the Town Dyke Diversion FAS (Selby Area IDB), and although members urged that the project team look into the possibility of GiA instead of using Levy funding, the request was endorsed to proceed to P&I if GiA was unavailable on the condition that this option was explored. Updates from individual RMAs were provided ahead of the meeting or given verbally.
7.1.3 East Yorkshire: Members noted Bill Rodham’s detailed Investment Programme, In-
Year Performance and Future Programme presentation. Members discussed the schemes with confidence ratings of 3 or below, to give reasoning behind the rating. Members discussed the potential impacts of Covid-19 on productivity and funding arrangements. Members noted Chrissy Miller’s update on Asset Condition and Performance. Updates from individual RMAs were provided ahead of the meeting or given verbally. Helen Todd delivered an informative presentation on the Humber 2100+ (Humber Strategy Update) and members were pleased to note that the project was progressing well across all work streams, despite some delays caused by Covid-19.
7.1.4 West Yorkshire: Members noted Bill Rodham’s detailed Investment Programme, In-
Year Performance and Future Programme presentation. Members discussed the schemes with confidence ratings of 3 or below, to give reasoning behind the rating. Members noted Arshad Hussain’s update on Asset Condition and Performance, which covered updates on the recovery programme. Updates from individual RMAs and the LEP Strategic update were provided ahead of the meeting or given verbally.
7.1.5 South Yorkshire: Members noted Bill Rodham’s detailed Investment Programme, In-
Year Performance and Future Programme presentation. Members discussed the schemes with confidence ratings of 3 or below, to give reasoning behind the rating. Members noted Adam Bayliss’s update on Asset Condition and Performance. Members discussed and reviewed another Levy requests from the Community of Practice request: Upper Rother NFM Officer (Derbyshire County Council) for £116k over three years, members noted that this was a returning request and noted the positive work and progress from the previous request. The request was supported by the members to progress to the P&I Sub-Group for their consideration. Members discussed respective Section 19 reports following the November 2019 flooding in detail and a more collective approach was to follow after this meeting to align them. Updates from individual RMAs were provided ahead of the meeting or given verbally.
8. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
a) It is recommended that the YRFCC formally ratify the recommendations of the paper
YRFCC/296 which were approved by members ‘in principle’ at the informal meeting of the Committee held on 24th April 2020, : 1. Approve the reallocation of £2,500 Levy for the Dearne Valley initial assessment;
2. Approve the re-profiling of allocations between 2019/20 and 2020/21;
3. Approve the 2019/20 Local Levy programme (Local Levy for Approval).
4. Approve the future year’s indicative Local Levy profile for projects in the current
programme.
5. Support an allocation of Levy to the Earby FAS (Phase 2) at its July 2020 meeting in principle, subject to Lancashire County Council providing a more proportionate contribution.
Item No: 5.1
6. Approve allocations of Local Levy for 2020/21:
a. Allocate £200,000 to the Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall capital maintenance scheme, on the understanding that £64,000 of this is underwriting Scarborough Borough Council until such time as they are able to approve an additional contribution.
b. Allocate £35,000 to the Wilder Waterways in the Lower Don (WiLD) project. c. Allocate £60,000 to Reid Park Beck, Horbury, Wakefield. d. Allocate £18,000 to the SME Indirect Costs and Flood Risk project.
b) It is recommended that the YRFCC:
1. Note the release of £3,000 allocation back into the Levy programme for reallocation;
2. Approve the 2020/21 baselined Local Levy programme as detailed in Technical
Appendix A06 to the Committee; and
3. Approve allocations of Local Levy:
c) It is recommended that the YRFCC allocate £116,400 over three years to the Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer.
d) It is recommended that the YRFCC allocate £81,000 over three years to Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (CoP).
Professor Colin Mellors Chair of P&I Sub-Group
Back to agenda
Item No: 5.2
Environment Agency Back to agenda
Yorkshire Area Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: Update on additional GiA
funding for 2020/21 & next 6 year programme – principles, prioritisation & metrics
Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/301
Appendix 1: Funding allocations for 2020/21 Appendix 2: Process for allocating capital and revenue funding during 2020/21 Appendix 3: Draft allocation principles Appendix 4: Draft initial output and outcome metrics for the next 6 year programme Paper by: Director of FCRM Allocation and Asset Management
Headline messages:
The final adjusted allocations are confirmed for each RFCC for this financial year.
RFCC advice is requested regarding the future allocation principles, methods of prioritising funding and the programme metrics.
The timeline for the annual refresh process needs to change this year due to coronavirus. The revised timescales are shared for review and agreement.
Recommendations: The RFCC Committees are asked to: 1. Note the allocation of the additional funding as a result of the March Budget, and the
reduction in asset maintenance funding (sections 2,3 and 10, appendix 1)
2. Support the revised/additional meetings required to review the future programme submissions (section 5, appendix 2)
3. Advise on the latest draft allocation principles (section 6, appendix 3)
4. Advise on the prioritisation of allocation for the next 6 year programme (section 7) 5. Advise on the draft metrics for the future programme (section 8, appendix 4)
Item No: 5.2
1.0 Background 1.1 In our April paper, we confirmed the March Budget settlement announcement, set out
the early indicative allocations for this additional funding, set out the delivery targets for 2020/21 (accepting that coronavirus may affect these), and noted that the annual refresh process for the capital and revenue programmes will need to be later in the year this year.
1.2 In this paper, we confirm the final allocations of the additional funding the Environment
Agency received for 2020/21 as a result of the Budget, and formally advise the RFCCs of a reduction in revenue maintenance funding. We also explain the plans for the next 6 year programme, including the allocation principles, prioritisation approach, metrics, and timescales for the refresh process. We would welcome the RFCC Committee’s advice on these.
2.0 Allocation of additional funding 2.1 In the March budget, we secured a total of £283m of additional/accelerated funding for
2020/21, this consists of:
£100m pipeline development fund to give the next 6 year programme a ‘warm’ start (capital).
£40m asset replacement fund for work on Environment Agency assets where we have historically struggled to secure partnership funding (capital).
£120m recovery funding to repair assets damaged in the autumn and winter floods (capital and revenue).
£23m to fund people to support the larger capital programme (revenue). As this funding was only allocated for 2020/21 we are looking to supply partners to fill most of the new roles on a temporary basis.
2.2 Following discussion with Area colleagues, the allocations of this additional funding by
RFCC are provided in appendix 1. 3.0 Revenue maintenance reductions 3.1 Alongside the considerable additional investment this year we do need to make an in-
year reduction of £7.6m to our revenue maintenance programme. The details of these reductions for each RFCC are set out in appendix 1, and are prioritised to reflect the lowest risk maintenance activities in each Area.
3.2 The reduction comprises, £7m due to budget pressures across the wider Defra group
and £0.6m due to other Environment Agency revenue pressures. 4.0 Next 6 year capital programme 4.1 In the Budget on 11 March the government allocated £5.2bn capital funding for the
next 6 year programme, from April 2021 to March 2027, to better protect 336,000 properties. Advice is sought from the RFCC Committees on the following for the new programme:
Programme refresh timeline for this year Draft allocation principles Prioritisation of funding Metrics
Item No: 5.2
4.2 We anticipate HM Treasury will provide a number of settlement conditions, including
the 6 year target to better protect 336,000 properties. 5.0 Capital programme refresh timeline 5.1 Due to the impact of coronavirus we need to adjust our usual timeline for the allocation
process, primarily to give EA teams, other RMAs and RFCCs more time to make submissions for national prioritisation. This allocation process will be the first for the new £5.2 billion 6 year programme using the updated partnership funding rules. Our proposal is that we extend the deadline for local submissions by 2 months to the end of September.
5.2 A key element of the allocation process is the role RFCCs play in endorsing the
submission for national prioritisation, making ‘local choices’ and providing ‘consent’ to the programmes. Our proposed timeline would require RFCCs to endorse their submission to national between 16th – 25th September and undertake ‘local choices’ between 14th – 18th December. Both these dates are outside of the routine RFCC meeting dates. Our intention is to move the October meetings forward to September, and hold an additional meeting in December to undertake local choices. We would seek ‘consent’ to the programmes as normal at the January meetings. The RFCC Committees are asked to support this approach.
5.3 Appendix 2 sets out the revised allocation timeline for the capital programme. 5.4 Whilst these adjustments are designed to give Areas, RMAs and RFCCs more time
we recognise that in these difficult times it will still be a huge challenge to prepare indicative programmes for the full 6 years. Our priority will therefore be to determine the final allocation for 2021/22. This is realistic as RFCCs already have a significant capital work programme ready for funding in 2021/22. The indicative allocation for 2022/23 onwards will be based on the best information available from RFCCs. This is expected to be incomplete given the coronavirus constraints all RMAs have been working under. This will be revisited in next year’s annual refresh process for the 2022/23 allocations.
5.5 We do have a mechanism to bring new schemes into the programme outside of the
annual process. We will be encouraging Areas/other RMAs to continue to put schemes forward throughout the year particularly where there are opportunities to start in 2021/22 or 2022/23.
6.0 Draft allocation principles 6.1 The current allocation principles have been described as complex. Our aim is to
simplify them and align them with the draft FCRM Strategy. These may need to be reviewed in light of the final FCRM Strategy and Defra’s Policy Statement, which have not yet been published.
6.2 A revised set of draft principles can be found in appendix 3. The RFCC Committees
are asked to give their advice on this latest draft. 7.0 Prioritisation of capital funding 7.1 We need to prioritise our investments in a consistent and transparent way to achieve
our outcomes.
Item No: 5.2
7.2 At the start of the current 6 year programme we prioritised the allocation of funding to schemes by adjusted partnership funding score which takes account of contributions. In September 2017, to give more focus to achieving the 300,000 homes better protected target, the EA Executive Directors Team and the FCRM Committee agreed a change to prioritisation based on homes better protected within the current 6 year programme. The EA Board approved this approach in February 2018.
7.3 For the next 6 year programme we are proposing to return to prioritising by adjusted
partnership funding score. This score is generated through applying the Partnership Funding policy, taking in to account the whole life costs and benefits of each scheme. This approach favours those projects that have secured their funding, so reducing delivery risk and increasing outcomes in the early years of the programme. The approach will be reviewed in later years to decide if we need to shift focus back to properties better protected.
7.4 The hierarchy for allocation of funding to schemes:
Approved moderation cases based on health & safety or statutory grounds In construction by 1 April 2021 [sub-ranked by adjusted PF score high to low] Delayed projects from 2020/21 due to impact of coronavirus on delivery yet to enter
construction Schemes going through Full Business Case (FBC) by July 2021 [ranked by PF
score high to low] Remainder of programme ranked by adjusted PF score high to low
Our proposed hierarchy for allocation of funding is designed to complement our draft allocation principles.
7.5 For the new 6 year programme, we plan to set out long term indicative allocations to
engage communities and to give potential contributors the confidence to invest. We will retain the flexibility to accommodate change through our annual programme refresh.
7.6 In allocating funding we will also consider the wider benefits the portfolio of projects
could achieve. We are introducing carbon metrics so we will be able to consider the carbon impact of the programme.
8.0 Capital programme metrics 8.1 We expect our primary ‘HMT’ metric will be 336,000 properties better protected
between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2027. 8.2 In developing our funding bid for the next 6 year programme our stakeholders, in
particular the RFCC Chairs, advised us we should also promote the wider benefits of flood schemes. This is to build partnerships, attract investment and to celebrate the many wider benefits flood schemes achieve for people, the environment and local economies.
8.3 A list of potential output and outcome metrics for the next 6 year programme is given
in appendix 4. The RFCC Committees are asked for their advice on these draft metrics. As with the draft allocation principles, these may need to be reviewed in light of the final FCRM Strategy and Defra’s Policy Statement when they are published.
Item No: 5.2
9.0 Annual refresh of the revenue maintenance programme
9.1 We continue to improve our Asset Information Management System (AIMS) to provide best practice tools and access to data for our teams.
9.2 As we expect Spending Review 2020 to impact on our maintenance budgets and to coincide with the Autumn Committee round we propose to bring scenarios rather than detailed proposals to the RFCCs.
9.3 The refresh timeline is included in appendix 2.
10.0 Recommendations
The RFCC Committees are asked to:
1. Note the allocation of the additional funding as a result of the March Budget, and thereduction in asset maintenance funding.
2. Support the revised/additional meetings required to review the future programmesubmissions.
[NB For the YRFCC we propose the scheduled September Meeting of the Programme & investment Sub-group is used to review the programme prior to submission into the national prioritisation process and that the scheduled December P&I meeting is extended to all members in order to agree and endorse any “local Choices” to the nationally prioritised programme]
3. Advise on the latest draft allocation principles.
4. Advise on the prioritisation of allocation for the next 6 year programme.
5. Advise on the draft metrics for the future programme.
John Russon Deputy Director Allocation and National Programme Management 18 June 2020
Back to agenda
Item No: 5.2
Appendix 1 – Funding allocations for 2020/21
RFCC
Opening 2020/21 allocations Maintenance reductions Additional/accelerated funding6
Opening capital allocations
2020/21 (£k)1
Opening revenue
maintenance allocations
2020/21 (£k)1,2
Total in-year revenue
maintenance reduction (£k)3
Revised revenue
maintenance allocation
2020/21 (£k)
Pipeline development £100m fund 2020/21 (£k)
Asset replacement £40m fund
2020/21 (£k)
Recovery funding
Capital Revenue Revenue Revenue Capital Capital Cap & Rev Anglian Eastern 33,807 8,450 504 7,947 12,427 1,120 3,250 Anglian Great Ouse 26,496 4,542 157 4,386 1,830 0 192 Anglian Northern 47,884 10,755 1,247 9,508 3,022 6,841 45,490 E. Severn & Wye 3,293 4,411 20 4,392 2,241 182 6,896 North West 67,739 10,950 1,150 9,800 4,818 4,350 1,576 Northumbria 13,871 2,549 270 2,279 5,682 1,142 0 South West 22,249 5,004 280 4,724 5,134 2,530 2,584 Southern 64,252 10,964 779 10,185 10,933 1,975 12,338 Thames 41,867 20,027 826 19,201 13,908 4,340 1,649 Trent 40,496 12,730 1,347 11,384 8,058 765 1,859 Wessex 13,566 7,420 312 7,108 5,858 4,080 198 Yorkshire 105,296 12,198 698 11,500 3,958 9,476 33,218 Allocated to EA Areas with RFCC split TBC 20,1314 6,000
National co-ordinated activity5 774 2,0004 3,200 4,750
Total 481,000 110,000 7,588 102,412 100,000 40,000 120,000 1. Capital and revenue allocation figures as consented at the January 2020 RFCC meetings, not including additional March Budget funding. 2. Revenue figures are for revenue maintenance activities only and include asset management revenue projects. 3. Reduction to support budget pressure across the wider Defra group and to fund some pressures within our EA budgets. 4. The final £22m of the £100m fund has been made available to EA Area Teams who are working through the detail of the split by RFCC 5. This activity is co-ordinated nationally but delivered locally. 6. These allocations include risk and may be subject to change as certainty on forecasts improves through detailed design and delivery
Item No: 5.2
Appendix 2 – Process for allocating capital and revenue funding during 2020/21
Item No: 5.2
Appendix 2 – Process for allocating capital and revenue funding during 2020/21
Item No: 5.2
Appendix 3 – Draft allocation principles
1. Invest to achieve our ambition of a nation ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change. This will be achieved by making the right allocation decisions to ensure places and infrastructure are resilient and can adapt to future flooding and coastal risks in a changing climate.
2. Invest £5.2bn to better protect properties and infrastructure by 2026/27. We will embrace a broad range of resilience actions, alongside protection measures which will provide better protection to over 336,000 properties and provide an 11% reduction in flood and coastal erosion risk nationally.
3. Support our carbon and sustainability ambitions. Encouraging investment and
delivery to support the UK’s legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the UK economy by 2050. For the Environment Agency only – encourage investment to support our ambition to become a net zero organisation by 2030.
4. Invest to achieve a wider range of outcomes
i. Benefit the economy. Maximise efficiency savings and value for money. ii. Maintain our ability to warn and inform people at high risk of flooding from the
rivers or sea and respond to incidents so as to save lives and property. iii. Enhance the environment. Continue to contribute to wider net environmental gain,
creating and improving habitat and rivers alongside flood and coastal schemes, including delivery of nature based solutions.
5. Work in collaborative partnerships to deliver multiple benefits. Collaborating with
Risk Management Authorities and local ‘catchment partnerships’ amongst other partners, securing partnership funding and jointly realising innovative, cost-effective solutions with a range of benefits.
6. Build and deliver balanced programmes. Work with Regional Flood and Coastal Committees to ensure the nation is resilient to future flooding and coastal risks. Promote and maintain an adaptive medium to long term pipeline of local investment need.
7. Provide appropriate funding towards statutory requirements and essential support services that enable delivery of flood and coastal risk outcomes.
Item No: 5.2
Appendix 4 – Draft initial output and outcome metrics for the next 6 year programme
Homes better protected (with subset on property level protection, erosion, deprived communities and from impact of future impact of climate change)
Non-residential properties better protected
People related FCERM benefits – to be developed Environmental improvements including - new/improved habitat, improved waters
NFM measure solutions being employed
Carbon - capital building, operational, sequestrated Infrastructure damages avoided through flood protection
(including residential properties, commercial properties, length of road & rail, agricultural land, airports & sea ports, utilities (water, gas, electricity, waste), schools)
Overall FCERM economic benefits (£)
(including residential properties, commercial properties, transport (road, rail, airports), utilities (water, gas, electricity, waste), emergency services, built heritage, education, recreation and leisure facilities, agriculture, health, recreation and tourism, local economy impacts)
In addition to output and outcome metrics we will continue to track progress of projects,
risks, effectiveness of our processes, supplier performance and provide programme forecasts.
Back to agenda
Item No. 5.3
Environment Agency Back to agenda Yorkshire Area Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: IDB Upland Water
Contributions 2019/20 Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/302
PURPOSE: To ask the Committee to agree and consent the level of contribution the Environment Agency (EA) will make to Internal Drainage Boards towards costs in dealing with upland water in 2019/20.
SUMMARY: The EA makes annual contributions to Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) towards the additional costs incurred by them in managing drains which carry ‘upstream’ water into their district. Each year the Committee determines the level of contribution the EA must make. The paper presents 2 options of contribution level: (1) to pay contributions to the value of the allocated funding, (2) to match the total sum applied for by the IDBs. RECOMMENDATION: The Committee is recommended to support option 1 to pay the value of the allocated funding for Upland Water Contributions.
1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to ask the Committee to consider and approve the level of
contributions (if any) to be made to IDBs in respect of their expenditure during 2019/20.
1.2 Section 57 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (the Act) (Appendix A2) makes provision for Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) to make an application to the Environment Agency for a contribution to their maintenance costs to take into account the additional costs of maintenance required in their drainage areas arising from the management of “Highland Water”. This is water from the catchment above the IDBs area which they have to manage as it flows through their district (Figure 1). The type of additional work that would be considered appropriate for contributions would be:
Pumping operations Weed control Desilting Obstruction removal/debris clearance/tree work Bank re-profiling/reinstatement Grass cutting Works to maintain flood storage reservoirs Asset maintenance refurbishment Asset operational inspections on appropriate assets during periods of significant
highland flow/incident response Pest/vermin control Technical support/overheads in managing the above including system monitoring
and operations, transportation of plant and environmental management.
Item No. 5.3
Figure 1. Definition of ‘upland water’
1.3 In Yorkshire the approach has been for the internal drainage boards to submit to the Agency the total costs that they have incurred in their districts relating to the types of works listed above. We then apply a “drainage factor” to each of these costs to calculate the value of that work that relates to the costs incurred in managing the highland water entering their districts.
1.4 The drainage factors have been calculated historically by detailed analysis of the amount of land in the upland areas of the catchment compared to the land in the IDB district. The drainage factors have been calculated for each individual watercourse within the IDB district. As can be seen from the information in Appendices A4 to A16 the process is a robust one. The process has been used for many years, it was used by the River Ouse Catchment Board and will have been incorporated into the RFDC’s processes when they were formed and then again when the RFCC were constituted following the Pit Review under the Flood & Water Management Act of 2010. Appendix A3 is an extract from a historic document we have found that shows how the calculation of drain factors is actually carried out. The appendix refers to the calculation being carried out for the year 1952-53 and makes reference to the Land Drainage Act of 1930.
1.5 This has been considered an appropriate calculation that allows for a fair contribution to
the additional costs incurred by the IDBs as required by the Act. The process used by YRFCC has been in place for many years and is largely based on historical data and calculations. Appendix A18 is the Environment Agency guidance on the process. This is more general than that used in YRFCC.
1.6 Appendices A4 to A16 show the detailed breakdown of the costs submitted by the IDBs, the drainage factors applied and the calculated contribution to Highland water for each watercourse within each IDB.
2. ANALYSIS OF COSTS INCURRED AND CONTRIBUTION OPTIONS 2.1 Appendix A1 lists the IDBs that have made applications for contributions.
2.2 Column 1 contains the total expenditure incurred by the IDB on drains carrying upland water.
2.3 Column 2 contains the proportion of the total expenditure which is estimated to have been incurred in dealing with upland water, based on the proportion of relative catchment areas of the drain outside and within the IDB area.
2.4 The Environment Agency’s National Allocation Team (NAT) have allocated £558,000 for
IDB ‘boundary’
Part of catchment draining ‘into’ the IDB Area
Item No. 5.3
2019/20 financial year. This was based on our submitted bid (Appendix A17) which was prioritised against the minimum need that was assessed based on previous year’s work to cover the costs of the additional maintenance that the IDB’s have to undertake to deal with the upland water flowing into their districts.
2.5 This budget would enable 98.36% of the submitted costs to be covered, whereas last year the RFCC agreed to pay 100% of the costs incurred.
2.6 Each Area has been asked to complete a template, to assess the “minimum need” and “Identified need” for funding (similar to the info provided for EA maintenance). The key criteria are the consequence category of the location (H,M,L) and the Urgency of the work. Having said that, this methodology is still in its infancy and is still developing. Currently the allocation is largely based on historic data. Appendix A17 shows the submission made by Yorkshire area to the national allocation team. As this methodology matures we are engaging with IDBs to understand their prioritisation of work in advance and will take this into account in future funding bids.
2.7 YRFCC has seen its allocation rise from £322k in 2015/16 (10% of the national available allocation) to £558k for 2019/20 (approx.15% of the national available allocation). For 2020/21 our allocation has been maintained at £558,000.
2.8 Appendix A1 provides options for contribution levels of:
Option 1 - £558,000.45 – To pay to the value of the allocated funding, i.e. representing 98.36% of the cost incurred.
Option 2 - £567,304.24– To meet the total expenditure incurred as a result of upland water by the IDBs.
2.9 Last year the committee agreed to pay 100% of the claim as the reported claims figure
was less than the budget allocation. This year the total requested by the IDBs is more than the allocated budget. Any overspend on this allocated budget would have to be funded from the Environment Agency’s revenue maintenance budget. The committee should note that the Yorkshire 2020/21 revenue budget has already been reduced this year by £648,000 as part of a national reduction in revenue spending. Therefore, any overspend on the highland water contributions would represent a further reduction in the maintenance budget.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Committee is recommended to support option 1 to meet the allocated funding for
Highland Water contributions. Martin Slater Operations Manager Yorkshire North & East
Back to agenda
Appendix A1 Item No. 5.3
Option 1 – To fund to allocated
funding
Column 2 Column 3 Column 5 [Column 1 x various
drainage factors][Column 2 x 98.36%] [Column 2 x 100%]
Ainsty 2008 IDB £116,792.22 £48,582.52 £47,785.77 £48,582.52Airedale Drainage Commissioners £5,516.82 £4,597.35 £4,521.95 £4,597.35Beverley & North Holderness IDB £109,923.63 £62,328.51 £61,306.32 £62,328.51Danvm Drainage Commissioners £91,928.54 £38,775.00 £38,139.09 £38,775.00Earby & Salterforth IDB £3,295.00 £1,964.15 £1,931.94 £1,964.15Foss (2008) IDB £189,763.12 £80,467.44 £79,147.77 £80,467.44Kyle & Upper Ouse IDB £129,845.76 £50,309.03 £49,483.96 £50,309.03Ouse & Derwent IDB £65,168.05 £7,801.05 £7,673.11 £7,801.05Ouse & Humber DB £105,112.72 £21,754.77 £21,397.99 £21,754.77Selby Area IDB £17,666.77 £6,005.29 £5,906.80 £6,005.29South Holderness IDB's £43,668.80 £16,919.26 £16,641.79 £16,919.26Swale & Ure DB £318,039.40 £182,158.54 £179,171.14 £182,158.54The Vale of Pickering IDBs £94,893.90 £45,641.34 £44,892.82 £45,641.34
£1,291,614.73 £567,304.24 £558,000.45 £567,304.24
Internal Drainage Board IDB total expenditure on drains carrying upland
water
Calculated expenditure on
upland water
Option 2 – To pay 100% submitted
Column 1
Appendix A2 Item No. 5.3
Land Drainage Act 1991 57 Contributions by the appropriate agency to expenses of internal drainage boards. (1) Where it appears to the drainage board for any internal drainage district that, by reason—
(a) of the quantity of water which that district receives from lands at a higher level; or
(b) of the period that will elapse before that district obtains any relief from operations of the
appropriate agency on a main river,
it is fair that a contribution towards their expenses should be made by the appropriate agency, they may make
an application to the appropriate agency for a contribution.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) above the appropriate agency may resolve to make to the internal
drainage board such contribution, if any, as may be specified in the resolution.
(3) A resolution under this section may be acted upon by the appropriate agency forthwith, notwithstanding
that the period for bringing an appeal under subsection (4) below has not expired or that an appeal so
brought is pending.
(4) If—
(a) an internal drainage board is aggrieved by a resolution of the appropriate agency under this
section determining the amount of any contribution or refusing to make a contribution; or
(b) the council of any county county borough or London borough is aggrieved by any such
resolution on the ground that the contribution to be made by the appropriate agency is excessive,
the board or council may, within six weeks after the date on which notice of the resolution is given by the
appropriate agency to the internal drainage board in question, appeal to the relevant Minister against the
resolution.
(5) On an appeal under this section the relevant Minister may, after considering any objections made to him
and, if he thinks fit, holding a public local inquiry, make such an order in the matter as he thinks just.
(6) Where—
(a) the appropriate agency has acted on a resolution by virtue of subsection (3) above; and
(b) an appeal is brought in respect of the resolution,
the relevant Minister shall by his order direct such adjustment to be made in respect of any sums paid in
pursuance of the resolution as may be necessary for giving effect to his decision.
(7) Where the relevant Minister makes an order under this section, he shall lay before Parliament particulars
of the matter in respect of which the appeal was made and of the reasons for his order.
(8) Compliance with any order made by the relevant Minister under this section may be enforced by
mandamus
Appendix A3 Item No. 5.3
CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARDS
Each year a sum of money is allocated by the River Board to be used to make up contributions to various Internal Drainage Boards under Section 21(3) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The first step before the apportionment of the money is to arrive at the Engineer’s Estimate of the amount of money expended by each Drainage Board on drains which carry upland water, i.e., water from without the Internal Drainage District. The Drainage Boards make the application for a contribution to the River Board on a form, which gives details of the money expended each year on every watercourse which carries upland water. The Engineer’s Estimate is obtained by multiplying the amount spent (less any grants) on each individual watercourse by a certain factor which is arrived at as follows:- Each drain or group of drains is considered separately. The catchment area of the drain is obtained and divided into the areas within and without the drainage district. Only drains which have an appreciable amount of upland area are considered.
The ratio Area without the District = U is Area within the District L
then obtained and from the following formula the drain factor can be obtained:-
Drain Factor
The Engineer’s Estimate of upland water expenditure is then found by multiplying the net cost to the Drainage Board of each individual drain by the respective drain factor and then totaling the various amounts together for each Board. The Drain Factor is more easily found from a graph of factor plotted against . Each claim for a contribution has to be considered even if it is not the simple case of work done on a dyke carrying upland water. Once the Engineer’s Estimate has been arrived at for each Board which has applied for a contribution, it remains to find the actual contribution for each board. This is done relating the rate levied by the Drainage Board, for the year in question, to a given proportion of the Engineer’s Estimate. A straight graph has been devised for this purpose, and for the year 1952-1953 the limits of the graph were:- Less than 2/6d. rate in the £ No Contribution Rate levied 2/6d. in the £ 10.45% of Engineer’s Estimate Rate levied 15/-d. in the £ 34.79% of Engineer’s Estimate It will be noted that the graph can be adjusted proportionately to give any desired total figure to suit the amount available for distribution, or to give a fair increase or decrease on the previous year
7
5 1
+1 -
7
5 U
L
1 -
U L
U
L
Appendix A3 Item No. 5.3
in relation to any increase or decrease in the sum of all the Engineer’s Estimates for all Internal Drainage Boards added together.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNAL BOARDS
Contributions are made by the Catchment Board to Internal Drainage Boards in respect of the upkeep of drains in the internal district which carry water from upland areas not included in the ratable district. The presence of “foreign water” in the drains necessitates larger drains and hence greater cost of maintenance. Consider drains of similar cross-section, but with linear dimensions in the ratio n : 1
X-sectional areas are in the ratio n² : 1
Wetted perimeters are in the ratio n : 1
Discharges are in the ratio n5/2 : 1
But maintenance costs vary as the wetted perimeter and therefore are in the ratio n : 1 Let A = total watershed area of drain
L = watershed area within rateable district Total Discharge = = 5/2
Discharge from Lowland Area 2/5
Total cost of maintenance = = _ _ _ (ii) Cost Payable by Internal Board Contribution from Catchment Board = Total cost – Cost Payable by Internal Board Hence, Contribution from Catchment Board = 1-(L/A)2/5
Total cost of maintenance If this formula is used for calculating the “factor” of a drain, it assumes that the ratio of lowland water to upland water remains the same for the whole length of the drain. No assume that the quantity of lowland water increases uniformly from zero at the top end of the drain to its maximum at the point of outfall from the drainage district. The cost of maintenance will vary directly as the length of the drain and the wetted perimeter. In the above reasoning it appears (at ii) that the wetted perimeter varies as the area drained raised to the power 2/5. Cost of maintenance (length) X (wetted perimeter)
(length) X (area drained)2/5
Let QU = discharge from upland area
A L
n l
n l
A L
Appendix A3 Item No. 5.3
QL = discharge from lowland area QX = discharge at the point from the top end of the drain (distance X) with total drain length l QA = total discharge from watershed area.
QX = QU + (X/l) QL At X = 0 QO = QU At X = l Ql = QU + QL = QA Consider a drain carrying all the water from the whole watershed area. Cost of maintenance = ⌠l
⌡0
Where K is the maintenance cost per unit length of the wetted surface of the drain. = ⌠l
⌡0 l = [(QU + QL)7/5] 0 = {(QU + QL)7/5 – QU
7/5} Now consider a drain, of the same length, but carrying only the water draining from the low-lying (ratable) area. Cost of Maintenance = ⌠l
⌡0 l = [( QL)7/5] 0 = {QL
7/5} Cost to be borne by Board QL
7/5 Total of Cost Maintenance (QU + QL)7/5 – QU
7/5 But the discharges vary directly as the areas of the catchment. Cost to be borne by Board L7/5 Total cost of maintenance (U + L)7/5 – U7/5 = 1 (U/L) + 17/5 – (U/L)7/5
Contribution from Catchment Board 1 Total Cost of Maintenance (U/L) + 17/5 – (U/L)7/5
= Factor of Drain
K.l
K l QX2/5dx
(QU + QL)2/5dx
5Kl2
7QL X l
X l
5Kl2
7QL
K.l
( QL)2/5dx X l
5Kl2
7QL X l
5Kl2
7QL
=
=
1 - =
Appendix A4 Item No. 5.3
The following Appendices give a detailed breakdown of the costs of IDB work by individual watercourse, the drainage factors and the calculated expenditure on upland water. The work type codes used in the flowing tables are: Works Description Codes B- Bushing/Hedging
C- Maintenance of Structures
D- Dredging
F- Flood Duty
M- Mowing
P- Piling
Q- Maintenance of pumping stations
R- Wracking
S- Spraying
W- Weedcutting
Appendix A4 Ainsty IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried
out
(See column M
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names &
watercourses
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
Acaster IDB
1 Bishopthorpe Ings 001 0.565 C,M,R Maintenance Revenue £622.16 £0.00 £622.16 £351.52
TOTALS - Acaster £622.16 £0.00 £622.16 £351.52
Appleton Roebuck & Copmanthorpe
1 The Fleet and Foss 0.513 C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,523.32 £0.00 £1,523.32 £781.46
2 The Brumber Carr & Gazlin Becks 0.513 C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,138.76 £0.00 £2,138.76 £1,097.18
3 Colton & Copmanthorpe Boundary Drn 0.345 C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £383.88 £0.00 £383.88 £132.44
4 Woolas Hall Drain 0.245 C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £412.16 £0.00 £412.16 £100.98
5 Colton Breaks Drain 0.513 C,M,R,S,P Maintenance Revenue £1,986.72 £0.00 £1,986.72 £1,019.19
TOTALS - Appleton, Roebuck & Copmanthorpe £6,444.84 £0.00 £6,444.84 £3,131.25
Marston Moor
1 Lightmires Dike 001 0.1 C,M,R Maintenance Revenue £396.16 £0.00 £396.16 £39.62
2 Ousegill Beck 004 0.66 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,292.32 £0.00 £2,292.32 £1,512.93
3 Long Wood Dyke/Woods Drain 005 0.1 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Pool Beck 007 0.95 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,260.32 £0.00 £2,260.32 £2,147.30
5 Fleet Beck 029 0.41 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £5,919.86 £0.00 £5,919.86 £2,427.14
6 Ainsty Beck 030 0.35 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,898.74 £0.00 £2,898.74 £1,014.56
7 Spirit Lane Dike (Willowgarth, Weth'by) 035 0.25 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £910.08 £0.00 £910.08 £227.52
8 Sike Beck/Redwith Dike (Bilton) 038 0.56 B,C,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,312.08 £0.00 £2,312.08 £1,294.76
9 Old Folly Dyke (Cowthorpe) 041 0.54 B,C,M,R Maintenance Revenue £246.88 £0.00 £246.88 £133.32
10 Broad Wath (Wetherby) 042 0.6 B,C,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £5,537.25 £0.00 £5,537.25 £3,322.35
11 Eel Mires (Wetherby) 044 0.25 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,277.03 £0.00 £1,277.03 £319.26
12 Main Foss (Hessay) 053 0.185 B,C,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £10,031.40 £0.00 £10,031.40 £1,855.81
13 White Sike 056 0.15 C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £567.42 £0.00 £567.42 £85.11
14 Kendall Lane Dyke (Tockwith) 057 0.15 C,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £231.36 £0.00 £231.36 £34.70
15 Monument Lane (Moor Lane) Drain 059 0.27 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £473.44 £0.00 £473.44 £127.83
16 West Atterwith Dyke 060 0.27 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £328.64 £0.00 £328.64 £88.73
17 Atterwith Lane Dyke 061 0.27 C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £332.48 £0.00 £332.48 £89.77
18 The Dam (Footpath Dyke) 069 0.31 B,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,241.28 £0.00 £1,241.28 £384.80
19 White House Farm Drain 072 0.185 B,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,693.90 £0.00 £1,693.90 £313.37
20 Small Foss (Hessay) 075 0.215 B,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £5,213.35 £0.00 £5,213.35 £1,120.87
21 Acomb Boundary Dike 093 0.2 B,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,311.20 £0.00 £1,311.20 £262.24
22 Poppleton Central Dyke 100 0.17 D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,023.36 £0.00 £2,023.36 £343.97
23 Carr Drain 104 0.55 C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £6,619.95 £0.00 £6,619.95 £3,640.97
24 Gale Lane Drain 105 0.285 C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,926.68 £0.00 £2,926.68 £834.10
25 Turnmire Drain (Kennel Lane, Acomb) 108 0.365 C,D Maintenance Revenue £1,056.66 £0.00 £1,056.66 £385.68
26 Holgate Beck 109 0.275 B,C,D,M,Q,R,S Maintenance Revenue £8,241.68 £0.00 £8,241.68 £2,266.46
Appendix A4 Ainsty IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried
out
(See column M
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names &
watercourses
stating such Board
source
27 New Plantation 036 0.25 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £202.24 £0.00 £202.24 £50.56
28 Woodsdrain, Longwood 0.1 0 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTALS - Marston Moor £66,545.76 £0.00 £66,545.76 £24,323.75
North Wharfe
1 The Foss 001 0.54 B,D,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £14,290.66 £0.00 £14,290.66 £7,716.96
2 Town Field Dyke 026 0.468 M,R Maintenance Revenue £176.54 £0.00 £176.54 £82.62
3 Bolton Grange Dyke 025 0.468 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £238.42 £0.00 £238.42 £111.58
4 Rectory Farm Dyke 024 0.602 M,R Maintenance Revenue £58.44 £0.00 £58.44 £35.18
5 Bolton Ings Dyke 028 0.15 M,R Maintenance Revenue £190.64 £0.00 £190.64 £28.60
6 Pallathorpe Dyke 023 0.47 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £601.20 £0.00 £601.20 £282.56
7 East Dyke 022 0.63 M Maintenance Revenue £73.52 £0.00 £73.52 £46.32
8 Ox Close Dyke 021 0.5 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £849.80 £0.00 £849.80 £424.90
9 Low Moor Farm Dyke 020 0.5 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £478.56 £0.00 £478.56 £239.28
10 Steeton Whin Dyke 019 0.5 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £768.42 £0.00 £768.42 £384.21
11 Slice Lane Dyke 018 0.453 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,334.00 £0.00 £2,334.00 £1,057.30
12 Catterton Lane Dyke 013 0.4 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £475.16 £0.00 £475.16 £190.06
13 Bilbrough Moor Dyke 015 0.477 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £329.60 £0.00 £329.60 £157.22
14 Heskhouse Dyke 017 0.477 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £84.32 £0.00 £84.32 £40.22
15 Catterton Moor Dyke 016 0.4 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £925.96 £0.00 £925.96 £370.38
16 Catterton Beck 008 0.587 B,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,198.66 £0.00 £2,198.66 £1,290.61
17 Healaugh Beck 009 0.659 B,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £602.56 £0.00 £602.56 £397.09
18 Ings Dyke (Angram Ings) 010 0.475 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £754.20 £0.00 £754.20 £358.25
19 Seakel Lane Dyke 011 0.736 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £219.48 £0.00 £219.48 £161.54
20 White Hall Dyke 012 0.756 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £84.32 £0.00 £84.32 £63.75
21 Whin Covert Dyke 007 0.3 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £90.16 £0.00 £90.16 £27.05
22 Long Lane Dyke 002 0.68 B,R,S Maintenance Revenue £883.68 £0.00 £883.68 £600.90
23 Wighill Grange Dyke 003 0.533 C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,157.76 £0.00 £1,157.76 £617.09
24 Walton Lodge Dyke 004 0.675 B,R,S Maintenance Revenue £150.36 £0.00 £150.36 £101.49
25 Walton Wood Dyke 005 0.675 B,R,S Maintenance Revenue £143.96 £0.00 £143.96 £97.17
26 Hay Dyke 031 0.525 C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £199.02 £0.00 £199.02 £104.49
27 Moat House Dyke 032 0.525 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
28 Hornington Ings Dyke 029 0.265 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
29 West Ings Dyke (Non Appleton Ings) 027 0.502 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Hargarth Ings 030 0.3 M,R Maintenance Revenue £2,329.92 £0.00 £2,329.92 £698.98
TOTALS - North Wharfe £30,689.32 £0.00 £30,689.32 £15,685.79
South Wharf
2 Dorts Dike / Dam Drain 006 0.405 B,C,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £3,083.42 £0.00 £3,083.42 £1,248.79
3 Dollyhill Drain 003 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Scarthingwell Dike 009 0.405 D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,146.02 £0.00 £1,146.02 £464.14
Appendix A4 Ainsty IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried
out
(See column M
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names &
watercourses
stating such Board
source
5 Patefields Dike 008 0.405 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £5,448.49 £0.00 £5,448.49 £2,206.64
6 Carr Wood Dike 010 0.405 B,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,018.91 £0.00 £1,018.91 £412.66
7 Barkston Ash/Fish Pond Dike 011 0.405 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £680.56 £0.00 £680.56 £275.63
8 North Milford Dyke 0.405 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 Coldwell Head/Bowlam Covert Drain 007 0.405 C,M,P,R,S Maintenance Revenue £877.86 £0.00 £877.86 £355.53
10 Grimston Dike/Kirby Wharfe 005 0.54 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £117.44 £0.00 £117.44 £63.42
11 North Ings Drain 004 0.54 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £117.44 £0.00 £117.44 £63.42
TOTALS - South Wharf £12,490.14 £0.00 £12,490.14 £5,090.22
GRAND TOTALS £116,792.22 £0.00 £116,792.22 £48,582.52
Appendix A5 Airedale IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB
names & watercourses
stating such Board
source
Please choose from Drop
Down List
Please choose from Drop
Down List £
3 Bareshaw Beck, Cononley 0.90 C,R, Maintenance Revenue £919.47 £0.00 £919.47 £827.52
2 Buskey Beck, Carleton 0.90 C,R, Maintenance Revenue £919.47 £0.00 £919.47 £827.52
1 Deningdale Beck, Carleton 0.90 C,R, Maintenance Revenue £919.47 £0.00 £919.47 £827.52
5 Eller Beck, Skipton 0.90 C,R, Maintenance Revenue £919.47 £0.00 £919.47 £827.52
4 Lyon Farm Dyke, Eastburn 0.50 C,R, Maintenance Revenue £919.47 £0.00 £919.47 £459.74
6 Shady Lane, Cononley 0.90 C,R, Maintenance Revenue £919.47 £0.00 £919.47 £827.52
TOTALS £5,516.82 £0.00 £5,516.82 £4,597.35
Appendix A6 Beverley & North Holderness IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names
& watercourses
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £ 1 Kilnwick New Cut 31 1.000 M W D Maintenance Revenue £1,245.00 £0.00 £1,245.00 £1,245.00
2 Scurff Dike 38 1.000 M W S Maintenance Revenue £752.50 £0.00 £752.50 £752.50
3 Fox Drain 54 0.640 M W Maintenance Revenue £551.20 £0.00 £551.20 £352.77
4 Mill Dam Drain 32 0.750 M W C W S Maintenance Revenue £1,844.89 £0.00 £1,844.89 £1,383.67
5 Beverley Parks Sewer 53 0.640 M W S Maintenance Revenue £810.10 £0.00 £810.10 £518.46
6 Dunnington Sewer 46 0.680 M W S P B R D Maintenance Revenue £12,434.75 £0.00 £12,434.75 £8,455.63
7 Black Dyke 9 0.505 M W Maintenance Revenue £980.00 £0.00 £980.00 £494.90
8 Kirby Drain 12 0.350 M W S B D Maintenance Revenue £10,017.70 £0.00 £10,017.70 £3,506.20
9 Bryan Mills Beck 0.750 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 Coal Dike 8 0.380 M W S P B Maintenance Revenue £2,384.88 £0.00 £2,384.88 £906.25
11 Holmes Dike 39 0.460 M W B D Maintenance Revenue £3,714.00 £0.00 £3,714.00 £1,708.44
12 Watton Beck 36 0.685 M W S B D Maintenance Revenue £1,572.90 £0.00 £1,572.90 £1,077.44
13 Creke Beck 44 0.500 M W Maintenance Revenue £222.60 £0.00 £222.60 £111.30
14 Ella Dike 34 0.550 M W Maintenance Revenue £2,383.75 £0.00 £2,383.75 £1,311.06
15 Knorka Dike 42 0.625 M W Maintenance Revenue £402.80 £0.00 £402.80 £251.75
16 Inholms Drain 47 0.390 M W C Maintenance Revenue £1,162.07 £0.00 £1,162.07 £453.21
17 Western Drain 56 0.330 M W C B Maintenance Revenue £4,284.24 £0.00 £4,284.24 £1,413.80
18 Swine North Boundary Drain 66 0.270 M W Maintenance Revenue £530.00 £0.00 £530.00 £143.10
19 Towns Drain 162 0.570 M W S Maintenance Revenue £1,158.50 £0.00 £1,158.50 £660.35
20 White Dike Branch 49 0.550 M W Maintenance Revenue £636.00 £0.00 £636.00 £349.80
21 Lingholmes Drain 52 0.640 M W S R Maintenance Revenue £377.90 £0.00 £377.90 £241.86
22 Sister Beck 0.550 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
23 Barmston Drain (Sea End) 79 0.675 M W C Maintenance Revenue £2,957.60 £0.00 £2,957.60 £1,996.38
24 Beswick New Cut 10 0.300 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,015.00 £0.00 £1,015.00 £304.50
26 White Dike 50 1.000 M W S Maintenance Revenue £418.20 £0.00 £418.20 £418.20
27 Rotsea 17 1.000 M W P R D Maintenance Revenue £5,628.01 £0.00 £5,628.01 £5,628.01
28 Bowlams 165 0.505 M W S C P R D Maintenance Revenue £5,628.01 £0.00 £5,628.01 £2,842.15
29 Causeway Dike 151 0.500 M W Maintenance Revenue £720.00 £0.00 £720.00 £360.00
TOTAL PAGE 1 0.430 £63,832.60 £0.00 £63,832.60 £36,886.71
30 Ganstead Drain 103 0.583 M W Maintenance Revenue £980.00 £0.00 £980.00 £571.34
31 Lambwath Stream 184 0.140 M W Maintenance Revenue £4,769.55 £0.00 £4,769.55 £667.74
32 Turmer Hall Drain 104 0.410 M W Maintenance Revenue £670.00 £0.00 £670.00 £274.70
33 Swine Benningholme/Arnold Ings 134 0.780 M W S P Maintenance Revenue £3,990.28 £0.00 £3,990.28 £3,112.42
34 Skipsea Drain 78 0.270 M W S R Maintenance Revenue £3,335.00 £0.00 £3,335.00 £900.45
35 Arnold Lane Drain 139 0.320 M W Maintenance Revenue £850.00 £0.00 £850.00 £272.00
Appendix A6 Beverley & North Holderness IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names
& watercourses
stating such Board
source
36 Arnold and Riston Drain 142 0.510 M W P Maintenance Revenue £5,059.20 £0.00 £5,059.20 £2,580.19
37 Stonleygoat Drain 143 0.140 M W Maintenance Revenue £429.90 £0.00 £429.90 £60.19
38 Starr Carr Drain 178 0.450 M W Maintenance Revenue £590.00 £0.00 £590.00 £265.50
39 Old Howe Side Drain North 20 0.750 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,166.00 £0.00 £1,166.00 £874.50
40 Earles Dike 88 0.770 M W D Maintenance Revenue £4,663.70 £0.00 £4,663.70 £3,591.05
Demming Drain 89 0.505 M W Maintenance Revenue £2,607.00 £0.00 £2,607.00 £1,316.54
Haisthorpe Beck 90 0.675 M W Maintenance Revenue £216.60 £0.00 £216.60 £146.21
Thornholme Beck 91 0.675 M W Maintenance Revenue £706.80 £0.00 £706.80 £477.09
Burton Carr Drain 92 0.675 M W Maintenance Revenue £91.20 £0.00 £91.20 £61.56
41 'L' Dike 185 0.675 M W Maintenance Revenue £2,024.60 £0.00 £2,024.60 £1,366.61
42 Kelk Beck 76 0.812 M W Maintenance Revenue £243.80 £0.00 £243.80 £197.97
50 Gransmoor Drain ) part of Barmston 82 0.775 M W B Maintenance Revenue £5,216.00 £0.00 £5,216.00 £4,042.40
51 Burton Agnes Drain ) Drain (Sea End) 84 0.468 M W S B Maintenance Revenue £1,632.50 £0.00 £1,632.50 £764.01
52 Burton Drain ) Drainage 86 0.334 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,375.00 £0.00 £1,375.00 £459.25
53 Dringhoe Drain ) System 80 0.790 M W Maintenance Revenue £825.00 £0.00 £825.00 £651.75
54 Northfield Beck 41 0.581 M W Maintenance Revenue £307.40 £0.00 £307.40 £178.60
55 Kelwell South Branch 118 0.594 M W Maintenance Revenue £265.00 £0.00 £265.00 £157.41
56 Kelwell North Branch 119 0.834 M W Maintenance Revenue £392.20 £0.00 £392.20 £327.09
57 Lambwath Branch 137 0.495 M W S Maintenance Revenue £478.50 £0.00 £478.50 £236.86
58 Stream Dike 176 0.574 M W Maintenance Revenue £472.10 £0.00 £472.10 £270.99
59 Fox Drain Tributary 55 0.706 M W Maintenance Revenue £664.90 £0.00 £664.90 £469.42
60 Ganstead Drain Continuation 105 0.390 M W Maintenance Revenue £430.00 £0.00 £430.00 £167.70
61 Ganstead Drain Branch 106 0.749 M W Maintenance Revenue £220.00 £0.00 £220.00 £164.78
62 Stonelygoat Drain Tributary 144 0.749 M W B R Maintenance Revenue £459.80 £0.00 £459.80 £344.39
63 Skipsea Drain East Branch 77 0.749 M W S Maintenance Revenue £401.00 £0.00 £401.00 £300.35
64 Nutholmes Drain 85 0.696 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
66 Stonehills Drain 87 0.749 M W Maintenance Revenue £228.00 £0.00 £228.00 £170.77
Hards Covert Drain 83 M W Maintenance Revenue £330.00 £0.00 £330.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 2 £46,091.03 £0.00 £46,091.03 £25,441.80
GRAND TOTALS £109,923.63 £0.00 £109,923.63 £62,328.51
Appendix A7 Danvm Drainage Commissioners Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB
names & watercourses
stating such Board
source
Please choose from Drop
Down List
Please choose from Drop
Down List £
Dearne & Dove IDB
1 North Ings Dyke 0.4 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
2 West Moor Dyke 0.5 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
3 Cranewell Dyke 0.09 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Brook Dyke 0.665 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Ings Dyke 0.665 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
7 Carr Dyke 0.665 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 Highgate Lane Dyke 0.665 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 Thurnscoe Dyke 0.825 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Houghton Dyke 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
12 Knoll Dyke 0.665 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 River Dove 0.8 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 Aldham Bridge Dyke 0.8 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
16 Small Bridge Dyke 0.8 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
17 Cawthorne Dyke 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
18 River Dearne u/s of Darton 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTALS - Deearne & Dove £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Dun Drainage Commissioners
1 Abbess and Whitewall 5/10 0.54 M W Maintenance Revenue £279.39 £0.00 £279.39 £150.87
2 Adwick Mill Dyke 8/0/2 0.8 M W Maintenance Revenue £576.80 £0.00 £576.80 £461.44
3 Bentley Ings PS 0.33 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Bentley Town Drain 12/5 0.5 M W Maintenance Revenue £36.05 £0.00 £36.05 £18.03
5 Bentley Mill Goit 12/7 0.8 M W Maintenance Revenue £702.98 £0.00 £702.98 £562.38
6 Black Syke Drain 5/11 0.39 M W Maintenance Revenue £288.40 £0.00 £288.40 £112.48
7 Bowling Alley Drain 9/0 1 M W Maintenance Revenue £90.13 £0.00 £90.13 £90.13
8 Cockshaw Drain 6/1/2 0.08 M W Maintenance Revenue £468.65 £0.00 £468.65 £37.49
9 Goosepool PS 0.33 Q Maintenance Revenue £13,542.12 £0.00 £13,542.12 £4,468.90
10 East Ings 0.307 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Morley Well 7/4 0.567 M W Maintenance Revenue £54.08 £0.00 £54.08 £30.66
12 Old Ea Beck 0.78 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Swaithe Beck 12/1 0.515 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 Sutton Common and Wrancarrs 5/7&4/0 0.638 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,000.39 £0.00 £1,000.39 £638.25
15 Haywood and Trumfleet Drain 4/5 0.638 M W Maintenance Revenue £297.41 £0.00 £297.41 £189.75
16 Bramwith Drain 2/3 0.3 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
17 Stocksbridge Drain 6/4 0.39 M W Maintenance Revenue £342.48 £0.00 £342.48 £133.57
Appendix A7 Danvm Drainage Commissioners Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB
names & watercourses
stating such Board
source
18 Small Holme and Tilts 10/2 0.78 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
19 Church Town Common 0.638 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 Wellsyke Drain 7/0 0.295 M W Maintenance Revenue £225.31 £0.00 £225.31 £66.47
21 Skellow Mill 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
22 Hampole - Frickley - S Kirby 13 0.8 M W Maintenance Revenue £54.08 £0.00 £54.08 £43.26
23 Size Ings 8/1 1 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
24 Pumping 1/3 maintenance 0.33 £15,433.03 £0.00 £15,433.03 £5,092.90
34 Adwick Mill Dike PS 0.33 Q Maintenance Revenue £4,294.09 £0.00 £4,294.09 £1,417.05
35 Kirk Bramwith PS 0.33 Q Maintenance Revenue £29,916.28 £0.00 £29,916.28 £9,872.37
TOTALS - Dun Drainage £67,601.64 £0.00 £67,601.64 £23,385.98
Knottingley & Gowdall
1 Ings and Tethering Drain 15 1 F Maintenance Revenue £9,407.97 £0.00 £9,407.97 £9,407.97
TOTALS - Knottingley & Gowdall £9,407.97 £0.00 £9,407.97 £9,407.97
Went IDB
1 River Went 12/0 0.447 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,148.67 £0.00 £1,148.67 £513.45
2 Rampart Drain 28/0 0.2 M W Maintenance Revenue £638.15 £0.00 £638.15 £127.63
3 Kellington Southfields 25/0 0.39 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,435.83 £0.00 £1,435.83 £559.97
4 Kellington Common 26/0 0.29 M W Maintenance Revenue £180.81 £0.00 £180.81 £52.43
5 Tan House Dyke 18/0 0.61 M W Maintenance Revenue £63.82 £0.00 £63.82 £38.93
6 Ings Drain 0.3 M W Maintenance Revenue £493.50 £0.00 £493.50 £148.05
7 Sandy Dyke 11/3 0.42 M W Maintenance Revenue £531.79 £0.00 £531.79 £223.35
8 Blowell Drain 11/1 0.42 M W Maintenance Revenue £2,366.47 £0.00 £2,366.47 £993.92
9 Common Drain 0.39 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 Stapleton Park Drain 11/9 0.42 M W Maintenance Revenue £265.89 £0.00 £265.89 £111.68
11 Smeatley Drain 11/8 0.63 M W Maintenance Revenue £196.76 £0.00 £196.76 £123.96
12 Womersley Beck 11/5 0.42 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,010.40 £0.00 £1,010.40 £424.37
13 Birka Drain 11/7 0.42 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,215.67 £0.00 £1,215.67 £510.58
14 Lake Drain 11/0 0.42 M W Maintenance Revenue £1,281.61 £0.00 £1,281.61 £538.28
15 High Eggborough Drain 23/0 0.3 M W Maintenance Revenue £53.18 £0.00 £53.18 £15.95
16 Court Drain, Whitley Parish 22/3 0.668 M W Maintenance Revenue £595.61 £0.00 £595.61 £397.87
17 Askern Common Drain 12/5 0.3 M W Maintenance Revenue £239.31 £0.00 £239.31 £71.79
18 Great Common Drain 12/6 0.39 M W Maintenance Revenue £287.16 £0.00 £287.16 £111.99
19 Swan Syke Drain 12/11 0.39 M W Maintenance Revenue £425.40 £0.00 £425.40 £165.91
20 Norton Common Ings 12/7 0.19 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
21 Hardwick Beck 21/0 0.7 M W Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
22 Little Went 16/0 0.698 M W Maintenance Revenue £510.52 £0.00 £510.52 £356.34
23 Norton Common Pumping 0.25 Q Maintenance Revenue £1,106.26 £0.00 £1,106.26 £276.57
23 Norton Common Pumping 0.25 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
24 Beal Parish Drain 0.25 M W Maintenance Revenue £872.13 £0.00 £872.13 £218.03
Appendix A7 Danvm Drainage Commissioners Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB
names & watercourses
stating such Board
source
TOTALS - Went IDB £14,918.93 £0.00 £14,918.93 £5,981.05
TOTALS DANVM DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS £91,928.54 £0.00 £91,928.54 £38,775.00
Appendix A8 Earby & Salterforth IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB
names & watercourses
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
1 Kelbrook Beck 1 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
2 Stone Trough Beck 1 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
3 Lancashire Gill 0.73 DW Maintenance Revenue £1,220.00 £0.00 £1,220.00 £890.60
4 Holmes/Tunstead Drain 0.62 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Bashfield Drain 0.25 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Hague Beck 0.45 D Maintenance Revenue £1,260.00 £0.00 £1,260.00 £567.00
7 County Brook 0.485 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
8 Salterforth/Carr Dike 0.57 MW Maintenance Revenue £465.00 £0.00 £465.00 £265.05
9 Swan Neck Drain 0.62 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 New Cut 0.69 BW Maintenance Revenue £350.00 £0.00 £350.00 £241.50
11 Earby Beck 0.69 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
12 Wanless Beck 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Longroyd Drain 0.6 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 Rainhall Drain 0.57 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 School House Drain 0.75 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
16 Boundary Beck 0.525 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTALS £3,295.00 £0.00 £3,295.00 £1,964.15
Appendix A9 Foss IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names &
watercourses
stating such Board
source
Foss IDB
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
1 Ings Beck (Whenby Dyke) 001 0.602 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £2,566.03 £0.00 £2,566.03 £1,544.75
2 Midsykes Drain 006 0.555 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £553.20 £0.00 £553.20 £307.03
3 Carr Lane Drain 007 0.555 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £441.87 £0.00 £441.87 £245.24
4 Bulmer/Spittle/Braisthwaites Beck 010 0.662 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £8,054.58 £0.00 £8,054.58 £5,332.13
5 Braisthwaites Beck 0.662 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Standing Beck and Tributaries 011 0.612 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £503.48 £0.00 £503.48 £308.13
7 Foston Beck 012 0.555 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £241.92 £0.00 £241.92 £134.27
8 River Foss 020 0.483 B,C,D,M,R,S,W,P Maintenance Revenue £38,762.82 £0.00 £38,762.82 £18,722.44
9 Water Hall Drain 021 0.48 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £289.96 £0.00 £289.96 £139.18
10 Farlington Beck 033 0.612 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £995.39 £0.00 £995.39 £609.18
11 Cornbrough Dyke 034 0.41 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £313.45 £0.00 £313.45 £128.51
12 White Carr Beck 041 0.24 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £5,069.11 £0.00 £5,069.11 £1,216.59
13 Lilling Dyke 046 0.5 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,306.51 £0.00 £1,306.51 £653.26
14 Black Dyke 049 0.483 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,060.43 £0.00 £1,060.43 £512.19
15 Westfield Beck, Haxby 066 0.22 B,C,D,M,R,S,Q,P Maintenance Revenue £11,472.02 £0.00 £11,472.02 £2,523.84
16 Old Foss Beck/Tang Hall Beck 079 0.21 B,C,D,M,R,S,W,P Maintenance Revenue £26,589.17 £0.00 £26,589.17 £5,583.73
17 Stockton Lane Drain 082 0.1 B,C,D,M,R,S,W Maintenance Revenue £2,530.68 £0.00 £2,530.68 £253.07
18 Brown Hills Dike (Vengeance Lane) 086 0.32 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £500.04 £0.00 £500.04 £160.01
19 Osbaldwick Beck 088 0.502 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £22,115.72 £0.00 £22,115.72 £11,102.09
20 Murton Station Dyke 090 0.29 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,658.45 £0.00 £1,658.45 £480.95
21 Carr Goit/Holtby Beck 084 0.5 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £680.92 £0.00 £680.92 £340.46
22 Lilling Lane Dyke 048 0.5 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £1,199.56 £0.00 £1,199.56 £599.78
TOTALS - Foss IDB £126,905.31 £0.00 £126,905.31 £50,896.82
Wilberfoss & Thornton Level
1 Common Dyke 001 0.3 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £17,111.29 £0.00 £17,111.29 £5,133.39
2 Fangfoss Grange Drain 005 0.572 B,C,M,R Maintenance Revenue £296.99 £0.00 £296.99 £169.88
3 Wilberfoss beck 0.572 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Foss, Spittle & Wilbefoss Becks 006 0.572 B,C,D,M,R,S,P Maintenance Revenue £14,000.10 £0.00 £14,000.10 £8,008.06
5 Sails Beck 008 0.38 B,C,D,M,R,S,P Maintenance Revenue £6,636.29 £0.00 £6,636.29 £2,521.79
6 Black Drain No. 3 010 0.8 B,C,D,M,R,S,P Maintenance Revenue £10,310.95 £0.00 £10,310.95 £8,248.76
7 Greenlands Drain 011 0.38 B,C,D,M,R,S,P Maintenance Revenue £1,551.77 £0.00 £1,551.77 £589.67
8 Hacking Drain 012 0.565 B,M,R Maintenance Revenue £514.42 £0.00 £514.42 £290.65
Appendix A9 Foss IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
Broken down into original IDB names &
watercourses
stating such Board
source
9 Brickpit Drain 014 0.39 M,R,S Maintenance Revenue £27.50 £0.00 £27.50 £10.73
10 Eastmoor Dyke 023 0.38 B,M,R Maintenance Revenue £10,939.38 £0.00 £10,939.38 £4,156.96
11 Whitecarr Drain 024 0.3 B,M,R,W Maintenance Revenue £1,469.12 £0.00 £1,469.12 £440.74
TOTALS - Wilberfoss & Thornton Level £62,857.81 £0.00 £62,857.81 £29,570.62
TOTAL - Foss (2008) IDB £189,763.12 £0.00 £189,763.12 £80,467.44
Appendix A10 Kyle & Upper Ouse IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Please choose from Drop
Down List
Please choose from Drop
Down List £
1 River Kyle 0.42 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
2 Sandwath Beck & Moor Stell 0.425 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £8,945.92 £0.00 £8,945.92 £3,802.02
3 Shorn Dyke 0.495 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £6,644.48 £0.00 £6,644.48 £3,289.02
4 Spring Wood 0.495 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Hag Lane 0.495 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Mill Lane, Linton 0.42 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
7 New Farm 0.42 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
8 Gysemire Lane 0.42 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 New Parks Beck 0.445 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £3,118.08 £0.00 £3,118.08 £1,387.55
11 Huby Burn 0.495 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £8,611.84 £0.00 £8,611.84 £4,262.86
12 New Parks Wood 0.495 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Burnfield Farm 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
16 Alcar Beck, Huby 0.15 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £11,674.24 £0.00 £11,674.24 £1,751.14
18 Brown Moor Drain 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
19 Common Drain 0.32 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £1,651.84 £0.00 £1,651.84 £528.59
20 Breachings Drain 0.32 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £1,317.76 £0.00 £1,317.76 £421.68
21 Ellingcroft Moor 0.32 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
22 Ruddysike Drain 0.32 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £19,320.96 £0.00 £19,320.96 £6,182.71
23 Huby Fields 0.32 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
24 Blackwoods Farm 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
26 Hawkwood 0.32 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
27 Pennyflats Drain 0.32 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £2,524.16 £0.00 £2,524.16 £807.73
28 Shipton Moor Drain 0.445 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
29 Park Hill Bohemia Farm 0.17 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Murton Lane 0.27 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
34 Plainville 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
38 Sutton-on-Forrest 0.27 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
41 Sutton Park 0.27 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 1 £63,809.28 £0.00 £63,809.28 £22,433.29
43 High Carr Wood 0.27 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
44 East Moor 0.27 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
45 Whitecarr Ings Beck 0.33 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £18,764.16 £0.00 £18,764.16 £6,192.17
46 Sidings Drain 0.33 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £1,800.32 £0.00 £1,800.32 £594.11
48 Shires Lane 0.33 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
50 Wells Close House 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
51 Sun Beck & Derrings Beck 0.52 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £3,266.56 £0.00 £3,266.56 £1,698.61
52 Tholthorpe 0.52 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A10 Kyle & Upper Ouse IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
53 Tholthorpe Derrings 0.52 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
54 Hag Moor Sam Wood 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
55 Old Burrow Hill 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
58 Leys Bridge 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
59 Brafferton Spring 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
60 Stank Beck 0.5 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £11,562.88 £0.00 £11,562.88 £5,781.44
61 Raskelf Brick Works 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
62 Raskelf Curve 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
63 Stank Beck Tributary 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
64 Low Wood Dyke 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
65 New Cut 0.5 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £5,605.12 £0.00 £5,605.12 £2,802.56
66 Thormanby Carr 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
67 New Road 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
68 Thormanby Hill 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
70 Thormanby Drain 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
71 Carr Lane 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
72 Piped Drain 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
73 Wrang Beck 0.4 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £1,670.40 £0.00 £1,670.40 £668.16
74 Alne Beck 0.567 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
76 High Crankley, Easingwold 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
77 Shires Beck 0.567 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
78 Hawkhills Beck 0.567 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £352.64 £0.00 £352.64 £199.95
79 Longbridge Beck 0.56 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £1,577.60 £0.00 £1,577.60 £883.46
80 Easingwold Sewage Works 0.56 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
82 Blades House Farm 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
83 West Moor Drain 0.567 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £352.64 £0.00 £352.64 £199.95
84 Lund Drain 0.525 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
85 Tributary of Lund Drain 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
86 Carle House 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 2 £44,952.32 £0.00 £44,952.32 £19,020.40
87 Spring House Little Wood 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
89 Spring Head, Raskelf Station 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
90 Royston Hills, Raskelf 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
91 Long Plantation, Boscar Flat 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
93 Woodhouse Farm 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
94 Ninevah 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
95 Tributary of Ninevah 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
96 North Moor 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A10 Kyle & Upper Ouse IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
97 Tollerton Ings 0.27 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
98 Bohemia 0.17 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
102 Lowlands Helperby 0.52 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
103 Boscar Watercourse 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
105 Intake Lane (Hardy) 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
106 Fothergills Clough 0.42 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
107 Brafferton Dyke 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
109 Clarkes Drain 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
110 Plump House 0.535 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
111 Haddock's House 0.535 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
112 Myton Drain 0.535 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
113 Myton-Aldwark Boundary 0.535 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
114 Wadeland Dyke 0.26 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
115 Overton Gates 0.24 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
116 Linton Stell 0.355 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
117 Clifton Ings 0.475 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
148 The Kyle 0.42 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £21,084.16 £0.00 £21,084.16 £8,855.35
TOTAL PAGE 3 £21,084.16 £0.00 £21,084.16 £8,855.35
GRAND TOTALS £129,845.76 £0.00 £129,845.76 £50,309.03
Appendix A11 Ouse & Derwent IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
1 Main Drain - Stillingfleet to Escrick 0.1 B,C,D,F,M,Q,R,S Maintenance Revenue 27,994.81 £0.00 £27,994.81 £2,799.48
2 Main Drain - Escrick to Pool Bridge 0.12 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 8,148.46 £0.00 £8,148.46 £977.82
3 Main Drain - Pool Brg to Kimberley Brg 0.15 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 3,561.02 £0.00 £3,561.02 £534.15
4 Main Dr - Kimb'ley Brg to Hassacarr Br 0.32 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 232.23 £0.00 £232.23 £74.31
5 Main Drain - Hassacarr Br to Boundary 0.48 B,C,D,F,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 5,469.78 £0.00 £5,469.78 £2,625.49
6 Low Moor Drain 0.1 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 228.59 £0.00 £228.59 £22.86
7 Ings Drain 0.07 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 1,652.81 £0.00 £1,652.81 £115.70
8 Scauder Drain 0.07 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 1,436.90 £0.00 £1,436.90 £100.58
9 Thorganby Common Drain 0.03 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 7,969.62 £0.00 £7,969.62 £239.09
10 Low Lane Drain 0.03 B,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 5,697.11 £0.00 £5,697.11 £170.91
11 Germany Beck Drain 0.07 B,C,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 1,702.27 £0.00 £1,702.27 £119.16
12 Keldcarrs Drain 0.02 B,D,M,R,S Maintenance Revenue 1,074.45 £0.00 £1,074.45 £21.49
TOTALS £65,168.05 £0.00 £65,168.05 £7,801.05
Appendix A12 Ouse & Humber IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries upland
water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Lower Ouse
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
1 Dyon Drain 0.07 M, W Maintenance Revenue £1,062.88 £0.00 £1,062.88 £74.40
2 Bottoms Drain 0.07 M, W Maintenance Revenue £3,272.64 £0.00 £3,272.64 £229.08
3 Cottingwith Ings W24 0.31 M, W Maintenance Revenue £2,403.52 £0.00 £2,403.52 £745.09
4 Ellerton Ings W22 0.43 M, W Maintenance Revenue £3,015.04 £0.00 £3,015.04 £1,296.47
5 Red Cap U4/4 0.24 M, D Maintenance Revenue £930.72 £0.00 £930.72 £223.37
6 Authershaws Drain U2/1 0.07 M, W Maintenance Revenue £1,971.20 £0.00 £1,971.20 £137.98
7 Charity Drain U1/6 0.07 M, W Maintenance Revenue £4,995.20 £0.00 £4,995.20 £349.66
9 Boundary Drain U7/4 0.07 M, W Maintenance Revenue £1,652.00 £0.00 £1,652.00 £115.64
10 Birk Lane Drain U1/1 0.07 M, W Maintenance Revenue £1,236.48 £0.00 £1,236.48 £86.55
11 Causeway Drain U1/4 0.24 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTALS - LOWER OUSE £20,539.68 £0.00 £20,539.68 £3,258.26
Market Weighton
1 Brantingham 07 0.36 M, W Maintenance Revenue £2,797.76 £0.00 £2,797.76 £1,007.19
2 Beals Beck 04 0.66 M, W Maintenance Revenue £3,440.64 £0.00 £3,440.64 £2,270.82
3 Weighton Beck 85 0.732 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Skelfrey Beck 80 0.6 M, W Maintenance Revenue £2,121.28 £0.00 £2,121.28 £1,272.77
5 The Runner and Branch 72 0.37 M, W Maintenance Revenue £5,521.60 £0.00 £5,521.60 £2,042.99
6 Crabley Beck 22 0.46 M, W Maintenance Revenue £2,591.68 £0.00 £2,591.68 £1,192.17
7 Carr Dyke 14 0.22 M, W, D Maintenance Revenue £3,950.24 £0.00 £3,950.24 £869.05
8 Long Black Dyke 55 0.09 M, W Maintenance Revenue £4,296.32 £0.00 £4,296.32 £386.67
9 Bowman Drain 06 0.71 M, W Maintenance Revenue £2,816.80 £0.00 £2,816.80 £1,999.93
10 Mill Beck 57 0.66 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Delfin 24 0.37 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
12 Harswell and Everingham 38 0.37 M, W Maintenance Revenue £1,706.88 £0.00 £1,706.88 £631.55
13 Hush Cush 45 0.09 M, D Maintenance Revenue £1,425.76 £0.00 £1,425.76 £128.32
14 South Cliffe 81 0.09 M, W Maintenance Revenue £1,227.52 £0.00 £1,227.52 £110.48
15 Sands Drain 0.64 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 Seavy Carr & Clegg Dyke Pmp. Stns. 0.125 Q Maintenance Revenue £36,043.52 £0.00 £36,043.52 £4,505.44
Seavy Carr/North Carr 75 0.125 M, W Maintenance Revenue £2,920.96 £0.00 £2,920.96 £365.12
Clegg Dyke & extension 18 0.125 M, W Maintenance Revenue £5,145.28 £0.00 £5,145.28 £643.16
Appendix A12 Ouse & Humber IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries upland
water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Ploughfurrow Drain 68 0.125 M, W Maintenance Revenue £8,566.80 £0.00 £8,566.80 £1,070.85
21 Supervision (Average factor) 12% 0.33 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTALS - MARKET WEIGHTON £84,573.04 £0.00 £84,573.04 £18,496.51
TOTALS - OUSE & HUMBER IDB £105,112.72 £0.00 £105,112.72 £21,754.77
Appendix A13 Selby IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries
upland water and for which
grant is claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
1 Bishop Dyke 0.6 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £2,378.22 £0.00 £2,378.22 £1,426.93
2 Mill Dyke 1 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
3 Selby Dam 0.38 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Monk Fryston Station Drain 0.17 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £569.52 £0.00 £569.52 £96.82
5 Burton Salmon 0.51 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £2,276.34 £0.00 £2,276.34 £1,160.93
6 March Drain 0.505 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £3,107.53 £0.00 £3,107.53 £1,569.30
7 Hillam 0.17 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £535.65 £0.00 £535.65 £91.06
8 Gateforth Wood 0.15 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £1,353.02 £0.00 £1,353.02 £202.95
9 Lund House 0.2 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £728.22 £0.00 £728.22 £145.64
10 Pighill Nook 0.17 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £2,453.60 £0.00 £2,453.60 £417.11
11 Burton Common 0.2 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £3,432.65 £0.00 £3,432.65 £686.53
12 Gateforth Village Drain 0.25 B, D & M Maintenance Revenue £832.02 £0.00 £832.02 £208.01
TOTALS £17,666.77 £0.00 £17,666.77 £6,005.29
Appendix A14 South Holderness IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries upland
water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
Preston IDB
1 Preston and Preston New Drain 004 0.3 W Maintenance Revenue £1,548.00 £0.00 £1,548.00 £464.40
2 Wyton Drain 002 0.67 W Maintenance Revenue £923.00 £0.00 £923.00 £618.41
3 Fleet and Old Fleet Drain 003 0.57 W, M Maintenance Revenue £2,470.00 £0.00 £2,470.00 £1,407.90
4 Wyton Bar 0.565 W Maintenance Revenue £223.00 £0.00 £223.00 £126.00
5 Lelley Dyke 005 0.66 W Maintenance Revenue £585.00 £0.00 £585.00 £386.10
6 Burton Road Side Drain 0.565 W Maintenance Revenue £233.00 £0.00 £233.00 £131.65
7 Nuttalls Drain 0.665 W Maintenance Revenue £293.00 £0.00 £293.00 £194.85
8 Red House Farm Drain 001 0.565 W,M,S Maintenance Revenue £845.00 £0.00 £845.00 £477.43
TOTALS - Preston IDB £7,120.00 £0.00 £7,120.00 £3,806.72
Ottringham IDB
1 Intack Drain 0.23 w Maintenance Revenue £1,741.00 £0.00 £1,741.00 £400.43
2 Main Drain 0.465 w,d,b Maintenance Revenue £3,507.00 £0.00 £3,507.00 £1,630.76
3 Ings Drain 0.155 w Maintenance Revenue £932.00 £0.00 £932.00 £144.46
TOTALS - Ottringham IDB £6,180.00 £0.00 £6,180.00 £2,175.65
Thorngumbald IDB
Thorngumbold Main Drain 0.48 w, m Maintenance Revenue £2,265.00 £0.00 £2,265.00 £1,087.20
TOTALS - Thorngumbald IDB £2,265.00 £0.00 £2,265.00 £1,087.20
Winestead IDB
1 Winestead Drain u/s of booster PS 0.65 w Maintenance Revenue £1,845.00 £0.00 £1,845.00 £1,199.25
TOTALS - Winestead IDB £1,845.00 £0.00 £1,845.00 £1,199.25
Keyingham Level IDB
1 Kencroft Drain 0.1 w Maintenance Revenue £1,050.00 £0.00 £1,050.00 £105.00
2 Keyingham Main 0.34 w,m Maintenance Revenue £4,352.00 £0.00 £4,352.00 £1,479.68
3 Ryehill 0.12 w,m,b Maintenance Revenue £4,062.80 £0.00 £4,062.80 £487.54
4 Skeckling 0.12 w Maintenance Revenue £690.00 £0.00 £690.00 £82.80
5 East Drain 0.12 w Maintenance Revenue £759.00 £0.00 £759.00 £91.08
6 Burton West 0.61 w Maintenance Revenue £393.00 £0.00 £393.00 £239.73
8 Burstwick Drain 0.61 w Maintenance Revenue £193.00 £0.00 £193.00 £117.73
Appendix A14 South Holderness IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of
watercourse which carries upland
water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB
ref.
Drain
factor
Description of works
carried out
(See column M for
description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
11 Elstronwick Drain 0.61 w Maintenance Revenue £559.00 £0.00 £559.00 £340.99
12 Lelley Sewer 0.61 w Maintenance Revenue £418.00 £0.00 £418.00 £254.98
13 Marsh Drain 0.12 w Maintenance Revenue £810.00 £0.00 £810.00 £97.20
16 Owstwick Drain 0.34 w Maintenance Revenue £744.00 £0.00 £744.00 £252.96
17 Roos Drain 0.34 w, m Maintenance Revenue £3,562.00 £0.00 £3,562.00 £1,211.08
18 Southfield Drain 0.61 w Maintenance Revenue £552.00 £0.00 £552.00 £336.72
TOTALS - Keyingham Level IDB £18,144.80 £0.00 £18,144.80 £5,097.49
Skeffling IDB
1 Easington Drain 0.19 w,d Maintenance Revenue £1,714.00 £0.00 £1,714.00 £325.66
2 Skeffling Drain 0.56 w,d Maintenance Revenue £2,503.00 £0.00 £2,503.00 £1,401.68
3 Weeton Drain 0.46 w,m Maintenance Revenue £2,247.00 £0.00 £2,247.00 £1,033.62
4 Welwick Drain 0.48 w Maintenance Revenue £1,650.00 £0.00 £1,650.00 £792.00
TOTALS - Skeffling IDB £8,114.00 £0.00 £8,114.00 £3,552.96
Grand Totals £43,668.80 £0.00 £43,668.80 £16,919.26
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Please choose from
Drop Down List
Please choose from
Drop Down List £
Bedale & Upper Swale IDB
1 Bedale Beck 0.666 s, b Maintenance Revenue £8,728.63 £0.00 £8,728.63 £5,813.27
2 Scruton Stell 0.43 c,f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £5,302.65 £0.00 £5,302.65 £2,280.14
3 Spring House Stell or Field House 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Terry House Stell 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Nursery Drain 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Aiskew Moor Drain 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
7 Main Cut (Snape) 0.58 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
8 Burtree Dike 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 Lord's Lane Plantation 0.39 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 Firby Beck 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Cob Castle Drain 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
12 Old Stell 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 Mill Race (Snape) 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 Nethercooks Drain 0.582 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,612.66 £0.00 £3,612.66 £2,102.57
16 Brickyard Farm Drain 0.457 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
17 Intake Lane Drain 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
18 Mires Ings Drain 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
19 Black Plantation or Reeds Beck 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 Rand Beck 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
21 Harry Bowes Wood Drain 0.582 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
22 Scurf Beck 0.612 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £13,569.36 £0.00 £13,569.36 £8,304.45
23 Brick Kiln Wood or Long Gutter 0.612 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,883.93 £0.00 £1,883.93 £1,152.97
25 Wassick Beck 0.612 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £8,270.55 £0.00 £8,270.55 £5,061.58
26 Stone Pasture Drain 0.43 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £892.61 £0.00 £892.61 £383.82
27 Cobshaw Farm Drain 0.43 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,153.39 £0.00 £3,153.39 £1,355.96
29 Redmond Wood Drain 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Sand Hill Drain 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
31 Bowbridge Beck 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 1 £45,413.78 £0.00 £45,413.78 £26,454.75
32 Hackforth Mires Drain 0.43 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
33 Healam Beck 0.795 b,d,m Maintenance £5,247.76 £0.00 £5,247.76 £4,171.97
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
34 Sike Stell 0.666 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
36 Winwath Stell 0.65 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
38 Mill Race (Kirklington) 0.65 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
39 Ings Goit (Well) 0.65 b,d,m Maintenance £1,913.43 £0.00 £1,913.43 £1,243.73
40 Allerthorpe Stell 0.795 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
41 Allerthorpe Hall Stell 0.8 c,f,b,d,m Maintenance £802.42 £0.00 £802.42 £641.94
43 Gatenby Stell 0.645 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
44 Howe Beck 0.503 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
45 Howe Beck Stell 0.503 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
46 Langlands Stell, Morton 0.4 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
47 Pit Bottoms Stell 0.645 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
50 Common Stell (Scruton) 0.44 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
51 New Dike (Ainderby) 0.47 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
52 Mill Beck (Thrintoft) 0.504 b,d,m Maintenance £1,036.44 £0.00 £1,036.44 £522.37
53 Bramper Lane Drain 0.504 b,d,m Maintenance £1,465.29 £0.00 £1,465.29 £738.51
54 North Beck 0.504 b,d,m Maintenance £1,890.09 £0.00 £1,890.09 £952.61
55 Thrintoft Beck 0.504 b,d,m Maintenance £264.99 £0.00 £264.99 £133.55
56 Mill Beck (Fleetham) 0.38 f,b,d,m Maintenance £2,684.88 £0.00 £2,684.88 £1,020.25
57 South Lowfield Stell 0.15 b,d,m Maintenance £2,428.75 £0.00 £2,428.75 £364.31
58 Winterwalk Stell 0.472 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
60 The Stell (Great Langton) 0.8 c,f Maintenance £784.09 £0.00 £784.09 £627.27
61 Langton Boundary Stell 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
63 Ellerton Beck 0.216 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
65 Fiddale Beck 0.592 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
66 Killerby Fox Covert Stell 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
67 Catterick Beck 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
68 Brough Beck 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
69 Gutter Cockett, Morton 0.4 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 2 - Bedale & Upper Swale £18,518.14 £0.00 £18,518.14 £10,416.51
TOTALS BEDALE & UPPER SWALE £63,931.92 £0.00 £63,931.92 £36,871.25
Cod Beck IDB
1 Cod Beck 0.745 b Maintenance Revenue £2,565.90 £0.00 £2,565.90 £1,911.60
2 Broad Beck 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
3 Kidsons Stell 0.605 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Brawith Dyke 0.765 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Alverton Stell 0.703 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Crosby West Stell 0.703 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
7 Crosby West Stell Extension 0.703 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
8 Sandholme Stells 0.75 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 Carriage Road Stells 0.75 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 Spittal Beck 0.75 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 South Kilvington 0.72 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,043.95 £0.00 £3,043.95 £2,191.64
12 Whitelass Beck 0.753 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Duckett Ings and Barbeck 0.78 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 Dugdale Beck 0.48 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 Paradise and Fisher Beck 0.545 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
17 Paradise Trib (Isleworth Lane Stell) 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
18 Paradise Trib (South Moor Stell) 0.545 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
19 Paradise Trib (Fox Farm Stell) 0.545 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 Old Beck 0.8 c,s,f Maintenance Revenue £1,660.05 £0.00 £1,660.05 £1,328.04
23 Thacker Beck 0.48 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
24 Great Pasture Beck 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
25 Sigston Castle 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
26 Chester Lane 0.8 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,128.74 £0.00 £3,128.74 £2,502.99
27 Borrowby East Stell 0.653 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
28 Cotcliffe Stell 0.2 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £5,075.21 £0.00 £5,075.21 £1,015.04
TOTALS - Cod Beck IDB £15,473.85 £0.00 £15,473.85 £8,949.31
Lower Swale IDB
1 Maunby Hall Stell 1-2 0.37 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
2 Salmon Stell 0.1 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
3 Newcombe 0.28 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Highfield 0.45 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Kirkby Wiske Stells 0.45 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Pickhill Stells 19-20 0.28 c,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,272.80 £0.00 £2,272.80 £636.38
8 Foss Sike Stell, Sand Hutton 17-18 0.51 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 Howe & Pickhill Becks 19-20 0.56 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £12,981.83 £0.00 £12,981.83 £7,269.82
10 Sinderby Stell (Sikes Beck) 0.8 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Sanderson 21-22 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
12 Baldersby to Skipton Bridge 0.79 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Fox Covert Stell, Baldersby St James 0.79 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 Old Sike Stell, Topcliffe 0.72 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 Anchors Dyke Stell 0.72 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
17 Eldmire Grove or Pit Ings 0.55 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
18 Eldmire Ings 0.55 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
19 Leckby Palace Stell 36-37 0.28 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 Crakehill Beck 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
21 Birdforth Beck & Tributaries 39-68 0.696 f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £4,534.61 £0.00 £4,534.61 £3,156.09
22 Cundall Beck 0.61 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
23 Main Goit 0.547 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
24 Lingham Goit 44-45 0.61 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
25 Moor Wood Stell 0.578 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
26 Fawdington Stell 50-51 0.7 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £349.80 £0.00 £349.80 £244.86
27 Ings Drain Helperby 0.34 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,964.52 £0.00 £2,964.52 £1,007.94
28 Nell Beck 0.55 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Humberton Stell 58-59 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
31 Soppa Gutter 0.547 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £164.80 £0.00 £164.80 £90.15
32 Pastures Hill Dishforth 0.547 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
33 Sleights Drain 0.61 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
34 West Stell 0.61 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
35 Burkers Stell 0.696 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
36 Sessay Stell 0.79 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
37 Ormston Stell 76-78 0.696 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
38 Fullans Stell 0.696 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £745.90 £0.00 £745.90 £519.15
39 Fogfield Wood 0.578 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
41 Ainderby Quernhow, R Swale Clough 0.2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTALS - Lower Swale IDB £24,014.26 £0.00 £24,014.26 £12,924.39
River Wiske IDB
1 River Wiske (Lower Reaches) 1-104 0.622 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
2 Sion Hill Stell 2a-6 0.683 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,266.19 £0.00 £1,266.19 £864.81
3 Sike Stell 0.61 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Hagberry Stell 3-4 0.615 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
5 Carr Wood Stell 0.667 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £169.18 £0.00 £169.18 £112.84
6 Dow Dyke Stell 5-6 0.623 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
7 Moor Stell 0.667 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
8 Oak Tree Stell 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
9 Leach Green Stell 0.598 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,453.73 £0.00 £1,453.73 £869.33
10 Holly Bush Stell No. 1 0.24 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Manor House Stell 0.545 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
12 Spuddling Dyke 16-21a 0.46 q,c,f Maintenance Revenue £6,484.57 £0.00 £6,484.57 £2,982.90
13 Hollly Bush Stell No. 2 0.24 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 The Carr Stell 0.46 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 Crabtree House Stell 172-18a 0.46 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,329.10 £0.00 £1,329.10 £611.39
16 Woodbridge Plantation Stell 0.46 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,898.08 £0.00 £3,898.08 £1,793.12
18 Howe Beck 0.598 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £7,785.27 £0.00 £7,785.27 £4,655.59
19 Railway Bridge Stell (Newby Wiske) 0.752 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 Otterington Station Stell 0.598 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,782.65 £0.00 £2,782.65 £1,664.02
21 Thornton-le-Moor Stell 0.56 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,511.25 £0.00 £1,511.25 £846.30
22 Endican Lane Stell 0.67 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,021.12 £0.00 £3,021.12 £2,024.15
23 Thornborough Stell (Thornton-le-Moor) 0.61 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,904.00 £0.00 £2,904.00 £1,771.44
24 Davisons Stell 0.61 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
25 Shipley's Stell 0.609 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,472.47 £0.00 £1,472.47 £896.73
26 College Stell 34-39 0.625 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
27 Spital Length (Romanby) 0.56 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
28 Thornborough Stell (Romanby) 0.56 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
29 Crosby Stell 0.71 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Warlaby Stell 40-41 0.655 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
31 Willow Beck 42-45 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
32 Stone Cross Stell 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 1 - River Wiske IDB £34,077.61 £0.00 £34,077.61 £19,092.63
River Wiske IDB - ctnd
33 Sheepcote Stell 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
34 Brompton Beck 45-47 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
35 Winton Beck 47-42a 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
36 Ing Beck 47-55 0.68 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £5,193.75 £0.00 £5,193.75 £3,531.75
37 Harsley Low Moor Stell 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
38 Harsley Beck 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
39 Long Lane Stell 0.68 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £403.70 £0.00 £403.70 £274.52
40 Curry's Stell 0.68 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,899.34 £0.00 £1,899.34 £1,291.55
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
41 Whorlton Moor Stell 0.68 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
42 Wiske Moor Stell 0.57 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
43 Little Danby Stell 58-59a 0.75 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
44 Lazenby Pheasantry Stell 60-62 0.75 f,b Maintenance Revenue £2,329.02 £0.00 £2,329.02 £1,746.77
45 Hall Stell (Hutton Bonville) 0.75 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
46 Railway Stell (Lazenby) 0.75 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,022.76 £0.00 £1,022.76 £767.07
47 The Stell (Cowton) 0.556 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £8,564.41 £0.00 £8,564.41 £4,761.81
48 Felgill Moor Stell 0.6 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
49 Low Winholme Stell 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
50 Danby Plantation Stell 66a-66b 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
51 Cowton Village Stell 0.556 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
52 Pepper Arden Stell 0.556 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
53 Atley Fields Stell 0.556 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
54 North Cowton Stell 0.556 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
55 Birkby Bottoms Stell 76-77a 0.64 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £950.14 £0.00 £950.14 £608.09
56 Birkby Carrs Stell 0.64 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £237.93 £0.00 £237.93 £152.28
57 Hutton Bonville Stell 76c-76d 0.6 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
58 Crow Wood Stell 0.5 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
59 Cowton Station Stell 80-83 0.52 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
60 Cowton Fields 0.278 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
61 Great Smeaton Stell 0.46 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
62 Little Smeaton Stell 86-87a 0.58 p Maintenance Revenue £1,576.08 £0.00 £1,576.08 £914.13
63 West Lane 0.6 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
64 Garnett's Stell (Appleton Wiske) 0.66 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
65 Carr Bridge Stell 90-91 0.66 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,342.76 £0.00 £3,342.76 £2,206.22
66 Eddy Bridge Stell 0.66 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,070.06 £0.00 £3,070.06 £2,026.24
67 Welbury Stell 91b-91c 0.64 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,028.48 £0.00 £1,028.48 £658.23
68 River Wiske (Upper Reaches) 0.583 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £13,547.60 £0.00 £13,547.60 £7,898.25
69 East Rounton Stell 0.518 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
70 Trenholme Stell 0.518 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
71 Swinegar Plantation Stell 0.375 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
72 Salter Bridge Stell 0.303 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
73 Stony Lane Plantation Stell 0.583 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
74 Carr Beck 0.583 Maintenance Revenue £5,219.65 £0.00 £5,219.65 £3,043.06
75 Mount Lodge 0.583 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
76 Fagdale Stell 0.303 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 2 - River Wiske IDB £48,385.68 £0.00 £48,385.68 £29,879.95
GRAND TOTAL - River Wiske IDB £82,463.29 £0.00 £82,463.29 £48,972.58
Claro IDB
1 River Crimple Main River 0.736 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
2 Aketon Beck and Tributary 8 0.72 f Maintenance Revenue £180.36 £0.00 £180.36 £129.86
3 Bond Ing Drain 5 0.39 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Stank Bridge Drain 9 0.72 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £980.76 £0.00 £980.76 £706.15
5 Horse Pond Beck 10 0.72 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
6 Guilders Bridge 11 0.72 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
7 Holme Lane Drain unadopted 0.72 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
8 Stockeld Beck 3 0.692 f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £4,486.40 £0.00 £4,486.40 £3,104.59
9 Alders Beck 4 0.585 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
10 Shaw Bridge Dyke 7 0.787 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
11 Toad Hole Beck and Tributaries 6 0.681 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
12 Ox Close Lane 1 0.525 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Hawkswell's Drain (Hollins Close) unadopted 0.39 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
14 Tributary u/s of Crimple Bridge 2 0.525 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 Frogmire Dyke 12 0.607 f,b.d,m Maintenance Revenue £6,569.54 £0.00 £6,569.54 £3,987.71
16 Meadows Dyke 13 0.607 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
17 Breary Flat Dyke 14 0.607 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
18 Water Lane Dyke 15 0.607 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
19 Sweet Bits Dyke 16 0.607 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
20 The Rampart 17 0.456 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £7,677.33 £0.00 £7,677.33 £3,500.86
21 Hall Farm Dyke 18 0.1 f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,219.20 £0.00 £2,219.20 £221.92
22 Mill Farm Dyke 19 0.15 Maintenance Revenue £1,750.00 £0.00 £1,750.00 £262.50
23 Oakwood Farm Dyke 20 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
24 Castle Farm Dyke 21 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
25 Clareton Moor Dyke 22 0.456 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
26 North Killls Gutter 23 0.456 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,283.66 £0.00 £1,283.66 £585.35
27 Arkendale Moor Dyke 24 0.456 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,506.84 £0.00 £1,506.84 £687.12
28 Moor Lane Dyke 25 0.456 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
29 Gundriffs Beck 26 0.565 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Great Wood Dyke 27 0.565 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
31 Great Dyke 28 0.565 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
32 New Cut, Goldsborough 30 0.565 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
33 Langshawe Wood Dyke 31 0.275 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
35 Double Dyke 33 0.561 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
36 Sike Dyke 34 0.6 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
37 Demesne Dyke 35 0.39 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
38 New Inn Farm Dyke 36 0.561 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
39 Green Dick Wood Dyke 37 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
40 Cattal Main Dyke 38 0.625 c,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,296.68 £0.00 £2,296.68 £1,435.43
41 Ox Moor Lane Dyke 39 0.15 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
43 Cattal Belt Dyke 41 0.625 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £928.46 £0.00 £928.46 £580.29
45 Kirk Hammerton Beck 43 0.68 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £90.18 £0.00 £90.18 £61.32
46 Ox Pasture Dyke 44 0.275 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
47 East Field Dyke 45 0.275 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
48 Pike Shaw Dyke 29 0.275 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
49 Scarers Hill Drain 46 0.39 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
50 Beck Closes Drain 47 0.485 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £408.39 £0.00 £408.39 £198.07
51 Caulkhill Beck 48 0.572 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £316.68 £0.00 £316.68 £181.14
52 Gale Gate Lane Drain 49 0.461 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £522.00 £0.00 £522.00 £240.64
53 Gale Gate Lane Drain Tributary 50 0.567 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
TOTAL PAGE 1 - Claro IDB £31,216.48 £0.00 £31,216.48 £15,882.94
Claro IDB - ctnd
54 Hare Hill Drain 51 0.505 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
55 Burn Beck 52 0.681 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
56 Bog Drain 53 0.485 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
57 Whitwell Springs Drain 54 0.522 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,268.18 £0.00 £1,268.18 £661.99
59 Bog Drain Tributary 56 0.597 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,223.66 £0.00 £3,223.66 £1,924.53
63 Holbecks Drain 60 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
64 Bawter Carr Drain 61 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
65 Sledbar Closes Drain 62 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
66 Bawter Carr - Upper Reaches 63 0.54 p,f Maintenance Revenue £1,133.00 £0.00 £1,133.00 £611.82
67 Low Common Drain 64 0.435 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
68 Keepers House Drain 65 0.435 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
69 Sledbar Nook Drain 67 0.435 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
70 Ings Drain - Aldborough 68 0.28 c,f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,838.05 £0.00 £1,838.05 £514.65
71 River Tutt 69 0.643 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £6,565.75 £0.00 £6,565.75 £4,221.78
Appendix A15 Swale & Ure IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse
which carries upland water and for
which grant is claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column L
for description
of abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: Total Actual contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan cost of works receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
72 Cemetery Drain 70 0.7 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
73 Garth Ends Drain 71 0.535 f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £3,536.35 £0.00 £3,536.35 £1,891.95
74 Carr Drain 72 0.515 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £11,657.50 £0.00 £11,657.50 £6,003.61
75 Longlands Drain 73 0.515 f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £2,628.43 £0.00 £2,628.43 £1,353.64
76 Main Drain 74 0.54 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £1,510.66 £0.00 £1,510.66 £815.76
77 Staveley Carr Drain 75 0.54 Maintenance Revenue £219.50 £0.00 £219.50 £118.53
78 Main Drain Tributary 76 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
79 Holme Hill Drain now quarry 0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
80 Waingates Farm Drain 78 0.482 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
81 Staveley Village Drain 79 0.743 c,f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £644.00 £0.00 £644.00 £478.49
82 Mill Race 80 0.3 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
83 Occaney Beck 81 0.643 c,f,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £5,150.76 £0.00 £5,150.76 £3,311.94
84 Shaw Beck 82 0.612 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £12,576.50 £0.00 £12,576.50 £7,696.82
85 Moat Drain 83 0.66 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
86 Shaw New Cut 84 0.612 p,b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £742.78 £0.00 £742.78 £454.58
87 Mires Covert Drain 85 0.612 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
88 Scarr Drain 86 0.612 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £575.40 £0.00 £575.40 £352.14
90 Jumwell Beck 88 0.612 b,d,m Maintenance Revenue £958.12 £0.00 £958.12 £586.37
91 Ware End Beck 89 0.652 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
92 Holbeck 90 0.77 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
General Maintenance (Average fact) 0.59 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Supervision (Average factor) 0.59 Maintenance Revenue £46,710.96 £0.00 £46,710.96 £27,559.47
TOTAL PAGE 2 - Claro IDB £100,939.60 £0.00 £100,939.60 £58,558.06
GRAND TOTALS - Claro IDB £132,156.08 £0.00 £132,156.08 £74,441.01
GRAND TOTALS £318,039.40 £0.00 £318,039.40 £182,158.54
Appendix A16 Vale of Pickering IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M
for description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
Please choose
from Drop Down
List
Please choose
from Drop Down
List £
Muston & Yedingham IDB
1 Yedingham Outfall (The Cut) 1 0.2 B F M R S Maintenance Revenue £535.60 £0.00 £535.60 £107.12
2 Welldale Beck 4 0.2 D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £473.80 £0.00 £473.80 £94.76
3 Sherburn Beck 10 0.1 B D F M P R S Maintenance Revenue £906.40 £0.00 £906.40 £90.64
4 Brompton Beck 12 0.9 D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £669.50 £0.00 £669.50 £602.55
5 Gristhorpe Drain 64 0.5 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £350.20 £0.00 £350.20 £175.10
6 Grindstone Crook Drain 66 0.5 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £329.60 £0.00 £329.60 £164.80
7 Ruston Beck 15 0.55 B C D F M R S Maintenance Revenue £927.00 £0.00 £927.00 £509.85
8 Sherburn Cut 9 0.1 B C D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,318.40 £0.00 £1,318.40 £131.84
9 East Ayton Dyke 31 0.2 B D M P R W Maintenance Revenue £885.80 £0.00 £885.80 £177.16
10 Hutton Buscel Outfall 17 0.5 C M R W Maintenance Revenue £391.40 £0.00 £391.40 £195.70
11 Heads Drain 21 0.5 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £453.20 £0.00 £453.20 £226.60
12 Black Dyke HB 25 0.5 B C M R S W Maintenance Revenue £576.80 £0.00 £576.80 £288.40
13 Black Dyke (Seamer) 48 0.54 B D F M P R S Maintenance Revenue £1,236.00 £0.00 £1,236.00 £667.44
14 Cayton Hill Drain 55 0.19 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £659.20 £0.00 £659.20 £125.25
15 Killesby Drain 61 0.54 B C D M P R S Maintenance Revenue £865.20 £0.00 £865.20 £467.21
16 Seamer Drain 32 0.2 B C D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,194.80 £0.00 £1,194.80 £238.96
17 Irton Drain 33 0.2 B D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £144.20
18 Kirby Drain 0.1 B D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £906.40 £0.00 £906.40 £90.64
19 Cayton East 56 0.54 C D R S W Maintenance Revenue £803.40 £0.00 £803.40 £433.84
20 Coulson's Carr 58 0.54 B C D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £927.00 £0.00 £927.00 £500.58
21 Deepdale Carr 57 0.54 D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £844.60 £0.00 £844.60 £456.08
22 Fen(?) Dyke Ings Dyke 0.54 B C D M P R S Maintenance Revenue £1,400.80 £0.00 £1,400.80 £756.43
23 New Drain, Cayton 0.54 B D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £988.80 £0.00 £988.80 £533.95
24 River Hartford 0.40 B C D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue 10155.8 £0.00 £10,155.80 £4,062.32
TOTALS - Muston & Yedingham £28,520.70 £0.00 £28,520.70 £11,241.42
Rye IDB 1 Stile Road Drain 21-36 0.345 B C D F M R S Maintenance Revenue £927.00 £0.00 £927.00 £319.82
2 Hazel House Drain 40-42 0.3 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £679.80 £0.00 £679.80 £203.94
3 Broughton Moor Drain 50-52 0.3 Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
4 Low Lane Drain 51-54 0.3 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £185.40
5 Pasture Lane Drain 53-55 0.3 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £247.20
Appendix A16 Vale of Pickering IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M
for description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
6 Costa Beck (main River) 0.605 B C D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,709.80 £0.00 £1,709.80 £1,034.43
7 Tofts Drain 183-184 0.2 B D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £103.00
8 Bull Ings Drain 185-186 0.2 D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £453.20 £0.00 £453.20 £90.64
9 Pickering Beck (main River) 0.8 B C F M R W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £659.20
10 Twelve Foot Cut 212-217A 0.1 B C D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,256.60 £0.00 £1,256.60 £125.66
11 East Drain 217-221 0.1 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £679.80 £0.00 £679.80 £67.98
12 West Drain 217A-217B 0.1 Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
13 Oxfolds Beck 218-226 0.8 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £494.40
14 Middleton Sewer 227-228 0.8 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £803.40 £0.00 £803.40 £642.72
15 Grange Drain 248-249 0.2 D M P R Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £144.20
17 Black Sike Drain 260-275 0.62 B D M O R S W Maintenance Revenue £927.00 £0.00 £927.00 £574.74
18 Low Bottoms 261-262 0.12 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £37.08
19 Ings Gate Drain 263-264 0.12 B M S W Maintenance Revenue £360.50 £0.00 £360.50 £43.26
20 Ings Dyke 265-269 0.789 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £650.14
21 Ings Dyke Tributary 266-267 0.5 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £370.80 £0.00 £370.80 £185.40
22 Wrelton Carr Drain 268-270 0.5 D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £206.00
23 Aislaby Carr Drain 271-272 0.5 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £247.20 £0.00 £247.20 £123.60
24 Middleton Carr Drain 273-274 0.5 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £154.50
25 Redbridge Sewer 300-309 0.48 B D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,545.00 £0.00 £1,545.00 £741.60
26 Amotherby Lane Drain 301-307 0.4 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £288.40
27 Appleton Lane Drain 303-304 0.4 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £164.80
28 Barton Lane Drain 305-306 0.4 Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
30 Slingsby Carr Cut 320-333 0.26 B D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,133.00 £0.00 £1,133.00 £294.58
31 Long Lane Drain 328-330 0.26 D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £350.20 £0.00 £350.20 £91.05
32 Gatehouse Drain 331-332 0.4 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £206.00 £0.00 £206.00 £82.40
33 North Ings Sewer 380-381 0.675 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £803.40 £0.00 £803.40 £542.30
34 Whitecarr Lane Drain 382-388 0.57 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £234.84
35 Riseborough Hill Drain 385-386 0.57 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £469.68
36 High Grange Drain 387-389 0.3 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £92.70
37 Catter Beck 0.8 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £329.60
TOTAL PAGE 1 Rye IDB £21,516.70 £0.00 £21,516.70 £9,625.25
38 Plantation Drain 401-402 0.435 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £134.42
39 River Seven (main River) 0.8 B F P R S W Maintenance Revenue £679.80 £0.00 £679.80 £543.84
40 Keld Beck 406-407 0.39 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £120.51
41 Holbeck 0.8 B D FM P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,751.00 £0.00 £1,751.00 £1,400.80
42 Wath Beck 451-460 0.58 D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £418.18
Appendix A16 Vale of Pickering IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M
for description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
43 Dikes Tributary 421-424 0.3 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £391.40 £0.00 £391.40 £117.42
44 Spring Beck (Ness) 0.3 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £494.40 £0.00 £494.40 £148.32
45 Marrs Beck 480-483 0.785 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £494.40 £0.00 £494.40 £388.10
46 Hovingham Beck 481-482 0.699 B D F M P R W Maintenance Revenue £1,915.80 £0.00 £1,915.80 £1,339.14
47 Spring Beck (Cawton) 483-488 0.498 B D F M P S W Maintenance Revenue £1,019.70 £0.00 £1,019.70 £507.81
48 Hovingham Park Drain 484-485 0.75 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £309.00
49 Cawton Drain 0.498 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £927.00 £0.00 £927.00 £461.65
50 Caulkleys Drain 489-490 0.5 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £381.10 £0.00 £381.10 £190.55
51 Stonegrave Lodge Drain 502-503 0.39 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £160.68
52 Sykes Sewer 504-505 0.61 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £251.32
53 Little Holbeck 507-511 0.61 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,524.40 £0.00 £1,524.40 £929.88
54 Burtis Beck 0.8 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £412.00
55 Leysthorpe Drain 0.73 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £300.76
56 Carr Dike 550-553 0.2 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £61.80
57 Coulson Drain Tributary 553-554 0.5 Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
58 Coulson Drain 553-557 0.4 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £206.00
59 Marton Common Drain 555-556 0.4 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,133.00 £0.00 £1,133.00 £453.20
60 Cowldyke Drain 572-573 0.557 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,194.80 £0.00 £1,194.80 £665.50
61 Howkeld Beck 580-583 0.7 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £432.60
62 Hodge Beck 0.74 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £457.32
63 Ings Lane Drain 582-584 0.7 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £782.80 £0.00 £782.80 £547.96
64 Kirby Sewer 586-587 0.4 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £206.00
65 River Dove (main River) 0.88 B C F M R W Maintenance Revenue £803.40 £0.00 £803.40 £706.99
66 River Riccal (main River) 0.714 B C F M R W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £514.79
67 Walmouth Beck 011-615 0.73 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £375.95
68 Ellerker Beck 614-624 0.66 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £885.80 £0.00 £885.80 £584.63
69 Wash Beck 615-616 0.73 B D P R S W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £601.52
71 Harome Moor Drain 624-626 0.65 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £700.40 £0.00 £700.40 £455.26
72 Marsh Mouth Drain 625-627 0.65 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £468.65
73 River Rye 0.884 B C F R W Maintenance Revenue £2,060.00 £0.00 £2,060.00 £1,821.04
TOTAL PAGE 2 - Rye £25,997.20 £0.00 £25,997.20 £16,693.60
TOTALS _ Rye £47,513.90 £0.00 £47,513.90 £26,318.85
Thornton IDB
Please
choose from
Drop Down
List
Please
choose from
Drop Down
List £
Appendix A16 Vale of Pickering IDB Item No. 5.3
EA
ref.
Name or description of watercourse which
carries upland water and for which grant is
claimed
IDB ref. Drain
factor
Description of
works carried out
(See column M
for description of
abbreviations)
Whether: Whether Total Actual Amount of Net cost Calculated
Maintenance financed by: cost of works contribution falling to be expenditure
Improvement Loan receivable from met by the on upland
New works Revenue any source, Drainage water
stating such Board
source
1 Settrington Beck 88 0.63 B C D F M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,215.40 £0.00 £1,215.40 £765.70
2 Rillington Beck 85 0.63 B C D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £875.50 £0.00 £875.50 £551.57
3 Allerston Beck 48 0.455 B D F M R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £328.06
4 Outgang Drain 18 0.455 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £374.92
5 Ebberston Beck 52 0.455 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £281.19
6 Pickering Carr Drain 19 0.455 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £281.19
7 Thornton Beck 0.64 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £494.40 £0.00 £494.40 £316.42
8 Scampston Beck 73 0.485 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £576.80 £0.00 £576.80 £279.75
9 Difford Beck 63 0.485 D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £249.78
10 Difford Roadside Drain 68 0.485 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £535.60 £0.00 £535.60 £259.77
11 Ellis Beck 61 0.485 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £199.82
12 Causeway Beck 62 0.485 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £824.00 £0.00 £824.00 £399.64
13 West Heslerton 0.21 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £679.80 £0.00 £679.80 £142.76
14 Wintringham 0.485 Maintenance Revenue £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
15 The Syme 12 0.41 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £2,163.00 £0.00 £2,163.00 £886.83
16 Rains Dyke 50 0.455 B D M P R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,009.40 £0.00 £1,009.40 £459.28
17 Westmoor Drain, Rillington 84 0.315 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £618.00 £0.00 £618.00 £194.67
18 West End Drain 24 0.2 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £515.00 £0.00 £515.00 £103.00
19 New Ings Drain 35 0.455 B C D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £1,009.40 £0.00 £1,009.40 £459.28
20 Hurrell Lane Drain 34 0.455 B C D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £927.00 £0.00 £927.00 £421.79
21 Broates Drain 14 0.455 M R S W Maintenance Revenue £370.80 £0.00 £370.80 £168.71
23 Row Dyke 30 0.455 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £473.80 £0.00 £473.80 £215.58
24 Broadmires Drain 20 0.2 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £144.20
25 Mires Drain 0.2 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £412.00 £0.00 £412.00 £82.40
39 Breckneys Drain 81 0.1 B M R S W Maintenance Revenue £309.00 £0.00 £309.00 £30.90
40 Westfield Drain 21 0.2 B C D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £721.00 £0.00 £721.00 £144.20
41 Burkills Ings Drain 72 0.485 B D M R S W Maintenance Revenue £700.40 £0.00 £700.40 £339.69
TOTALS - Thornton IDB £18,859.30 £0.00 £18,859.30 £8,081.07
GRAND TOTALS - The Vale of Pickering IDDs £94,893.90 £0.00 £94,893.90 £45,641.34
Appendix A17 Highland water Contribution template Item No. 5.3
Project ID
Area IDB (or RMA)
Contact Name (for queries)
Expenditure detail (is this for a specific contribution to the RMA?)
Activity Type
Service Level
Flood 2020 Category
Service Level Themes
Outcome Owner
IDB Admin Charge included?
Urgency Statutory Activity
Impact of delay and/or cancellation
FCRM % Contribution
Spend to date
2019-20 Plan
2020-21 Plan
2021-22 Plan
2022-23 Plan
2023-24 Plan
2024-25 Plan
TOTAL
1 Yorkshire Danvm Ian Benn Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 189.0 189.0
2 Yorkshire Swale & Ure
Ian Thornton
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 178.4 178.4 178.4 178.4 178.4 892.0 892.0
3 Yorkshire Ouse & Humber
Edward Allen
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 69.5 69.5
4 Yorkshire South Holderness
Ralph Ward
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 87.0 87.0
5 Yorkshire Vale of Pickering
Stephen Edwards
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 54.5 54.5 54.5 54.5 54.5 272.5 272.5
6 Yorkshire Earby & Salterforth
Elizabeth Stewart
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 7.0 7.0
7 Yorkshire Selby Area Nigel Everard
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 47.5 47.5
8 Yorkshire Kyle & Upper Ouse
Nigel Everard
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 56.2 56.2 56.2 56.2 56.2 281.0 281.0
9 Yorkshire FW York Bill Symonds
Highland water Other Asset
Management LowC/MedC Maintenance
Maintaining assets
Highland water flowigng freeing through the catchment
Other No Medium Operational
Unable to access critical asset for maintenance and operation.
100 188.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 942.0 942.0
Appendix A18 Highland Water Contributions Guidance Item No. 5.3
Doc No 339_16 Version 4 Last printed 16/07/20 Page 45 of 47
What’s this document about?
This document briefly explains the requirements of the Highland Water Contribution programme for FCRM and describes how to submit claims for funding.
Who does this apply to?
Partnership & Strategic Overview Teams
Asset Performance
Area Programme Teams
Contact for queries and feedback
Adam Clark - FCRM Programme Development team
Contents Highland Water Contributions ....................................................................... 2
Related documents ....................................................................................... 47
Operational instruction 339_16 Issued: 04 April 2019
Highland Water Contributions: 2020/21allocation
Appendix A18 Highland Water Contributions Guidance Item No. 5.3
Doc No 339_16 Version 4 Last printed 16/07/20 Page 46 of 47
Highland Water Contributions
Background Highland Water Contributions (HWC) are also known as Foreign or Uplands Water Contributions, and are enabled under Section 57 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
Highland Water is the water which comes from the upper reaches of the catchment and flows into the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) systems. As this water is from outside of the IDBs catchment, they are able to make a claim for a contribution towards their additional costs in handling this water from the Environment Agency.
How to develop a Highland Water Contribution programme
FCRM Area Programme teams will lead on programme development for HWC. The update to your programme should be undertaken collaboratively, working with area FCRM teams and Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs).
Work should only include that which is undertaken for receiving and conveying highland water from outside of the IDB district. It is appreciated that this can be difficult to quantify therefore supporting qualification and discussions between IDB and EA are crucial.
Typical additional works which may qualify for HWC:
Pumping operations
Weed control
De-silting
Obstruction removal/ debris clearance/ tree work
Bank re-profiling/ Reinstatement
Grass cutting
Works to maintain flood storage reservoirs
Asset maintenance
Asset and operational inspections on appropriate assets during periods of significant highland flow/ incident response
Pest/ vermin control
Technical support/ over-head in managing the above including system monitoring and system operation, transportation of plant and environmental management.
Typical works which do not qualify for HWC Revenue contribution:
Asset replacement/Improvement
Dredging beyond design bed level
Pioneering clearance on watercourse
Routine asset and operational inspections
Administration associated with HWC application and claim.
Appendix A18 Highland Water Contributions Guidance Item No. 5.3
Doc No 339_16 Version 4 Last printed 16/07/20 Page 47 of 47
A programme template is provided with this document. You must complete this template, please do not change its format; programmes returned in alternative formats may miss out on funding if data is missing.
What information to submit
By the end of June 2018 you must submit your completed programme template to the National team, your Area Programme team will likely ask for this information sooner for a coordinated submission. This will form your allocation bid for the 2019/20 programme.
Your bid should include the following:
An indication of claims over the next 6 years.
The claims should include minimum and identified need.
Any special claims should be identified.
An indication as to whether the figures are based on discussions between the Area and IDBs.
Is an IDB admin charge included within the figures?
Are the standards for operation and maintenance for the IDB similar to those of the Environment Agency?
Do the IDB's feel that they have been underfunded in the past?
The template captures a number of generic details as well as specific information for each bid. Generic details include linking the work to assuring delivery and service level themes.
An FCRM 1 form does not need to be submitted.
The detailed programme will be shared with national leads who will advise on prioritisation, as investment needs may exceed the available funding.
Prioritisation The information provided in the bids will be reviewed and you may be asked for further information before the final allocation is agreed.
The allocation will be made using the following approach.
Minimum needs are firstly fully funded. The remaining funding available is allocated to needs identified on a sliding
scale.
Related documents
Finance decision tree
Back to agenda
Item No. 5.4
Environment Agency Yorkshire Area Back to agenda
Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: Use of Local Levy to Develop
a Strategic Approach to Natural Flood Management (NFM) Across the YRFCC Area
Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/303
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE:
The YRFCC has approved a number of Levy projects in the last few years aimed at promoting NFM in specific locations – the Upper Don and the Rother being among the most recent. The YRFCC have also used Levy to promote catchment scale activity, for example on the Derwent. The Committee has also been very supportive of the catchment scale NFM measures within Leeds FAS 2. This paper proposes a more strategic, region wide Levy-funded programme to promote NFM measures, embed them in the Region’s approach to flood risk reduction, achieve wider environmental benefits and ensure region wide sharing of evidence and good practice. The P&I and Environment Sub-Groups recommend that the Committee:
a. support a strategic, region wide approach to developing NFM and integrating working with natural processes so far as possible into all its flood risk reduction work as set out in the 5 strand plan described in the paper; and
b. agree to earmark £600,000 of indicative Local Levy over three years to support the other four strands in the planned strategy
1. WHY A NEW NFM APPROACH NOW? 1.1. Recent serious flooding in Yorkshire, including six very significant events in less than 20
years, serve as a reminder of the necessity to improve management of ever larger volumes of water. Research suggests that in future we can expect both increased magnitude and frequency of flooding events. Fluvial floods are a function of water volume, channel capacity and duration of time for water to pass through a system. Historically we have been able to improve channel capacity, however in some places we are now reaching the affordable limits of this work. Whilst we cannot control volume of rainfall, working with natural processes (generally now known as Natural Flood Management or NFM) can help to increase the capacity of soil to hold water and significantly reduce run-off rates which, combined with greater upstream storage capacity, helps to reduce peak flows downstream. The sooner we act the sooner we can seriously augment ongoing investment in conventional defences.
1.2. In recent years, public, media and political interest in climate change generally and NFM
specifically has grown stronger. As more evidence is collected on the contribution and benefits (both FCRM and non-FCRM) of NFM it seems likely that more resources may become available to support new NFM investments and we should make sure the region is as well placed as possible to bid for any new funds, such as through the new resilience fund element of GiA – see below. The EA is seeking to do more to “mainstream” NFM
Item No. 5.4
in its project planning and the recent proposed changes to the Partnership Funding formula will also help NFM measures better compete for available funds – specifically through the new intermediate risk band and the increased weighting for OM4 outputs.
1.3. In similar vein we are also about to see major investment in tree planting and new woodland creation. Tree planting is vital in catchment-scale NFM so we are on the brink of a major opportunity as a result of the wider climate change policy drive. We need to be geared up to this and knowledgeable about where new planting - and the money that will go with it - will do most good in NFM terms, achieving much better value for money on the process. Conversely there is bound to be a huge emphasis on tree numbers so there is a risk that this will encourage planting in places which could increase flood risk by inadvertently synchronising some tributary peak flows within systems. It is also the case that the post-Brexit Environmental Land Management Scheme will include flood risk reduction as a public benefit as a result of which farmers and land managers will be incentivised to support NFM interventions.
2. WHY LEVY? 2.1. Despite the useful changes in the Partnership funding formula, the approach to GiA
remains essentially project based and heavily geared towards numbers of properties protected. Whilst the planned changes will help over time to strengthen projects by making it easier to include some NFM measures within them it is not likely to generate or support work at a catchment scale which is how NFM seems most likely to help add capacity to existing and new defences as the climate changes. The extra £15m for NFM as part of the current capital programme has been scheme specific and tied to house numbers and is not going to be repeated as a top slice in the new programme. As noted above, the new ELMS may offer some prospect of more joined up approaches but we have yet to see any detail, and its principal focus is unlikely to be on flood risk.
2.2. In Yorkshire we have done successful pioneering work in some catchments - like
Slowing the Flow at Pickering, on the River Hull and in the Calder Valley - and have much more ambition with projects like Leeds FAS 2. This proposal would take that pioneering work to another level and keep Yorkshire in a leading position on NFM, using the Levy in a region wide scheme to benefit all LLFAs.
2.3. NFM measures have demonstrated their potential both to add capacity to existing systems and, for some smaller communities, provide significant low cost flood risk reduction. Looking across the region, achieving even a 10% reduction in the height that flood peaks might otherwise reach going forward would be a very substantial enhancement of existing defences. Whilst clearly that is not going to be achieved through a relatively modest Levy investment, the use of Levy in a strategic targeted way will enable the region to plan and prepare the ground for more sizeable NFM interventions at a catchment scale, while also supporting some local projects, gathering more evidence and sharing good practice. There is potentially a very large benefit to be had from this approach.
2.4. We have been very mindful of the limitations of NFM, notwithstanding its new found prominence in some quarters. Although there will be small communities and small catchments where NFM measures may prove to be the only affordable means of reducing flood risk, for the most part our view is that its main contribution will be to enhance existing or new ‘conventional’ defences so as to add capacity to existing
Item No. 5.4
systems and help provide some mitigation of the addition risk stemming from future climate change, while also offering significant potential to add wider environmental gain.
2.5. This paper has been discussed by all four sub-regional partnerships who have agreed that a new strategic approach makes sense, that the five strand plan should be supported in principle and that, subject to some value for money concerns, Levy should be approved now to support the Community of Practice (part 6 below).
3. FINANCIAL 3.1. The original outline proposition was to earmark a sum from Levy of £250,000 a year for
three years, although this was intended as a basis for discussion rather than a firm proposal. The rationale for this sum was threefold. First it represented around 10% of the annual Levy raised which seemed a reasonable starting point for a major region-wide initiative. Second as a relatively small proportion of the total Levy spend and looking ahead at the current headroom in the allocation of Levy, it appears to be affordable. Third, and possibly most important, if the Committee is minded to invest in a region wide approach particularly working at a catchment scale then there needs to be enough money to make an impact. Whilst the original idea was essentially to create a fund aimed at promoting and facilitating investment in NFM at catchment scale, we are now proposing a more targeted approach involving five clear strands which will enable RMAs either individually or working together to develop NFM strategies and learn from each other while also putting in place catchment scale plans and activity.
3.2. The Sub-Regional Partnerships considered the proposal at their meetings in March and
April and were supportive in principle, but made no commitments about the amount to be invested and wanted greater clarity about both the amounts involved, the work to be supported and a clear outline of the outcomes and benefits to be achieved. All the Partnerships were clear that Levy should not be used to substitute for GiA so if it seemed likely that there would be further central funding for the kind of NFM approaches envisaged in the proposal then there would be no case for the use of Levy. Some partnerships were also concerned that too much weight could be put on NFM approaches which could raise unrealistic expectations around the contribution that they might make. There was a further round of discussions in May where these concerns were addressed.
3.3. As pointed out in section 2 above, whilst the new Partnership Funding arrangements should be helpful in further enabling some NFM activity and indeed some specific NFM projects, depending on PF scores, there is no earmarked resource for NFM work in the new 5 year programme. There is however to be a £200m resilience fund which among other things is intended to support local innovation and to help support new approaches. The rules and criteria for accessing this fund are not yet clear, but NFM is one obvious potential area for innovation and a willingness on our part to invest Levy resources in this may well make it easier to match and draw down money. Non-flood benefits of NFM, creating noticeable improvements to the environment, could open the possibility of additional funding from stakeholders in the ‘environment’ and/or other communities. In developing the proposal further we should be mindful of these opportunities.
3.4. At this point it is possible to estimate the likely cost of only one of the five strands – maintaining and developing the NFM Community of Practice which will have a maximum cost of £81,000 over three years – see part 6 below. The current best estimate of the cost of the other strands is around a further £750k over the same period, but at this
Item No. 5.4
stage it is suggested that the Committee earmark only a further £600,000 up to April 2023, to be allocated on approval of specific proposals in line with the five point approach (shown below in section 5). The amount earmarked should be reviewed at least annually in the light of specific proposals coming forward.
4. GOVERNANCE – APPLYING FOR LEVY 4.1. In line with established YRFCC governance arrangements, proposals seeking Levy
support within each strand, as it is developed, and would include a pro-forma to demonstrate how the scheme matches the approved criteria in the normal way. Each request will be rated against an approved assessment methodology, with the exception that projects that do not directly lead to works will be assessed on how well they contribute to flood risk or coastal erosion reduction. Requests will also be required to be endorsed by the relevant Sub-Regional Partnership before recommendation by the Committee’s Programming and Investment (P&I) and Environment Sub-Group to the YRFCC for approval. As in line with the Local Levy Criteria, in general, where a scheme is eligible for FCRM GiA and/or other funding but is being put forward for Local Levy funding, FCRM GiA and other funding will also be applied for where applicable.
5. MOVING FORWARD 5.1. Accordingly, and in line with the subsequent discussions at both the P&I and
Environment Sub-Groups, the Task and Finish Group carried on working on the proposal in April and May and agreed on a NFM Programme (Five Point Plan discussed below) and to develop proposals at an appropriate stage. This would enable the Committee to supplement national work, use Levy both independently and to supplement but not substitute GiA, add capacity to existing and planned defences and achieve enhanced environmental outcomes. In developing the five strands below we have worked closely with EA colleagues nationally who strongly support them:
5.1.1. To examine in detail how NFM measures could enhanced the investment pipeline’s
planned works, and in particular ensuring climate change resilience to help maintain their effectiveness as the climate changes. Some of this work may already be underway, but schemes might need some additional capacity or support to do so, which NFM measures can provide.
5.1.2. Build on existing EA mapping, with Catchment Partnerships and RMAs, to show the extent of NFM projects and other projects that are likely to have NFM benefits across Yorkshire. Use this mapping to identify opportunities and gaps in current projects and NFM monitoring to develop community engagement plans, and direct resources and investment appropriately.
5.1.3. Review and develop the methodology from Leeds FAS2 to examine what is required to reduce, slow and spread flows in a 1 in 100 year event by 10% in each main catchment in the region (or on a large sub-catchment basis). Providing an additional 10% capacity to schemes, through NFM measures, can be vitally important to reduce peak flows and chance of flooding.
5.1.4. To work with RMAs and others to better understand and apply the multiple (non-FCRM) benefits of NFM schemes and use those benefits to explore additional sources of third party funding.
5.1.5. Work with iCASP, partnerships and other stakeholders to understand what a continuation of the Community of Practice could most usefully achieve and provide some resources needed to achieve that.
Item No. 5.4
5.2. Following on from 5.1.1, encouragement and support for project teams to consider as early as possible in the design stage is important so that NFM is considered as a whole scheme option or as part of broader flood risk reduction solutions. Further support is required to encourage the use of non-typical locations for NFM solutions, such as low lying land and urban areas, where NFM measures are feasible and beneficial to provide added benefits within these non-typical areas for natural flood interventions.
6. THE YORKSHIRE NFM COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 6.1. As stated in 5.1.5, the Task and Finish (T&F) group supports the extension of the
Community of Practice (CoP) project, which is time critical as the current funding runs out at the end of August 2020, and as such this strand of the five point plan was (as agreed by all four sub-regional partnerships) progressed and an application for Local Levy funding. Leeds City Council (LCC) have agreed to take on the Community of Practice Levy request, to draw down the Local Levy funding and to work alongside partners, outlined in Appendix A of the proforma, to deliver the project (for £27k per year for three years). For clarity, details of the funding breakdown from Leeds City Council is discussed in the Levy funding proposal
6.2. Work on the remaining four strands is continuing with a view to bringing forward detailed proposals in the next cycle. The P&I Sub-Group were supportive of the approach in principle and recommend that the Committee support the approach as well. If the Committee support the approach in principle detailed costing for the each component of the NFM Programme will be worked out and submitted to sub-regional partnerships for their support at a future round. It is envisaged at this stage that the Levy ask for all the remaining four components for over three years will approximately be £600k but clearly the Committee would want to keep the numbers under review in the light of progress made.
6.3. Depending on the Committee’s view, members of the Task & Finish Group will continue to meet to further develop the proposal through the outlined five point plan to take forward to the next quarterly round of Partnership meetings.
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1. Following the support received from all Flood Risk Partnerships in May 2020, the paper
was brought to the P&I and Environment Sub-Groups on June 25th. Members were supportive of the paper and its proposed direction of travel for NFM. Members agreed to recommend that the Committee consider this paper and approve the proposed way forward to achieve very positive outcomes and really move forward on catchment scale NFM planning and practice across the whole region, specifically:
a. support a strategic, region wide approach to developing NFM and integrating working
with natural processes so far as possible into all its flood risk reduction work as set out in the 5 strand plan described in the paper; and
b. agree to earmark £600,000 of indicative Local Levy over three years to support the other four strands in the planned strategy
NFM Task & Finish Group YRFCC Environment Sub-Group July 2020 Back to agenda
Item No. 7.1
Environment Agency Back to agenda Yorkshire Area
Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: Environment Land Management Scheme And FCERM
Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/304
Paper by: Catherine Fileman-Wright, Director of Digital and Skills
Recommendations: RFCC’s are asked to: 1) Note the Environmental Land Management (ELM) Scheme policy discussion paper
published by Defra (here) and the invitation to comment before 31st July. 2) Discuss the opportunities, potential benefits and possible implications of the ELM scheme
to current and future planned FCERM schemes being developed by the EA and other Risk Management Authorities
3) Use this national ELM briefing paper to support conversations in each RFCC.
1. Background – The Environmental Land Management Scheme
1.1 The Environmental Land Management (ELM) Scheme, being developed within Defra’s Future Farming and Countryside Programme, will replace a number of existing Rural Development Programme schemes (including Basic Farm Payments and Agri Environment Schemes). Defra is planning to transition away from the current schemes to payments to farmers through the new ELM scheme in return for the provision of environmental public goods.
1.2 The new scheme will pay public money to support the provision of environmental public goods identified within the Government’s 25 Year Environment plan, including work to mitigate and reduce the impact of natural hazards such as flooding and coastal change. These benefits will sit alongside the wider range of ‘environmental goods and benefits e.g. thriving plants and wildlife, climate change mitigation/adaptation, clean and plentiful water etc.
1.3 The draft FCRM Strategy included a specific commitment that the EA would work with all parties to ensure that farmers and landowners are able to manage land in ways that help to reduce flood risk and our work to help Defra develop the ELM scheme is a core part of that commitment.
2.0 The ELM scheme design, policy discussion document and EA role in pilot
2.1 ELM scheme design
Over the last two years Defra and its Arms-Length Bodies (ALBs - EA, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and Forestry Commission) have been developing high level scheme design proposals, building on lessons learnt from previous schemes and collating evidence to inform design decisions.
2.2 Tier design development
The current proposed design was developed through working with stakeholders and it also reflects the recommendations of both the Dame Glenys Stacey Farm Inspection and Regulation Review and Glover Designated Landscapes Review.
The consensus is that ELM could work best if it were split into three distinct tiers, each tailored to support different policy aims and environmental priorities. The benefit of the proposed tiered-scheme approach is that it offers flexibility to target certain actions or objectives within a variety of local circumstances.
2.3 The proposed three tiers
Tier 1: Farmer/Forester Tier 2: National / Local environmental enhancement
Tier 3: Landscape Scale Land-use Change
A broad offer for all farmers and foresters following loss of
Basic Payment Scheme
Support farmers and foresters to adopt more
environmentally sustainable farming and forestry
Focussed on practices that will be effective at wide scale,
for example, wildflower margins, cover crops, soil
management
Support farmers and foresters in provision of locally targeted
or more complex environmental outcomes e.g.
flood risk
Could support and incentivise collaboration between land
managers
Focussed on practices that will benefit from spatial
prioritisation, for example, run-off attenuation structures,
water level management, or supporting water storage.
Incentivise land use change at a larger scale to achieve
agreed priority environmental outcomes
Where coordination required to achieve ambitious
environmental targets for example, Net Zero.
Alignment with Nature for Climate fund for woodland and
peatlands. .
On the 25th February, Defra published a Policy Discussion Document on the future Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS). As a result of Covid -19 impacts, Defra stopped accepting responses but will issue a new deadline in due course. When the consultation re-opens there is still an opportunity to have a say on the design. The EA is likely to be responding. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/elm/elmpolicyconsultation/
2.4 National Pilot
The ELM National Pilot is the means by which Defra will pilot the new ELM scheme, in real world situations with a wide range of land managers. It will begin in late 2021 and run for three years until late 2024. ALBs were selected to partner Defra on the National Pilot to deliver transactional (customer) services, subject matter/ technical expertise and advisor functions. We do not yet know the structure or location of the National Pilot, but we expect action to reduce impact of and enhanced resilience to flooding will part of the piloting.
3.0 EA FCRM Current position on ELM
3.1 EA teams have been specifically asked to assist with the provision of technical subject matter expertise, advice and guidance in the development and delivery of the ELM Pilot. Flood risk teams are helping shape the future scheme with the following objectives:
Managing and reducing flood and coastal change impacts are recognised as apublic good and can be supported by future ELMS payments; ELMS becomes atool which can be used to support the delivery of the FCERM investmentprogramme.
The new approach is flexible and supports a wide range of land management andland use change interventions that can reduce risk, increase resilience and provideother benefits, including support for managing land within major FCERM schemessuch coastal realignment projects.
Item No. 7.1
ELM retains and improves certain measures available within CountrysideStewardship for wider use, including Making Space for Water, woodland creationand Natural Flood Management options.
To ensure that any farmers and landowners already participating in RFCCsupported schemes to reduce risk using NFM and managing land as part ofFCERM schemes are able to participate in and benefit from any transitionarrangements, including those participating in future Place Based ResiliencePilots.
ELM provides certainty to ensure longer term management and maintenancefunding for permanent measures of those that take longer to achieve benefits.
4.0 Flood hazard reduction and mitigation opportunity
4.1 There is significant opportunity to shape this scheme and the outcomes that may be achieved for flood and coastal erosion risk management specifically, but also to ensure that multiple benefits are achieved for carbon, nature recovery and water quality.
4.2 We know that many different land management and land use change actions can contribute to reducing risk, and we are basing our advice on four key areas:
1) Supporting future land management that accommodates and facilitates large scaleflood storage, coastal realignment or floodplain restoration areas – Blending FGiA andELM will be a key requirement
2) Small scale capital works on farms, including construction of leaky woody structures,earth bunds, dry ponds. – ELM could potentially provide both capital and on-goingmanagement payments which current schemes find challenging.
3) Changes to farm management to reduce run-off, including soil management, changinglivestock and crop management – these works will have multiple benefits and could bepart of Tier 1.
4) Supporting landscape scale land use change such as woodland creation, and peatlandrestoration – Tier 3 will support these long term changes that could reduce peak flowsover time helping us to adapt to climate change.
5. Recommendations:
RFCC’s are asked to: 1) Note the Environmental Land Management Scheme policy discussion
paper published by Defra (here) and the invitation to comment before 31st July.2) Discuss the opportunities, potential benefits and possible implications of the
ELM scheme to current and future planned FCERM schemes being developedby the EA and other Risk Management Authorities
3) Use this national ELM briefing paper to support conversations in each RFCC.
Author: Chris Uttley Job title: Senior Advisor Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Author: D-J Gent Job title: Environmental Land Management Scheme Manager
Sponsor: Catherine Fileman-Wright, Director of Digital and Skills Date: 17th June 2020
Back to agenda
Item No. 7.1
Environment Agency Back to agenda Yorkshire Area
Meeting: Yorkshire RFCC Subject: HUMBER STRATEGY AND PROGRAMME UPDATE
Date: 23 July 2020 Paper No: YRFCC/305
RECOMMENDATION A. The committee is asked to note the report and the progress made on reducing
flood risk around the Humber.
1 Purpose of report and introduction
1.1 This paper provides an overview on our flood risk management work on the Humber across the following Environment Agency areas: Lincolnshire & Northamptonshire; Yorkshire; and East Midlands.
Update of progress of the development of the new Humber Strategy – Humber 2100+
2 Update since last meeting
2.1 As a multi-partner project, H2100+ has been significantly affected by the coronavirus pandemic, as we have had to essentially work at the pace of the slowest partner to ensure that we do not move forward without a clear consensus of opinion. As a result, we have had to slow some of our working down considerably, including cancelling our proposed joint Programme Board and Elected Members Forum meeting in May. Our focus for the past few months has been on digesting the outputs of our scenario development workshops (held in late February/early March) and reviewing these with members of the partnership. This process has taken longer than planned as a result of coronavirus, and has also proved more complex than originally anticipated due to the unprecedented range of ideas provided by stakeholders through the workshops.
2.2 In response to feedback from partners we have decided to incorporate an additional step into the scenario development process. The methodology and detail of this is still being worked out, but we expect to be able to take a proposed shorter list of scenarios for the estuary to a rescheduled meeting of the Programme Board and Elected Members Forum in the autumn. This additional step, combined with the significant challenges we have experienced in working effectively as a partnership resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, mean that the project programme will be delayed by around 4-6 months.
2.3 The Humber team is also considering how net-zero Carbon (in response the EA’s E-mission Targets), and also the United Nation’s Sustainability Goals (UNSDGs) can be used in the appraisal to help us determine a more sustainable long term, strategy. Identifying the need for flood infrastructure (defence/storage) is one part of this, but in order for the future strategic management of flood risk across the Humber to deliver in line with the UN Sustainability Goals (particularly Goal 11) and support growth, a central ambition of the strategy is that it will contribute to de-carbonisation plans for the Humber including those of the councils.
2.4 Unfortunately there will be a need to delay the public consultation due to be held in September 2020. It is anticipated that this will now be held in spring 2021, although we are conscious that we will need to be mindful of local elections and the pre-election period.
Item No. 7.2
2.5 Following feedback from colleagues and partners, we have updated the MDSF2 model to improve the accuracy of the present-day probability of flooding. Risk modelling for test appraisal work is currently underway, looking particularly at storage scenarios in the inner estuary.
2.6 In order to finalise the new Humber extreme water levels, we are undertaking some additional calibration work to ensure recent flooding in winter 2019 on the River Don is taken into account. Alongside this, we are also updating information on extreme waves. The final extreme water level and wave outputs are expected to be made available later this summer. We are about to undertake some further broadscale modelling work that will consider the potential impacts of any possible future Hull Lagoon project.
Scheme Updates
3 South Ferriby and Winteringham Ings Sea Defence Improvements
3.1 The South Ferriby Flood Alleviation scheme contract was awarded in February 2019, when enabling works started on site. The scheme will reduce the risk of tidal flooding to 150 homes, businesses and the CEMEX plant.
3.2 The embankment to South Ferriby village frontage was completed in Nov 2019. Finishing works are taking place now including trimming, top-soiling/grass seeding and Fulsea Drain head wall construction.
3.3 CEMEX will shortly have provided all of the 140,000 tonnes of material for construction of the western embankments in phase 2.
3.4 Following a short stop and re-start due to COVID19 virus outbreak, the embankment construction west of the River Ancholme is progressing under full steam. Foundations for the flood wall along East Drain was completed in May 2020. The wall is on target to be completed in June 2020, followed by the East Drain parapet wall along Sluice Road, scheduled to be completed by end of July 2020.
3.5 Construction completion is still expected by March 2021.
Bank West of River Ancholme taking shape
Flood wall foundations being cast along East Drain
Item No. 7.2
4 Donna Nook
4.1 Progress has been made with the realignment site, water and accompanying sediments have been able to enter the site following the breach that was undertaken last year. We are already seeing habitats change, as the species develop and adapt to a saline environment. This is the first step in mudflat and saltmarsh development.
4.2 Progress has been made to the outstanding aspects at the Donna Nook Managed Realignment site and Marsh Lane throughout these difficult times, namely the improvements to Marsh Lane and removal of the remaining piles from the breach site.
4.3 Unfortunately we have come to a point in our short operational window, where we must concede that we will not be able to mobilise and complete these outstanding works onsite this year. This is due to delays by the utilities companies that are outside our control. However, we remain hopeful that the utility companies will attend to their service diversions along Marsh Lane this year, so that we can commence next year without any further delays.
5 Skeffling
5.1 Over the winter, a section of the embankment at Sunk Island Sands was damaged by storms and had started to erode. Our contractor recently completed repair works in April / May, installing new rock armour and reinstating the embankment at a number of locations.
5.2 We have also carried out additional ecological surveys along with further ground investigations around the terrestrial habitat to inform our design. Construction works are unlikely to happen this year but we are continuing to develop the scheme and are working closely with our key partners in order to deliver the project.
6 South Humber – developing projects
6.1 The Environment Agency is continuing to progress the 3 priority pipeline projects that are indicatively allocated funding within the 2021-27 Investment Programme namely: Barton to New Holland, Stallingborough 3 and Halton Marshes phase 2. Overall outcomes could lead to better protection to over 6000 properties, existing major industrial sites and significant infrastructure, together with enterprise zones.
6.2 Although all these schemes are being developed to deliver the current Humber FRM strategy, they are all embedding the strategic approaches of the new emerging strategy and current legislation.
6.3 Consultants and Contractors have been contracted through the Midlands Hub of the Collaborative Delivery Framework. They are providing early supplier input into developing the strategic and outline business cases. Construction works on the three projects is envisaged to run sequentially from 2022 through to 2027.
Phillp Winn Humber Manager
Helen Todd Humber Flood Risk Manager Back to agenda
Looking toward Pye’s Hall over the realignment site
Item No. 7.2
Technical Appendix Index
TECHNICAL APPENDIX INDEX
Agenda item no.
Agenda item Appendix Ref.
Description
5.1 P&I Sub-Group Chairs report
A01
A02
A03
A04
A05
A06
A07
A08a
A08b
Monthly Report (May 2020) As submitted to P&I Sub-Group meeting
OM Definitions
Programme Summary 2020/21 As submitted to P&I Sub-Group meeting
Yorkshire Area Priority Programme
Local Levy Programme update As submitted to P&I Sub-Group meeting
Local Levy Current Programme and Pipeline July 2020 including P&I recommendations
2020/21 Local Levy Programme Headline Statistics
New Levy Requests Summary Table As submitted to P&I Sub-Group meeting
New Levy Requests Simplified Summary Table As submitted to P&I Sub-Group meeting
UNCLASSIFIED
Financial PerformanceAll Funding
Latest allocation
(May baseline) (£k)
Spend
year-to-date
(£k)
Full year
forecast
(£k)
Yorkshire 131,376 14,801 131,376
EA 77,085 11,661 77,086
LA 52,366 3,140 52,366
Other 1,924 0 1,924
FCRM GiA
Latest allocation
(May baseline) (£k)
Spend
year-to-date
(£k)
Full year
forecast
(£k)
Yorkshire 101,854 12,723 101,854
EA 64,757 9,850 64,757
LA 35,173 2,873 35,173
Other 1,924 0 1,924
Local Levy
Latest allocation
(May baseline) (£k)
Spend
year-to-date
(£k)
Full year
forecast
(£k)
Yorkshire 2,900 161 2,900
EA 1,244 146 1,244
LA 1,656 15 1,656
Other 0 0 0
Contributions
Latest allocation
(May baseline) (£k)
Spend
year-to-date
(£k)
Full year
forecast
(£k)
Yorkshire 26,584 1,917 26,584
EA 11,076 1,665 11,076
LA 15,507 252 15,507
Other 0 0 0
Other
Latest allocation
(May baseline) (£k)
Spend
year-to-date
(£k)
Full year
forecast
(£k)
Yorkshire 38 0 38
EA 8 0 8
LA 30 0 30
Other 0 0 0
Public & Private
Contributions
Other Funding
Supporting Commentary
Supporting Commentary
Supporting Commentary
Supporting Commentary
Supporting Commentary
2020/21 FCRM Programme Performance Monitoring Report
May 2020 : Yorkshire Area
All Funding
GiA Funding
Local Levy Funding
£38k
£38k
£0k£0k
£5k
£10k
£15k
£20k
£25k
£30k
£35k
£40k
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
£107,486k
£101,854k £101,854k
£12,723k
£0k
£20,000k
£40,000k
£60,000k
£80,000k
£100,000k
£120,000k
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
£2,900k
£2,900k
£161k
£0k
£500k
£1,000k
£1,500k
£2,000k
£2,500k
£3,000k
£3,500k
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
£144,522k
£131,376k£131,376k
£14,801k
£0k
£20,000k
£40,000k
£60,000k
£80,000k
£100,000k
£120,000k
£140,000k
£160,000k
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Affordable budget Baseline budget Baseline forecast profile Forecast profile Value of work / claims to date
£26,584k
£1,917k
£26,584k
£0k
£5,000k
£10,000k
£15,000k
£20,000k
£25,000k
£30,000k
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A01
Delivering Outcomes
Table 4. Reducing Flood Risk
Target Forecast Target Forecast Target Forecast
All RMAs 21904 22684 All RMAs 4982 5501 All RMAs 1021 656
EA 16702 16130 EA 1033 769 EA 859 602
LA 5200 6497 LA 3949 4691 LA 162 54
Other 2 57 Other 0 41 Other 0 0
Table 5. Reducing coastal erosion risk
Target Forecast Target Forecast Target Forecast
All RMAs 0 35 All RMAs 0 0 All RMAs 0 0
EA 0 0 EA 0 0 EA 0 0
LA 0 35 LA 0 0 LA 0 0
Other 0 0 Other 0 0 Other 0 0
Table 6. Protecting and improving the environment
Target Forecast Target Forecast Target Forecast
All RMAs 0 25.13 All RMAs 0 0 All RMAs 0 0
EA 0 22 EA 0 0 EA 0 0
LA 0 3 LA 0 0 LA 0 0
Other 0 0 Other 0 0 Other 0 0
OM3 OM3b
OM2 OM2b
Number of households moved out of any
flood probability category to a lower
probability category
The number of households moved from the
very significant or significant probability
category to the moderate or low
probability category
Supporting Commentary
Supporting Commentary
OM2c
OM3c
The number of households in the 20% most
deprived areas moved out of the significant
or very significant probability categories to
the moderate or low probability category.
Supporting Commentary
OM4 targets are based on the consented programme.
The number of households with reduced
risk of coastal erosion
The number of households protected
against loss in 20 yrs from coastal erosion
The number of households in the 20% most
deprived areas protected against loss in 20
yrs from coastal erosion
OM4a OM4b OM4c
Hectares of water dependent habitat
created or improved to help meet the
objectives of the Water Framework
Directive
Hectares of intertidal habitat created to
help meet the objectives of the Water
Framework Directive for areas protected
under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive
Kilometres of rivers protected under the EU
Habitats/Birds Directive improved to help
meet the objectives of the Water
Framework Directive
2019/20 FCRM Programme Performance Monitoring Report
May 2020 : Yorkshire Area
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A01
Technical Appendix A02 - Outcome Measure Definition
OM Definition
OM2 Number of households moved out of any flood probability category to a lower probability category
OM2b The number of households moved from the very significant or significant probability category to the moderate or low probability category
OM2c The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas moved out of the significant or very significant probability categories to the moderate or low probability category.
OM3 The number of households with reduced risk of coastal erosion OM3b The number of households protected against loss in 20 yrs from coastal
erosion OM3c The number of households in the 20% most deprived areas protected
against loss in 20 yrs from coastal erosion OM4a Hectares of water dependent habitat created or improved to help meet the
objectives of the Water Framework Directive OM4b Hectares of intertidal habitat created to help meet the objectives of the
Water Framework Directive for areas protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive
OM4c Kilometres of rivers protected under the EU Habitats/Birds Directive improved to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive
Back to agenda
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A02
May In Year Capital MonitoringFlood Risk Partnership(All)
Gateway proximity (All)
LLFA Location
RM
A
Project Name Project Manager Project Executive
In Y
r R
AG
G1 Gate2 G3Constr
StartG4
20/21
Allocatio
n
ML
(March
2021)
ML
Change
Spend
(to date)
Remaini
ng
spend
Next
month
f/c
Spend to
date vs
last
month
Risk in
20/21
Next
Year f/c
OM2
T
OM2
F
OM3
T
OM3
F
OM4a
T
OM4a
F
OM4b
T
OM4b
F
OM4c
T
OM4c
F
0 EA Recovery Dec 19 Lower Aire (Capital) Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1,015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Barnsley EA Houghton (Phase II) River Restoration and Fish/ Eel Pass Scheme Anthony Downing Martin Slater (blank)01/00 05/20 08/20 04/21 04/22 1 6 6 0 6 6 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dearne Washlands Optimisation Aminu Adamu Lee Riley-Thompson(blank)03/21 03/21 03/21 01/00 08/21 10 27 4 3 25 2 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Penistone - Green Road - Headwall and Trash Screen Replacement Lesley Slaney James Mead (blank)05/18 01/20 03/20 04/20 05/20 1 30 30 0 30 10 0 -10 0 0 5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bradford EA Keighley and Stockbridge Flood Alleviation David Oake Mark Wilkinson (blank)03/22 09/24 07/26 01/27 03/30 125 60 -52 0 60 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Haworth Victoria Procter Environment Agency(blank)10/20 01/00 05/22 01/00 03/23 1 10 10 7 3 3 7 0 60 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NFM - North Yorks NFM - Backstones Beck Simon Stokes Martin Slater (blank)01/00 07/18 09/18 11/18 03/21 162 244 0 0 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Addingham Lower Gauge Fish Pass Robert Bayton 00:00:00 (blank)03/18 03/18 04/21 01/00 12/21 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Worth Catchment Modelling - Consultancy Lee Riley-ThompsonSarah Burtonwood (blank)02/17 03/17 07/17 01/00 03/19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Bradford Resilience Group Victoria Procter Mark Wilkinson (blank)08/17 09/17 10/17 11/17 08/20 8 8 8 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bradford Culvert Remediation Programme Victoria Procter 00:00:00 (blank)09/21 01/00 01/00 09/22 04/24 60 60 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Calderdale EA Hebden Bridge FAS Simon Byrne Will Benedikz (blank)05/16 08/20 12/21 05/21 05/23 4,536 3,426 -130 304 3,122 239 -169 979 5,200 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walsden Water-Todmorden Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase 3 James Walton Bethany Gardner (blank)07/97 10/03 07/11 09/11 08/16 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upper Calder Valley - Flood Risk Reduction Schemes 2 Edward Sorfleet Bethany Gardner (blank)02/18 03/21 04/21 05/21 03/22 94 13 -141 12 1 0 -23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upper Calder Natural Flood Management Jo Arnold Helen Batt (blank)10/17 01/00 03/19 03/19 04/21 272 356 300 0 356 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme Ian Walker Oliver Wilson (blank)02/17 02/17 02/18 01/18 02/21 7,684 6,567 1,049 3,053 3,514 1,338 -181 2,335 12 186 186 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Land management in rapid response catchments Yorkshire Simon Stokes Katie Asprey (blank)01/00 10/15 12/15 01/00 01/00 48 35 0 4 31 2 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brighouse Flood Alleviation Scheme Andy Jackson Andrew Rogers (blank)02/18 09/20 11/21 12/21 10/22 1,499 651 6 91 560 60 -33 210 2,885 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FRRS2: Copley Village Flood Alleviation Scheme Alex Hewitt Bethany Gardner (blank)04/18 09/20 07/21 01/00 06/22 609 176 -296 12 164 11 -67 75 1,100 45 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FRRS2: Shaw Wood Road Flood Alleviation Scheme Alex Hewitt Bethany Gardner (blank)02/18 08/20 01/20 02/21 07/21 125 49 -38 0 49 3 -29 0 36 2 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FRRS2: Machpelah Flood Alleviation Scheme Alex Hewitt Bethany Gardner (blank)02/18 05/21 08/21 01/00 12/21 100 1 -86 0 0 0 -29 2 0 17 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FRRS2: Calderside Flood Alleviation Scheme Alex Hewitt Bethany Gardner (blank)02/18 11/20 06/21 01/00 12/21 82 1 -67 0 0 0 -22 1 0 27 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reservoir Storage (Calderdale) Samuel Booth Will Benedikz (blank)03/20 02/21 12/21 01/22 06/23 1 97 97 12 85 7 12 35 199 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FRRS2: Hebble Brook, Halifax Alex Hewitt Sarah Burtonwood (blank)11/19 01/21 07/21 01/00 01/22 800 232 232 7 225 27 7 0 657 47 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Erringden Hillside Mark Bullen Will Benedikz (blank)01/00 07/20 12/20 01/21 05/21 470 558 0 20 538 3 -1 153 155 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Back Waterloo, Todmorden Lee Riley-ThompsonBrendan Sharkey (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 275 55 0 14 41 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stubbing Holme Road Samuel Booth Will Benedikz (blank)01/00 11/19 04/22 07/22 04/23 180 222 -53 29 193 21 -11 114 236 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Scout Road, Mytholmroyd - Surface Water Flood Alleviation Works and Landfill Stabilisation Paul Swales Helen Batt (blank)12/18 07/19 09/19 01/00 06/20 1 238 238 0 238 79 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FRRS2: Cottonstones near Lumb, Calderdale Jo Arnold Helen Batt (blank)01/20 11/20 12/20 01/00 03/21 1 320 320 0 320 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Derbyshire EA Chesterfield Flood Risk Investigation Fiona Sugden Nigel Priestley (blank)01/17 01/17 01/17 01/00 03/20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Avenue Flood Balancing Reservoir Ian Walker Bethany Gardner (blank)10/06 10/06 01/11 11/11 11/18 1 38 38 2 36 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Renishaw Flood Alleviation Scheme Vikki Harrison-JohnstoneDavid Oake (blank)09/16 01/20 03/20 03/20 03/21 49 200 31 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer Anthony Downing 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 70 70 35 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Doncaster EA Bentley PS Replacement Nigel Priestley Paul Stainer (blank)03/15 04/18 07/18 10/18 12/20 213 3,995 148 322 3,672 534 -171 344 94 0 1,669 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stainforth Dunston Hill Bridge Wall Refurbishment Anna Murphy Joe Noake (blank)11/17 06/18 08/18 10/18 03/19 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wilder Waterways in the Lower Don (WiLD) Jenny Barlow 00:00:00 (blank)09/20 12/20 01/00 01/00 03/21 115 35 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Doncaster (Capital) Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Upper Don, Rother & Dearne (Capital) Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 2,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Lower Don (capital) Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1,065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Fishlake Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 3,165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Kirk Sandall Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA DMBC Flood Risk Culvert Programme Ben Brass 00:00:00 (blank)07/20 09/20 06/21 02/22 05/27 48 78 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fieldside Edenthorpe PLR Ben Brass Simon Mann (blank)01/00 01/20 02/20 01/00 08/20 1 103 103 0 103 0 0 15 0 0 18 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
East Riding EA Chantry's Cottages, Dutch River Urgent Works Philip Boyes Chris Milburn (blank)04/15 06/15 06/15 06/15 06/17 1 6 6 3 3 2 3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream Paull - Thorngumbald Clough [SoN] Tom Cochrane Brendan Sharkey (blank)10/14 10/14 03/15 05/18 08/20 1 326 326 10 316 12 10 300 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber: Estuary-wide Monitoring Claire Brown Philip Winn (blank)01/00 09/15 10/15 01/00 09/16 150 200 0 13 187 7 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber: Hull frontage Helen Tattersdale 00:00:00 (blank)12/11 03/17 10/17 01/19 05/21 12,395 11,103 -196 2,085 9,018 1,351 -38 2,803 1,928 ##### ##### 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber: Skeffling Land Purchase and Managed Realignment Andrew Gee Andrew Newton (blank)05/12 08/18 06/19 07/21 12/24 5,050 1,310 -1,058 352 958 200 -6 1,453 2,130 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber: Strategy Development Claire Brown Philip Winn (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 200 168 0 52 117 26 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
River Hull Headwaters SSSI Restoration Richard Jennings Paul Slater (blank)01/00 08/19 01/00 02/20 01/00 27 25 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber Water Levels - Data Quality Analysis, Modelling and Mapping Edward Sorfleet Steve Taylor (blank)04/15 07/15 11/15 01/00 04/20 1 40 40 0 40 0 0 0 209 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber Strategy Comprehensive Review Richard Hartley Andrew Newton (blank)01/17 04/23 04/23 01/00 04/23 1,305 1,726 153 275 1,450 156 19 570 746 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Humber: Estuary Erosion Protection (HEEP) Works 2 Julia Somers Robert Bayton (blank)09/16 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1,237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mill Beck Reservoir Works, Market Weighton Claire Gould Paul Stainer (blank)04/11 04/11 01/13 02/13 05/14 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upper and Middle Hull Embankment Repairs Lauren Hughes Tim Cobb (blank)01/20 10/20 10/20 01/00 04/21 1 19 19 8 11 6 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Project GovernanceGateway Dates
RED <90 days / AMBER <180 days
Outcome Measures
RED = below target / AMBER = above target
Exceptions (based on all funding sources)
£k
G:\FRM\xProgramming\2 In Year Monitoring and Reporting\20-21\Capital\CMS\02
CMS May 2020\$ Draft CMS\MASTER CMS 2020 May v6 latest MTP
funding.xlsm
Page 1 of 4
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A03
May In Year Capital Monitoring
LLFA LocationR
MA
Project Name Project Manager Project Executive
In Y
r R
AG
G1 Gate2 G3Constr
StartG4
20/21
Allocatio
n
ML
(March
2021)
ML
Change
Spend
(to date)
Remaini
ng
spend
Next
month
f/c
Spend to
date vs
last
month
Risk in
20/21
Next
Year f/c
OM2
T
OM2
F
OM3
T
OM3
F
OM4a
T
OM4a
F
OM4b
T
OM4b
F
OM4c
T
OM4c
F
Project GovernanceGateway Dates
RED <90 days / AMBER <180 days
Outcome Measures
RED = below target / AMBER = above target
Exceptions (based on all funding sources)
£k
East Riding EA Barmston Sea End Outfall Fiona Sugden Edward Hinton (blank)03/19 05/19 06/20 07/20 10/20 1 596 596 1 595 5 1 94 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tidal River Aire (right-bank): Rawcliffe Wall Replacement Fiona Sugden Andrew Gee (blank)08/19 12/19 04/20 08/20 04/21 1 -120 -120 0 -120 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tidal River Aire (right-bank): Airmyn Forshore Stabilisation Fiona Sugden Paul Stainer (blank)05/20 12/20 03/21 04/21 12/21 250 223 203 3 220 6 -10 25 1,561 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tidal River Aire (right-bank): Rawcliffe Foreshore Stabilisation Fiona Sugden Paul Stainer (blank)05/20 11/20 04/21 05/21 12/21 600 152 132 4 149 6 -10 50 1,542 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hornsea to Kilnsea Flood Warning and Forecasting improvements Zoe Pattinson Rebecca Martin (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 35 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Winestead Drain: Pumping Station Investigations Andrew Coen Andrew Gee (blank)06/19 10/20 06/21 08/21 09/22 1 513 117 33 480 3 0 -180 5,676 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Blacktoft Erosion Protection Project (BEPP) Julia Somers Robert Bayton (blank)05/20 08/20 09/20 09/20 11/20 1 377 -322 19 358 32 -10 0 0 120 120 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery 2019 Flood Repairs Scurf Dyke Lauren Hughes Tim Cobb (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/20 08/20 5,000 0 0 0 0 223 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Hull & Humber (Capital) Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recovery Dec 19 Newland and Lower Aire Washlands Tony Hartley 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 3,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hempholme and Wilfholme Pumping Station Refurb Katherine HuddlestonLouis Harvey (blank)09/19 09/19 09/19 07/20 09/20 1,014 747 -104 0 747 78 -153 220 104 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Living with Water Partnership Peter Barron 00:00:00 (blank)10/19 03/20 03/20 01/00 12/20 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)12/15 06/17 09/17 09/17 01/20 3,645 0 -3,115 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
East Riding Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme Edward Hinton Paul Stockhill (blank)12/10 12/10 04/11 01/00 03/21 55 55 0 0 55 5 -9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hull and Holderness Flood Alleviation Scheme P2 (Inland) Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)11/20 12/20 04/21 08/21 03/24 275 50 0 0 50 0 0 40 2,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defences (HeFTD) Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)03/18 11/18 02/19 04/19 11/20 6,002 6,002 0 0 6,002 0 -82 707 0 4,464 4,464 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)04/16 03/17 08/17 10/17 08/20 1,500 2,809 0 0 2,809 0 0 2,057 0 0 1,042 0 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Middleton on the Wolds Culverting Scheme Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)05/20 05/20 07/20 09/20 12/20 1 51 51 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Coastal Adaptation Fund (2017-18 to 2024-25) Edward Hinton Paul Stockhill (blank)08/16 06/19 08/18 09/18 03/25 160 158 0 0 158 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Warter Addlekeld Drainage Improvements Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)07/20 09/20 10/20 11/20 03/21 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wet Woodland managed by Woodland Trust at Orchards Park Peter Barron Paul Stockhill (blank)12/19 03/20 06/20 06/20 10/20 1 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Molescroft Sister Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)03/21 12/21 04/22 07/22 03/24 1 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 489 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Leven FAS Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)03/21 12/21 04/22 07/22 03/23 1 94 94 0 94 0 0 0 470 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skelton Tidal Outfall Failure #VALUE! NOT FOUND (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 235 0 0 0 0 #VALUE! 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hayton Flood Conveyance Scheme Dean Hamblin Joe Noake (blank)07/20 09/20 10/20 11/20 03/21 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bridlington Integrated Strategy (BIS) Dean Hamblin 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Langtoft Village Flood Alleviation Scheme Dean Hamblin Paul Stockhill (blank)04/20 06/20 09/20 10/20 12/20 1 63 63 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OtherBridge near Bethell's Bridge Hempholme Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)01/00 07/16 07/17 06/20 03/21 1 250 250 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Howdendyke Pumping Station Refurbishment Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)10/18 02/19 02/19 03/20 11/20 533 533 0 0 533 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kirby Drain Road Bridge Watton Carrs Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)09/20 09/20 10/20 01/00 03/21 1 12 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sandholme Road Bridge Leven Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)09/20 10/20 12/20 01/00 03/21 1 30 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mill Dam Beck Brandesburton Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)03/20 04/20 07/20 01/00 03/21 1 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rotsea Drain Hempholme Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)03/20 04/20 07/20 01/00 03/21 1 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Market Weighton Canal, Bank Stabilisation Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)03/19 08/19 01/20 04/20 11/20 1 84 84 0 84 5 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stone Creek Pumping Station Relocation and associated works Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)05/20 06/20 08/20 01/00 12/20 1 50 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Riston Pumping Station Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)05/20 07/20 08/20 01/00 03/21 1 32 32 0 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hull EA Package 1 - Albert Dock and Dunstan Culvert [Recovery] Tom Cochrane Helen Tattersdale (blank)05/14 05/14 10/14 10/14 09/16 1 -15 -15 -15 0 0 -15 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hull River Defences - Phase 1 Brendan Sharkey Anthony Myatt (blank)02/13 06/16 09/16 03/17 04/21 8,483 10,932 973 1,468 9,464 1,042 -605 0 1,813 1,603 1,603 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hull River Defences - Phase 2 Anna Murphy Richard Hartley (blank)02/18 02/19 02/19 01/00 01/00 1 10 10 4 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Holderness Drain FAS Julian Hammer Anthony Myatt (blank)05/11 06/19 06/19 05/20 04/22 15,147 7,505 -1,542 523 6,982 850 68 3,250 7,601 812 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Living with Water - Aquagreen Implementation Plan Peter Barron Paul Stockhill (blank)03/20 03/22 03/22 03/22 03/22 50 285 0 0 285 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kirklees EA Huddersfield A62 Corridor Flood Alleviation Scheme Lee Riley-ThompsonSarah Burtonwood (blank)01/19 07/19 07/21 03/22 12/22 402 8 -10 2 6 1 -6 10 0 33 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grimscar Dyke Culverts Repairs Lee Riley-ThompsonPaul Stainer (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 100 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Kirklees Culvert Programme Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 08/16 10/16 11/16 03/23 245 263 88 0 263 0 -29 0 223 136 135 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Priority Clusters #4 (Linthwaite/Cowersley/Crossland) Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)06/21 06/22 06/23 01/00 07/24 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Priority Clusters #5 (Lindley/Birkby/Fartown) Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)12/20 06/22 08/22 01/00 03/24 68 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mirfield Surface Water Alleviation Scheme Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 10/21 08/22 20 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Priority Clusters #6 (Kirkheaton/Upper & Lower Hopton/ Gomersal) Jo Arnold Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Priority Clusters #7 (Thornhill lees/Thornhill & Overthorpe/Highburton Jo Arnold Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Marsden Flood Alleviation Scheme Luke Williams 00:00:00 (blank)10/17 07/19 07/20 01/00 07/22 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Milnsbridge and Golcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Luke Williams 00:00:00 (blank)10/17 07/19 07/20 01/00 07/22 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lancashire EA Earby FAS Ph 1 Victoria Clough Culvert Repair Quentin Williams 00:00:00 (blank)07/17 07/17 07/17 07/18 01/20 1 5 5 -17 22 15 -17 42 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Earby FAS Ph 2 Earby Beck Tom Cochrane Will Benedikz (blank)12/19 04/20 11/20 03/21 10/21 165 215 0 13 202 18 -7 0 862 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Earby FAS Ph 3 Earby Beck #VALUE! NOT FOUND (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 25 0 0 0 0 #VALUE! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Leeds EA Lower Aire Strategy SSSIs Amanda Best John Woods (blank)09/15 01/00 12/19 01/00 01/00 102 102 0 17 85 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 97.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Com NFM - Collingham Beck Simon Stokes 00:00:00 (blank)03/18 03/18 04/18 05/18 03/21 1 25 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Leeds FAS Phase 2 NFM Programme (EA delivery) Fiona Sugden Chris Milburn (blank)09/16 01/19 04/19 01/00 03/25 500 1,209 -146 275 934 -63 -25 0 1,115 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Meanwood Beck Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)12/21 01/00 12/23 04/24 03/26 30 30 0 30 0 0 20 0 30 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Wortley Beck Improvements, Leeds Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)07/19 09/20 12/20 05/21 03/23 1 150 150 0 150 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wyke Beck Improvements, Leeds Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)12/17 06/18 08/18 10/18 10/20 1,306 1,306 0 218 1,088 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Leeds FAS Phase 2 David Oake David Oake (blank)09/16 01/19 01/19 06/19 07/22 20,326 21,326 -3,000 2,888 18,439 1,444 -1,167 0 31,970 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Micklefield Surface Water FAS Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)07/17 04/20 07/20 09/20 03/21 100 125 0 0 125 8 -17 0 0 7 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lin Dyke upstream catchment (Garforth) Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)10/17 03/21 12/21 04/22 03/25 1 78 78 0 78 0 0 0 482 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Otley Flood Alleviation Scheme John Woods Mark Wilkinson (blank)10/17 03/20 08/20 10/20 03/21 2,272 2,801 0 0 2,801 52 -468 0 0 58 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Farnley Wood Beck FAS, Cottingley, Leeds Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)03/19 03/20 09/20 05/21 03/22 17 17 -21 0 17 0 0 0 327 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Victoria Road Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme, Guiseley, Leeds Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)07/20 02/21 04/21 05/22 12/22 20 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lin Dyke midstream catchment (Kippax) Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/20 09/20 06/21 04/22 03/24 1 70 70 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Potternewton Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme, Leeds. Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)03/20 12/20 02/21 09/21 03/22 50 50 30 20 30 0 7 0 272 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
G:\FRM\xProgramming\2 In Year Monitoring and Reporting\20-21\Capital\CMS\02
CMS May 2020\$ Draft CMS\MASTER CMS 2020 May v6 latest MTP
funding.xlsm
Page 2 of 4
Technical Appendix A03
May In Year Capital Monitoring
LLFA LocationR
MA
Project Name Project Manager Project Executive
In Y
r R
AG
G1 Gate2 G3Constr
StartG4
20/21
Allocatio
n
ML
(March
2021)
ML
Change
Spend
(to date)
Remaini
ng
spend
Next
month
f/c
Spend to
date vs
last
month
Risk in
20/21
Next
Year f/c
OM2
T
OM2
F
OM3
T
OM3
F
OM4a
T
OM4a
F
OM4b
T
OM4b
F
OM4c
T
OM4c
F
Project GovernanceGateway Dates
RED <90 days / AMBER <180 days
Outcome Measures
RED = below target / AMBER = above target
Exceptions (based on all funding sources)
£k
Leeds LA Thorner Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme, Thorner, Leeds Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)09/20 03/21 10/21 04/22 12/22 25 50 0 0 50 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mickletown FAS (Combined scheme) Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)04/19 10/19 06/20 07/20 02/21 1,002 1,002 0 0 1,002 2 -167 0 0 5 5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sheepscar Beck Refurbishment Luke Williams Mark Wilkinson (blank)12/21 01/00 12/23 04/24 03/26 30 30 0 15 15 0 5 0 30 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
North Yorkshire EA Catterick FAS Luke Wakefield Philip Boyes (blank)10/14 10/14 06/16 04/16 10/17 91 91 -92 10 82 13 -103 0 16 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Northallerton (Sun and Turker Becks) Flood Alleviation Scheme Andrew Gee Andrew Gee (blank)11/08 05/11 07/13 04/14 08/20 1 40 40 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pennine Peat Partnership Yorkshire Katie Aspray Jacqui Toothill (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pickering Flood Storage Scheme Dean Hamblin Andrew Newton (blank)04/13 04/13 05/13 10/13 11/15 1 105 105 0 105 0 0 50 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ripon Flood Alleviation Scheme Tim Cobb Anthony Myatt (blank)01/00 12/05 12/09 09/09 04/12 1 18 18 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
River Derwent SSSI Recovery Project Tom Pagett Paul Slater (blank)10/18 05/19 05/19 01/00 03/20 1 120 120 8 113 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme Oliver Wilson Joe Noake (blank)09/08 12/11 07/15 06/15 08/18 25 178 0 12 166 6 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skip Bridge gauging station Oliver Wilson Andrew Gee (blank)02/16 12/16 01/17 06/17 12/18 1 4 4 0 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
River Wharfe SSSI Restoration Simon Stokes Paul Slater (blank)08/15 08/16 09/16 01/00 03/26 30 50 0 3 47 2 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kirkby, Great, Little Ings MIOS Andrew McIntosh Paul Stainer (blank)01/18 08/18 02/19 06/19 02/20 1 12 12 3 9 2 3 106 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tadcaster Flood Alleviation Scheme Katherine Graham Andrew McIntosh (blank)09/19 04/21 04/22 01/00 09/24 907 517 -874 105 412 68 -221 172 706 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hensall Barrier Banks (Capital) Philip Boyes Anthony Myatt (blank)05/12 05/13 03/14 04/14 10/17 1 10 10 7 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Com NFM - Derwent Villages NFM Demonstration Project Simon Stokes Martin Slater (blank)01/18 01/00 01/00 12/18 03/21 1 19 19 3 16 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NFM - North Yorks NFM - Upper Ure / Bishopdale Simon Stokes Martin Slater (blank)01/00 03/18 10/18 10/18 03/21 177 123 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NFM - North Yorks NFM - Brompton Simon Stokes Martin Slater (blank)01/00 05/18 09/18 12/18 03/21 68 86 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hunsingore gauging weir fish pass Robert Bayton 00:00:00 (blank)03/18 03/18 04/21 01/00 12/21 520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kirkby Wharfe Flood Alleviation Scheme Victoria Townend Chris Ashcroft (blank)10/18 04/20 06/20 01/00 03/21 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cleek Hall bank Erosion Repair (added to Tidal Ouse project) Victoria Townend Ben Hughes (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 20 20 3 17 2 3 0 250 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Roecliffe Pumping Station Refurbishment (not progressing) Victoria Townend Ben Hughes (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 10 10 2 8 1 2 0 200 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Temple Hirst to Hirst Courtney Bank Replacement Victoria Townend Ben Hughes (blank)01/00 01/00 12/16 01/00 01/00 1 3,430 3,430 572 2,858 286 572 0 50 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Filey Flood Alleviation Works Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)04/15 10/16 03/20 06/20 01/00 1,814 1,289 0 0 1,289 0 0 581 0 0 494 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
North East Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme (YRFCC) Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)01/14 01/14 10/14 01/00 03/21 142 142 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scarborough South Bay Beach Management Programme Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)11/09 11/09 11/09 04/10 11/20 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Whitby Harbour Works MU17 & MU18 Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)06/12 06/12 09/13 09/18 11/19 1,612 978 0 0 978 326 -652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cowbar Monitoring Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)01/00 03/16 06/16 01/00 03/21 1 17 17 0 17 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scarborough South Bay Options Appraisal Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)06/20 09/20 01/00 01/00 03/21 1 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malton and Norton Flood Alleviation Scheme, North Yorkshire Victoria Townend 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 10/19 08/19 01/00 03/20 704 1,585 0 0 1,585 333 -667 0 0 88 88 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cell 1 Water Framework Directive and Strategic SEA Victoria Murray Ben Hughes (blank)01/00 10/14 11/15 01/00 04/16 -46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scarborough Coastal Risk Management Programme Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)05/12 05/12 06/12 01/00 03/21 1 45 45 0 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Robin Hoods Bay PAR & Seawall Capital Maintenance Scheme Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)04/15 11/17 04/20 09/20 02/21 200 86 0 0 86 29 -57 0 0 0 0 0 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scarborough Town Surface Water Flood Alleviation Edward Hinton 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scalby Ness OB & Works Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)01/21 01/00 03/22 04/22 07/23 1 100 100 0 100 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Filey Town Seawall & Outflanking Works Edward Hinton Chris Ashcroft (blank)04/20 01/00 05/22 01/00 06/24 1 100 100 0 100 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OtherWhitley Bridge Pumping Station - Est. 2020-2023 Eleanor Brown 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Little Airmyn Pumping Station Jon Freed Paul Stockhill (blank)03/20 04/20 05/20 07/20 03/21 1 850 850 0 850 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOT FOUND NOT FOUND(blank) n/a n/a (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rotherham EA River Rother Restoration Phase II Elisa Neame Joanne Kay (blank)01/00 01/00 02/16 01/00 03/21 76 27 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Don Catchment Regulators - Asset Refurbishment Tim Cobb Andrew Coen (blank)04/15 07/20 03/21 06/21 08/23 703 498 58 11 487 25 -11 85 2,320 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Parkgate Flood Alleviation Scheme David Ferguson Simon Mann (blank)02/17 10/20 12/20 05/21 01/22 220 270 0 0 270 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Whiston Brook Flood Storage David Ferguson Simon Mann (blank)01/16 03/20 03/20 10/20 10/21 270 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rotherham To Kilnhurst Flood Alleviation Scheme (Phase 2) David Ferguson Simon Mann (blank)12/17 09/20 06/23 08/23 10/26 4,405 2,655 0 0 2,655 0 0 0 2,254 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OtherLake Outfall Pumping Station - Est. 2020-2023 Ben Brass 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sheffield EA Sheaf Screen Study and Works Phil Rogers Sarah Burtonwood (blank)11/18 04/19 06/19 04/20 03/21 2,389 2,104 159 273 1,831 232 -42 -115 5 15 15 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upper Don Catchment NFM Programme Jenny Barlow 00:00:00 (blank)09/20 04/21 09/21 06/22 05/26 120 20 10 0 20 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Sheaf Catchment Flood Alleviation Scheme James Mead Simon Mann (blank)01/15 01/00 04/21 04/22 03/25 800 330 -575 0 330 30 -147 -50 1,400 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sheffield Lower Don Valley Flood Protection Project James Mead Simon Mann (blank)01/00 03/14 06/15 08/15 11/17 1 15 15 0 15 0 0 -15 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sheffield Upper Don Flood Alleviation Scheme James Mead Simon Mann (blank)01/15 01/19 03/19 08/20 03/26 4,928 4,005 -43 0 4,005 197 -749 0 5,185 170 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Three Brooks Environmental Scheme, Manor, Sheffield Vikki Harrison-JohnstoneJames Mead (blank)02/16 01/00 06/20 11/20 03/21 819 447 -472 0 447 0 -50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Blackburn Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme Vikki Harrison-JohnstoneJames Mead (blank)03/17 07/20 04/22 07/22 01/24 139 139 139 0 139 139 0 50 450 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sheffield Watercourses Culvert Renewal Programme James Mead James Mead (blank)02/15 07/18 04/19 07/19 11/20 1,667 1,685 0 0 1,685 145 -289 0 0 150 150 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Putting The Sheaf Back Into Sheffield Anthony Downing Martin Slater (blank)02/17 04/20 01/00 08/20 04/21 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wakefield EA Ings Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme Laura Mageean Anthony Myatt (blank)07/00 11/08 06/10 02/10 03/13 1 9 9 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Elmsall FAS - Ea Beck & Langthwaite Beck Aminu Adamu James Walton (blank)05/21 07/22 02/23 04/23 04/24 197 71 -69 5 66 3 -19 0 250 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Elmsall FAS Modelling and Survey Aminu Adamu James Walton (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 12/20 24 24 24 1 23 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Castleford FAS - Whitwood Mere James Walton Andrew McIntosh (blank)11/19 10/21 11/22 03/23 04/24 100 33 -90 1 32 3 -20 3 38 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Castleford FAS - Castleford Loop James Walton Andrew McIntosh (blank)11/19 10/21 11/22 03/23 04/24 230 115 -106 3 112 9 -34 11 90 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LA Reid Park Beck Pumping Station upgrades and capital works Christian Merriman 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York EA Clifton Ings Barrier Bank Tom Cochrane Edward Sorfleet (blank)12/14 01/19 01/20 09/20 09/22 5,686 1,382 -169 279 1,102 73 222 300 4,987 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Foss Barrier Recovery Scheme Ian Saxelby Andrew Gee (blank)01/16 01/16 08/16 01/16 12/20 833 4,839 -190 147 4,692 555 -480 925 1,501 1,184 1,184 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York Flood Defence Improvements (Ouse & Foss) Edward Sorfleet Edward Sorfleet (blank)07/17 01/19 08/21 01/00 02/22 10,165 1,025 1,025 188 837 111 188 0 8,786 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flood storage areas upstream of York Fiona Sugden Emma Beever (blank)03/18 03/18 04/21 09/21 01/21 1 49 49 7 42 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York FAS - Clementhorpe (Cell B8) Steven Taylor Edward Sorfleet (blank)07/17 01/19 07/19 01/00 03/22 6,219 1,323 -987 73 1,250 45 -31 392 3,968 123 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York FAS - North Street, Scarborough Bridge to Ouse Bridge Right Bank (Cell B4) Faye Lynch Edward Sorfleet (blank)01/00 01/00 04/19 06/19 03/21 742 524 -17 9 515 12 -81 122 34 9 9 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York FAS - Copins Farm to Scarborough Bridge Left Bank (Cell B11) Emma Beever Edward Sorfleet (blank)01/00 01/00 06/19 07/19 05/21 2,030 1,898 -476 363 1,535 216 -10 95 522 37 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York FAS - PFR Katherine Graham Edward Sorfleet (blank)07/17 01/19 08/19 07/20 10/21 1 814 814 4 810 15 4 45 1,053 9 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
G:\FRM\xProgramming\2 In Year Monitoring and Reporting\20-21\Capital\CMS\02
CMS May 2020\$ Draft CMS\MASTER CMS 2020 May v6 latest MTP funding.xlsmPage 3 of 4
Technical Appendix A03
May In Year Capital Monitoring
LLFA LocationR
MA
Project Name Project Manager Project Executive
In Y
r R
AG
G1 Gate2 G3Constr
StartG4
20/21
Allocatio
n
ML
(March
2021)
ML
Change
Spend
(to date)
Remaini
ng
spend
Next
month
f/c
Spend to
date vs
last
month
Risk in
20/21
Next
Year f/c
OM2
T
OM2
F
OM3
T
OM3
F
OM4a
T
OM4a
F
OM4b
T
OM4b
F
OM4c
T
OM4c
F
Project GovernanceGateway Dates
RED <90 days / AMBER <180 days
Outcome Measures
RED = below target / AMBER = above target
Exceptions (based on all funding sources)
£k
York EA York FAS - Scarborough Bridge to Lendal Bridge Left Bank (Cell B12) Emma Beever 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 0 30 30 0 30 0 0 0 1,600 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OtherMain Foss (053) Channel Improvements Ainsty 2008 IDB Jon Freed Chris Ashcroft (blank)10/20 01/00 12/20 01/00 03/21 1 18 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
River Foss (020) Channel Improvements Foss 2008 IDB Jon Freed Chris Ashcroft (blank)10/20 01/00 12/20 01/00 03/21 1 40 40 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorkshire-wide EA LLP Programme Management Officers Sarah Ducker Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
WEM - 3 - Aire Capital [Recovery] Robert Bayton Sarah Burtonwood (blank)02/16 02/16 05/16 06/16 01/18 1 40 40 0 40 10 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Capital Salaries - Yorkshire Steve Sargeant 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 2,099 2,099 2,099 350 1,749 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York REC 2017-18 MEICA Sasha Jordan Phil Young (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 4 4 4 0 0 4 30 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sub-Regional Partnership Development and Secretariat Service Sarah Ducker Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Asset Recondition allocation Bill Rodham 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorks Rev - LL Funded Salaries Sarah Ducker 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 135 0 23 113 11 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Improving coverage of the Flood Warning Service Gareth Hogan Lizzy Haynes (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
York REC Studies Package 2 Kathy Stevenson Joe Noake (blank)03/18 01/00 04/18 01/00 11/19 1 10 10 7 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
New Hydrometry and Telemetry Outstations Zoe Pattinson 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 78 20 -20 0 20 0 -7 0 40 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-SLA Maintenance - Step installation Zoe Pattinson 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 13 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wharfe Flood Partnership Resilience and Stewardship Programme John Woods Mark Wilkinson (blank)01/00 01/00 07/18 01/00 01/00 55 46 0 18 29 9 0 3 30 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SCRIMP Programme (Yorkshire) Lisa Killick Jenny Baker (blank)04/17 01/00 04/17 01/00 03/19 40 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorkshire Local FAS and Tribs Modelling Fiona Sugden Graham Sheppard (blank)01/00 01/00 01/19 01/00 06/20 1 64 64 43 21 21 43 25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorkshire Impacts Data Gareth Hogan 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 28 28 0 28 1 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hydrometry Equipment Replacement Programme Zoe Pattinson 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 1 30 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mapping, Modelling and Data - Yorkshire 2019-20 Sharon Kaiser 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 08/15 12/15 01/00 10/16 55 166 166 0 166 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yorkshire November 2019 Flood Recovery Tichaona MadzimbamutoRichard Clarke (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 11,500 0 -13,500 0 0 833 -1,667 0 3,500 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Yorkshire Pipeline Development 20/21 Phil Rogers Sarah Burtonwood (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 100 156 156 26 130 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
East Yorkshire Pipeline Development 20/21 Phil Rogers Sarah Burtonwood (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 100 36 36 6 30 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
West Yorkshire Pipeline Development 20/21 Phil Rogers Sarah Burtonwood (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 100 156 156 26 130 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
North Yorkshire Pipeline Development 20/21 Phil Rogers Sarah Burtonwood (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 100 129 129 14 115 7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flood Resilience Capital Projects Rob Gummerson Susan Connolly (blank)01/00 01/00 08/14 01/00 01/00 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SME Indirect Costs and Flood Risk Jonathan Follows 00:00:00 (blank)01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 01/00 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
G:\FRM\xProgramming\2 In Year Monitoring and Reporting\20-21\Capital\CMS\02
CMS May 2020\$ Draft CMS\MASTER CMS 2020 May v6 latest MTP funding.xlsmPage 4 of 4
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A03
Yorkshire Area Priority Programme Key: PPMT gateways Spend forecast Outcomes Overall confidence rating
Schemes better protecting 100+ homes 15/16 to 20/21, Past PPMT > MTP Bold: delivered 0 No delivery pre 20/21
plus other schemes of particular interest to Yorkshire Area (e.g. political) In next 6 months PPMT < MTP 1 Low
In next 3 months 2 Medium - Low
3 Medium - High
4 High
PPMT DATA (May Committed) 5 Already complete
Priority Programme Y
Conf Partnership Funding
Partnership Lead
RMA
Project Name Sponsor PE PM GW1 GW3 Constr
n start
GW420/21 £k
(PPMT)
21/22 £k
(PPMT)
22/23 £k
(PPMT)
23/24 £k
(PPMT)
4 yr total
£k
OM2+3 6
year (MTP)
OM2+3
20/21
(PPMT)
Overall
conf
rating
20/21 £k
(MTP)
21/22 £k
(MTP)
22/23 £k
(MTP)
23/24 £k
(MTP)
PF ScoreBenefit
Cost RatioGiA Growth
Local
Levy
Public
contribs
Private
contrib
s
Other
EA
Futher
required
Hull & East Riding EA Burstwick New Clough Peter Holmes/Kim AndrewAnthony Myatt Rachel Hudd 01/15 07/15 04/16 07/16 360 0 5 629% 14.0 261
Chantry's Cottages, Dutch River Urgent Works Adam TunningleyChris Milburn Philip Boyes 04/15 06/15 06/15 06/17 6 6 2,120 0 5 102% 9.6 8,773
Humber: Estuary Erosion Protection (HEEP) Works 2 Helen Todd Robert Bayton Julia Somers 09/16 01/00 01/00 01/00 0 0 4 1,237 44% 1.5 1,688
Humber: Hull frontage Adam Tunningley 0 Helen Tattersdale12/11 10/17 01/19 05/21 11,103 1,928 13,030 28,364 11,344 4 11,667 651 191% 17.2 22,255 3,000
Humber: Skeffling Land Purchase and Managed RealignmentPhilip Winn Andrew NewtonAndrew Gee 05/12 06/19 07/21 12/24 1,310 2,130 5,635 5,287 14,362 0 0 3 5,050 8,605 5,365 1,017 93% 0.9 18,897 1,080
Newport Floodwalls Peter Holmes/Kim AndrewPaul Stainer Nigel Priestley 01/16 02/16 03/16 03/16 270 0 5 451% 12.5 448
Hull River Defences - Phase 1 Neil Longden Anthony Myatt Brendan Sharkey 02/13 09/16 03/17 04/21 10,932 1,813 12,744 5,287 1,603 4 8,483 210 185% 28.1 40,895 5,067
Holderness Drain FAS Neil Longden Anthony Myatt Julian Hammer 05/11 06/19 05/20 04/22 7,505 7,601 15,106 812 0 2 8,792 7,000 312 108% 5.1 7,912 3,700 1,512 8,439
Blacktoft Erosion Protection Project (BEPP) Neil Longden Robert Bayton Julia Somers 05/20 09/20 09/20 11/20 377 377 120 120 4 106% 41.7 21
Hempholme and Wilfholme Pumping Station Refurb Neil Longden Louis Harvey Katherine Huddleston09/19 09/19 07/20 09/20 747 104 851 0 0 3 128% 5.0 38 1,041
IDB Eastrington and Laxton Flood Management Project Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Jon Freed 04/15 01/00 07/17 03/18 272 0 5 105% 2.8 511 253 736
Gilberdyke and Blacktoft Flood Management Project Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Jon Freed 01/00 11/17 09/17 06/19 833 0 5 100% 3.4 1,235 160 110
LA Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Dean Hamblin 12/15 09/17 09/17 01/20 1,766 0 4 3,645 113% 6.3 19,309 5,992
Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Dean Hamblin 04/16 08/17 10/17 08/20 2,809 2,809 1,008 1,042 4 1,500 126% 7.1 13,113 6,079
Hessle Foreshore Tidal Defences (HeFTD) Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Dean Hamblin 03/18 02/19 04/19 11/20 6,002 6,002 4,464 4,464 4 3,541 729% 93.9 4,566 4,238
Pocklington Flood Alleviation Scheme Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Dean Hamblin 12/16 09/18 09/18 08/19 134 0 4 100% 1.7 941 44 500 3,000
Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme (WADFAS)Neil Longden Joe Noake Dean Hamblin 01/00 03/14 03/14 03/16 8,085 0 5 739% 37.5 5,730 4,434
Hull and Holderness Flood Alleviation Scheme (Phase 1 - Tidal)Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Dean Hamblin 05/16 03/16 05/16 03/18 609 0 5 323% 33.9 1,970 4,143
Withernsea Groyne Field Improvements Phase 1 Neil Longden Paul Stockhill Edward Hinton 11/15 02/17 04/17 03/18 106 0 5 107% 9.5 2,816
North Yorkshire EA Clifton Ings Barrier Bank Adam TunningleyEdward SorfleetTom Cochrane 12/14 01/20 09/20 09/22 1,382 4,987 4,283 10,652 0 0 3 5,686 5,178 330% 1.1 1,286 6,053
Foss Barrier Recovery Scheme 0 Andrew Gee Ian Saxelby 01/16 08/16 01/16 12/20 4,839 1,501 6,340 1,184 1,184 4 833 822 46% 6.8 24,721 6,863
Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme Adrian Gill Joe Noake Oliver Wilson 09/08 07/15 06/15 08/18 178 178 367 0 5 25 87% 7.3 10,667 479 4,548 250
Catterick FAS Martin Slater Philip Boyes Luke Wakefield 10/14 06/16 04/16 10/17 91 16 7 115 149 0 5 12 10 122% 2.7 831 298 3,630
York Flood Defence Improvements (Ouse & Foss) Neil Longden Edward SorfleetEdward Sorfleet 07/17 08/21 01/00 02/22 1,025 8,786 10,483 4,500 24,794 0 0 3 1,372 125% 0.5 786 16,344
York FAS - Clementhorpe (Cell B8) 0 Edward SorfleetSteven Taylor 07/17 07/19 01/00 03/22 1,323 3,968 350 5,642 123 0 3 5,902 100% 1.0 6,550 317
York FAS - North Street, Scarborough Bridge to Ouse Bridge Right Bank (Cell B4)Neil Longden Edward SorfleetFaye Lynch 01/00 04/19 06/19 03/21 524 34 558 9 9 4 742 110% 1.9 1,223 742
York FAS - Copins Farm to Scarborough Bridge Left Bank (Cell B11) 0 Edward SorfleetEmma Beever 01/00 06/19 07/19 05/21 1,898 522 8 8 2,436 37 0 4 2,030 102% 1.1 2,605
York FAS - PFR Neil Longden Edward SorfleetKatherine Graham07/17 08/19 07/20 10/21 814 1,053 1,867 9 0 4 100% 0.4 74
LA Scarborough Spa Neil Longden Chris Ashcroft Edward Hinton 04/07 11/17 05/18 11/19 380 0 5 100% 10.0 11,619 3,274
Filey Flood Alleviation Works Neil Longden Chris Ashcroft Edward Hinton 04/15 03/20 06/20 01/00 1,289 1,289 0 494 3 955 100% 5.6 2,634 1,710
Whitby Harbour Works MU17 & MU18 Neil Longden Chris Ashcroft Edward Hinton 06/12 09/13 09/18 11/19 978 978 376 0 4 120% 5.9 4,517 3,773
South Yorkshire EA Bentley PS Replacement Gavin Usher Paul Stainer Nigel Priestley 03/15 07/18 10/18 12/20 3,995 94 12 12 4,113 0 1,669 4 213 20 7 7 106% 6.3 7,808 1,500
Sheaf Screen Study and Works Gavin Usher Sarah BurtonwoodPhil Rogers 11/18 06/19 04/20 03/21 2,104 5 2,109 15 15 4 2,389 101% 17.8 3,210
Stainforth Dunston Hill Bridge Wall Refurbishment Gavin Usher Joe Noake Anna Murphy 11/17 08/18 10/18 03/19 2 2 2,514 0 5 476% 55.8 279
Rawcliffe Bridge Embankment Repairs - Emergency WorksGavin Usher Jos Wattam Darren Gallagher 08/18 08/18 09/18 11/18 863 0 5 128% 6.0 101
Rudgate Lane, Nr Sykehouse - Embankment Repairs - Emergency WorksGavin Usher Jos Wattam Darren Gallagher 08/18 08/18 09/18 12/18 395 0 5 112% 14.0 114
Don Catchment Regulators - Asset Refurbishment Gavin Usher Andrew Coen Tim Cobb 04/15 03/21 06/21 08/23 498 2,320 3,870 780 7,468 0 0 1 2,523 480 62% 10.0 1,602 1,819
LA Sheffield Watercourses Culvert Renewal Programme Adrian Gill James Mead James Mead 02/15 04/19 07/19 11/20 1,685 1,685 305 150 4 1,667 101% 4.1 2,009 500 1,707
West Yorkshire EA Mytholmroyd Flood Alleviation Scheme Adrian Gill / Kimberley MacPhersonOliver Wilson Ian Walker 02/17 02/18 01/18 02/21 6,567 12 6,579 186 186 4 7,432 102% 1.5 13,159 22,089 400 4,361 3,013
Upper Calder Flood Risk Reduction Schemes Adrian Gill James Walton Lee Riley-Thompson10/14 01/15 01/15 09/19 159 0 5 102% 2.7 2,170 599 740
Brighouse Flood Alleviation Scheme Kimberley MacPhersonAndrew Rogers Andy Jackson 02/18 11/21 12/21 10/22 651 2,885 3,393 6,929 0 0 2 1,415 5,110 5,710 124% 3.9 830 542 1,000 190
Leeds FAS Phase 2 NFM Programme (EA delivery) 0 Chris Milburn Fiona Sugden 09/16 04/19 01/00 03/25 1,209 1,115 1,340 1,472 5,136 0 0 2 1,240 1,100 2,000 2,000 100% 2.9 846 953 740
Hebden Bridge FAS Adrian Gill Will Benedikz Simon Byrne 05/16 12/21 05/21 05/23 3,426 5,200 5,607 4,204 18,437 0 0 2 4,856 11,400 5,795 31% 2.4 2,627 2,474 797 2,010
LA Kirklees Culvert Programme Adrian Gill Mark Wilkinson Luke Williams 01/00 10/16 11/16 03/23 263 223 485 826 135 4 245 200 0% 0.0 1,009 45
Leeds City Flood Alleviation Scheme Gary Bartlett Oliver Priestley Chris Milburn 01/00 09/14 01/15 08/17 154 0 5 107% 3.6 8,450 8,980 3,832
Leeds FAS Phase 2 Adrian Gill David Oake David Oake 09/16 01/19 06/19 07/22 21,326 31,970 34,767 1,329 89,393 0 0 2 16,950 27,500 16,000 100% 2.1 31,958 4,428 4,000
Otley Flood Alleviation Scheme Adrian Gill Mark Wilkinson John Woods 10/17 08/20 10/20 03/21 2,801 2,801 58 0 3 2,272 100% 7.8 989 516 664 639
Total (Priority Programme) 06/46 09/21 07/94 01/23 99,656 78,265 69,755 17,593 265,269 62,719 22,415 184 101,301 69,659 35,189 3,024 7772% 516.8 254,018 94,493 8,415 84,873 4,330 13,708 6,559
Grand Total 143,203 121,143 134,927 68,154 467,427 64,803 22,719 144,522 132,572 107,818 87,454 396,012 97,912 16,557 111,718 13,057 29,478 14,110
Already delivered 43,865
6 year forecast 66,584
6 Year Funding SourcesRoles Gateways Spend forecast £k Outcomes Jan 20 Consented Programme
494
21,921
Fig 6a: OM2+3 20/21 by Overall Confidence Rating
1 - Low
2 - Medium - Low
3 - Medium - High
4 - High
5 - Complete in2020/21
Back to agenda
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A04
Technical Appendix A05
Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Back to agenda
Meeting:
YRFCC Programming and Investment Sub-Group
Subject: Local Levy Programme Update
Date: Thursday 25 June 2020
PURPOSE: FOR INFORMATION / DISCUSSION / RECOMMENDATION To:
Provide the Sub-Group with a final outturn for 2019/20 and baseline for the 2020/21 Local Levy programme;
Provide the Sub-Group with an update on progress with the 2020/21 Local Levy programme;
Present requests received for Local Levy funding and seek the Sub-Group’s recommendation to the Committee in relation to these; and
Provide an indication of likely and potential future Local Levy needs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the April 2020 Committee meeting we presented a forecast of the 2019/20 year-end position. This paper presents the final outturn for 2019/20 and baselines the 2020/21 Levy programme as a result of this.
The Levy outturn in 2019/20 was just over £3.4 million, leaving just under £2.4 million to be carried into 2020/21.
A total of just under £5 million of Levy funding is available for investment in 2020/21 and the baseline programme utilises just under £4.1 million of this, leaving just over £900,000 unallocated.
£3,000 of Levy from the previously approved programme has been released for reallocation as it is no longer required.
As at the end of May 2020, just under £200,000 has been spent, with an indicative full year forecast of just under £2.9 million.
We have received new Levy requests totalling just under £200,000. These are outlined in section 4 with details in Appendix 2 and 3. These requests can be accommodated within the programme, and if all are recommended for inclusion in the programme £900,000 would remain available for allocation up to the end of 2020/21.
Due to the proximity of the end of the current six-year programme the implications of likely pipeline Levy requests arising from the last annual programme refresh are factored into the future programme. It also considers the implications of further potential Levy requests previously highlighted to the Sub-Group.
Technical Appendix A05
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Sub-Group is asked to:
note the release of £3,000 allocation back into the Levy programme for reallocation;
recommend the approval of the 2020/21 baselined Local Levy programme as detailed in Appendix 1 to the Committee; and
make recommendations to the Committee for additions to the Levy programme from the requests received detailed in Appendices 2 and 3.
Technical Appendix A05
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This paper provides an overview of the Yorkshire RFCC’s Local Levy programme. It provides a final statement on the financial performance of the 2019/20 Local Levy programme and sets a baseline for the 2020/21 Levy allocations. It presents proposed changes to existing projects and considers additional Levy needs put forward for inclusion in the current Levy programme. It also considers the implications of pipeline Levy needs identified and further potential Levy requests previously highlighted to the Sub-Group.
1.2 This paper is supported by 4 appendices, referred to throughout this document.
2. FINAL 2019/20 FINANCIAL POSITION
2.1 At the April Committee meeting we presented a forecast of the 2019/20 year-end position. At that time we were forecasting an outturn of just over £2.6 million. The final Levy claimed in 2019/20 was just over £3.4 million. Table 1 below summarises the final programme position at the end of year and the detail appears in Appendix 1.
Table 1 – YRFCC Local Levy 2019/20 Financial Summary (£k)
Total Levy funding available in 2019/20 (including balances carried from previous years)
5,796
Total Levy programme 2019/20 (approved April 2019)
2,770
Final outturn 3,403
Balance to be carried forward to 2020/21 2,393
2.2 The final outturn for 2019/20 achieved and exceeded the forecast primarily because the opportunity was taken to adjust the balance of funding between Local Levy and FCRM GiA for the Filey Flood Alleviation Works (Scarborough Borough Council, line 61, Appendix 1) in order to achieve end of year targets for both funding streams. Levy allocations previously for 2020/21 were also paid at the end of 2019/20 on a couple of other projects: all of these have the effect of advancing allocations previously in 2020/21 into 2019/20. Countering this, a number of projects spent or claimed less than their allocated amount and the unspent allocations have been carried forward into 2020/21 (see section 3).
2.3 Sub-Group members attention is drawn to the fact that the anticipated refund of £80,000 approved Local Levy funds previously drawn down by Derbyshire County Council (DCC) for the Chesterfield Integrated Pluvial Fluvial Model (Derbyshire County Council, line 66) was completed in 2019/20.
3. OVERVIEW OF 2020/21 PROGRAMME
Baseline Programme
3.1 The Committee raised a Local Levy for 2020/21 of just under £2.6 million which, when supplemented by the £2.4 million carried from previous years (Table 1 above), gives a total of just under £5 million available for investment.
3.2 The programme for 2020/21 has been baselined to adjust for work not completed or claimed for in 2019/20 and grant claims paid earlier than previously anticipated. There have been no requests to re-profile Levy from 2020/21 into future years. All changes to
Technical Appendix A05
the programme are shown in red font in Appendix 1, to which the following line numbers refer. The significant re-profiling between 2019/20 and 2020/21 is:
The opportunity was taken to advance Levy funding for Filey Flood Alleviation Works (Scarborough Borough Council, line 61) into 2019/20 in order to achieve year-end financial targets as referred to in paragraph 2.2. This removes £930,000 allocation from the 2020/21 programme.
Three Brooks Environmental Scheme, Manor, Sheffield (Sheffield City Council, line 75). Work on developing this project continued in 2019/20 using other funding sources. The project scope is being revised and SCC have requested that the remaining £75,000 Levy allocation is transferred into 2020/21 until a final solution and costings are confirmed.
South Elmsall FAS - Ea Beck & Langthwaite Beck (Environment Agency, line 117). Delivery of the project has been delayed due to the need to revisit hydrological data for use in the model following recent significant flood events. The model has now been delivered however its review has also been delayed due to recent flood incidents. The remaining £67,000 Levy allocation has therefore been transferred into 2020/21.
3.3 Sub-Group members are reminded that at the April 2020 YRFCC meeting the Committee could only agree in principle to the recommendations of the April 2020 P&I chairs report and that these decisions need to be formally ratified at the Committee’s July 2020 meeting. The programme in Appendix 1 and all subsequent tables in this paper assume that these recommendations (for Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall capital maintenance scheme (Scarborough Borough Council, line 62); Wilder Waterways in the Lower Don (Environment Agency, line 71); Reid Park Beck, Horbury, Wakefield (Wakefield District Council, line 118); and SME Indirect Costs and Flood Risk (Environment Agency, line 129) will be ratified at that meeting.
3.4 Sub-Group members attention is also drawn to the fact that Leeds City Council (LCC) have advised us that a duplicate payment of £50,000 of Local Levy was made to them in 2019/20 for Wyke Beck improvements (LCC, line 116). As such the funds will be returned to Local Levy balances during 2020/21 and this is reflected in the programme. Along with the previously advised expected return of £46,000 of Local Levy from Scarborough Borough Council for Cell 1 Water Framework Directive and Strategic SEA (line 60) this means that just under £100,000 of Local Levy is due to be returned to YRFCC for reallocation during 2020/21.
3.5 We have been notified that the remaining £3,000 Levy allocation for Strategy and delivery in the Eastburn/Glusburn Beck catchment (Environment Agency, line 58) can now be released. A long list of options for managing flood risk issues from all sources has been developed and will now be reviewed to decide on the appropriate way forward.
3.6 Sub-Group members are asked to note the release of £3,000 allocation back into the Levy programme for reallocation.
3.7 The proposed baseline programme for 2020/21 is presented in Appendix 1 (“Local Levy for Approval” column).
3.8 Sub-Group members are asked to recommend the approval of the 2020/21 baselined Local Levy programme as detailed in Appendix 1 to the Committee.
3.9 We have not received any requests to make changes to the programme in future years.
Technical Appendix A05
3.10 Following the changes outlined in paragraphs 3.2-3.5 above, the profiled programme spend is as shown in Table 2. With the proximity of the end of the current six-year programme this table takes into account the indicative pipeline Levy requests expected as a result of the last annual programme refresh. Sub-Group members are reminded that these likely pipeline requests have only been identified by eight RMAs (around one third of those identifying projects), with the majority of them (both by number and value) from a single RMA. It is therefore likely that as RMA programmes develop further requests for Levy will arise, particularly from the RMAs who haven’t currently identified any.
Table 2 - YRFCC Local Levy Programme 2020/21 to 2024/25 (£k)
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Local Levy raised (assumed) 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593
Balances carried from previous year 2,393 929 3,060 4,420 5,660
Total Local Levy available in year 4,986 3,521 5,653 7,012 8,252
Total programmed spend (current programme) 4,057 271 168 96 60
Total YRFCC Levy pipeline 0 190 1,065 1,257 507
Total programmed spend inc. Pipeline (not yet approved) 4,057 461 1,233 1,353 567
Balance to carry at year-end 929 3,060 4,420 5,660 7,686
Progress update
3.11 Appendix 1 gives an indication of spend to the end of May 2020 of just under £200,000 against a full year forecast of just under £2.9 million. Members should note that due to the complexities of apportioning spend between funding sources the quoted Local Levy spend to date and full year forecast should be taken as indicative.
3.12 Sub-Group members are reminded that the ‘in principle’ allocation to Robin Hood’s Bay Seawall capital maintenance scheme (Scarborough Borough Council, line 62) in 2020/21 is on the understanding that £64,000 of this is underwriting Scarborough Borough Council until such time as they are able to approve an additional contribution. As such, £64,000 of the current allocation could be returned to the programme for reallocation.
3.13 Committee approval for changes in Levy allocation (value or timing) is only sought when requested by the delivery authority. All other variances are treated as ‘noise’ in the programme due to the aforementioned complexities of apportioning spend. All RMAs are reminded that any spend beyond the amount of Levy approved by the RFCC at their quarterly meetings is at their own risk.
4. NEW REQUESTS FOR LEVY FUNDING
4.1 Following the changes outlined in section 3 above, the value of Levy programmed for 2020/21 is now just over £4 million and, with the current knowledge we have of pipeline Levy needs, the pressure on funding (as shown in Table 2) is in this financial year. This shows that just over £900,000 worth of work could be added into the programme during this financial year without the programme becoming overcommitted.
4.2 Requests have been received from two risk management authorities to allocate Levy towards two projects with a total value of £197,400. Proformas for these requests appear
Technical Appendix A05
in Appendix 2 and the requests are summarised in Appendix 3, to which the following line numbers refer. One of the requests is for extra Levy towards a project in the current Levy programme (the Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer (line 1)). The other request is for Levy in support of a project not previously shown in the Committee’s Levy programme (line 2). The requests have all been endorsed and prioritised by the relevant Flood Risk Partnership.
4.3 As with all other projects in the Committee’s Levy programme, to be accepted onto the programme all projects should demonstrate that they meet the Committee’s Levy criteria that were endorsed at the April 2017 Committee meeting (Appendix 4). Scheme related requests have been fully rated against the assessment methodology approved by the Committee in April 2017 and non-scheme requests have been rated where applicable (all ratings are summarised in Appendix 3).
4.4 If all the requested additions to the programme are recommended to the Committee the future profiled programme spend would be as shown in Table 3 in bold. As for Table 2, this table takes into account the impact of the indicative pipeline Levy requests expected as a result of the last annual programme refresh.
Table 3 - YRFCC Local Levy Programme 2020/21 to 2024/25 (£k) with all new requests added
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Local Levy raised (assumed) 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593
Balances carried from previous year 2,393 902 2,967 4,261 5,462
Total Local Levy available in year 4,986 3,494 5,560 6,854 8,055
Total programmed spend (Current Programme) if all requests recommended
4,084 337 234 135 60
Total YRFCC Levy pipeline 0 190 1,065 1,257 507
Total programmed spend if all requests recommended and incl. Pipeline (not yet approved)
4,084 527 1,299 1,391 567
Balance to carry at year-end 902 2,967 4,261 5,462 7,488
4.5 Appendix 3 and Table 3 show that the requests received can all be accommodated from within the Levy funding currently available, leaving £900,000 available for allocation up to the end of 2020/21. Sub-Group members are reminded that they have already been notified of the potential for further requests for Levy over the next few years that are not currently included the pipeline programme and Table 3. These have a value in the order of £3m and are as follows:
Potential for further requests for Levy to support delivery of the Rotherham to Kilnhurst Flood Alleviation Scheme (Phase 2) as discussed at the March 2019 P&I meeting.
Following discussion of Levy for the Kirkby Wharfe Flood Alleviation Scheme at the June 2018 P&I meeting and allocation in July 2018, work is ongoing to efficiently identify an appropriate solution and there is still potential that an additional Levy request will be received.
Tadcaster Flood Alleviation Scheme, highlighted at June 2018 P&I. While the LEP are funding the business case development and additional government
Technical Appendix A05
funding towards the scheme was announced in September 2019 as part of the £62 million fund to better protect communities from flooding, until the business case is completed it is still possible that there may be a call on Levy, as a last resort, to complete the funding package.
4.6 Sub-Group members are asked to make recommendations to the Committee for additions to the Levy programme from the requests received detailed in Appendices 2 and 3.
4.7 Once approved, Sub-Group members and officers are reminded that the Committee discussed expected timescales for the delivery of Levy funded schemes at the January 2015 meeting, and these appear at the end of the Local Levy criteria reproduced in Appendix 4. All risk management authorities are encouraged to follow these timescales and to discuss any difficulties with achieving these with their Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager in the first instance.
5. RECOMMENDATION
5.1 The Sub-Group is requested to:
a) note the release of £3,000 allocation back into the Levy programme forreallocation;
b) recommend the approval of the 2020/21 baselined Local Levy programme asdetailed in Appendix 1 to the Committee; and
c) make recommendations to the Committee for additions to the Levy programmefrom the requests received detailed in Appendices 2 and 3.
SARAH DUCKER Yorkshire Area FCRM Programme Advisor
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
Hull & East Riding Partnership
Projects with identified Local Levy needs ending in 2019/20
1 Pocklington Flood Alleviation Scheme East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 134 4,583 0 44 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
2 Holderness Drain FAS Hull Environment Agency 812 28,875 1,261 239 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500
20/21 Local Levy Programme Progress to the end of May
3 Coastal Adaptation Fund (2017-18 to 2024-25) East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 21 687 0 60 60 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 59
4 Warter Addlekeld Drainage Improvements East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0
5 Hayton Flood Conveyance Scheme East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 0 45 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0
6 Living with Water Partnership East Riding Environment Agency 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 Reprofile
The Levy for this project was allocated to fund community engagement through innovative community events and another Hulltimate Education schools event in 2020. Logistical and supplier problems and subsequent impacts of Covid-19 have caused delays which have meant the funds allocated for 2019/20 have not been spent and have therefore been carried forward into 2020/21.
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs
7 Beeford Village Flood Alleviation Scheme* East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 53 1,208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50
8 Cherry Burton The Meadows East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 20 1,098 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 30 0 70
9 Hornsea Mere Water Level and Quality Scheme East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 144 2,638 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100
10 Molescroft Sister Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme* East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 218 2,266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
11 South Cave Flood Alleviation Scheme* East Riding East Riding of Yorkshire Council 41 2,103 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 68 6 0 0 100
Subtotals - Hull & East Riding Partnership (Currently Programmed) 1,443 43,543 1,261 368 343 25 100 125 26 168 96 60 0 2,079 0 59
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs in the pipeline (not yet recommended for inclusion in programme)
12 Stone Creek Pumping Station Relocation and associated
worksEast Riding
Beverley and North
Holderness IDB50 2,000 0 125 125 0 0 250
13 Beeford Village Flood Alleviation Scheme East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council53 1,208 0 0 0 50 0 50
14 Bessingby Industrial Estate Flood Mitigation East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council0 114 0 0 0 0 40 40
15 Bilton FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council20 185 0 15 10 0 0 25
16 Bridlington - Dukes Park SUDs and Reconnection East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council70 1,182 0 50 50 0 0 100
17 Brough - York Area SUDs East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council18 665 0 0 0 0 50 50
18 Brigham Highway Drainage East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council0 50 0 0 40 0 0 40
19 Brough - Blackburn Surface Water East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council21 370 0 50 50 0 0 100
20 Burton Pidsea - Residual risk East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council39 410 0 0 0 0 15 15
21 Carnaby Industrial Estate Attenuation East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council2 1,050 0 25 50 0 0 75
22 Coniston - FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council2 40 0 0 0 0 30 30
23 Cottingham North FAS (Harland Way / Badgers Wood) East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council4 85 0 55 0 0 0 55
24 Driffield Surface Water FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council19 125 0 10 0 0 0 10
25 Dunswell Embankment Improvements East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council99 2,040 0 0 50 0 0 50
26 Easington Drainage Improvements East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council8 50 0 0 15 0 0 15
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
Page 1 of 8
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
27 Etton Highway Drainage East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council1 50 0 0 0 0 25 25
28 Fimber B1248 Highway Drain East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council0 60 0 0 0 0 40 40
29 Gembling Common Drain East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council1 65 0 0 0 0 40 40
30 Gilberdyke SUDs Retrofit East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council52 436 0 0 40 50 50 140
31 Groundwater - Risk identification and mitigation East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council0 50 0 0 0 0 25 25
32 Hessle Fleet Drain Fluvial/Pluvial Scheme East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council110 1,500 0 0 0 100 0 100
33 High Catton Highway Drainage East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council2 45 35 0 0 0 0 35
34 Hornsea - Residual Surface Water Risk mitigation East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council5 95 0 0 0 0 10 10
35 Hull and Holderness Flood Alleviation Scheme P2
(Inland)East Riding
East Riding of Yorkshire
Council668 10,275 0 500 500 0 0 1,000
36 Kilnwick Village Drainage Improvements East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council0 50 0 0 0 0 30 30
37 Leven FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council70 1,071 0 35 0 0 0 35
38 Lockington - North FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council6 1,000 0 0 10 15 0 25
39 Market Weighton FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council69 821 0 15 45 40 0 100
40 Molescroft Sister Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council218 2,266 0 0 0 70 100 170
41 Nafferton Nethergate Phase 2 East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council10 95 0 0 0 0 15 15
42 North Cave, Newport Road East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council14 120 0 25 0 0 0 25
43 North Ferriby - Humber Road Flowpath investigations East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council13 75 0 10 0 0 0 10
44 North Ferriby - Southfield East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council1 35 25 0 0 0 0 25
45 Nunburnholme Flood Alleviation Scheme East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council9 110 0 0 0 30 0 30
46 Old Goole Improvements East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council3 50 0 0 0 0 25 25
47 Rawcliffe (Manor Fields) East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council0 35 0 0 0 0 20 20
48 Shiptonthorpe FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council10 60 0 0 15 0 0 15
49 Skidby FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council3 85 0 0 0 10 0 10
50 Skirlaugh FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council12 75 0 0 0 0 15 15
51 Snaith Drainage Improvements East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council16 95 0 0 0 0 20 20
52 South Cave Flood Alleviation Scheme East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council41 2,103 0 0 100 0 0 100
53 Swinefleet FAS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council1 30 0 0 0 0 20 20
54 Wilberfoss Flood Alleviation Schemes East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council100 1,035 0 25 25 0 0 50
55 Withernsea SUDS East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council12 1,420 0 0 0 0 35 35
56 Woodmansey Improvements East RidingEast Riding of Yorkshire
Council2 30 20 0 0 0 0 20
Subtotals - Hull & East Riding Partnership (Pipeline) 1,854 32,812 80 940 1,125 365 605 3,115
3,297 76,354 1,261 368 343 25 100 125 106 1,108 1,221 425 605 5,194 0 59Combined Subtotals - Hull & East Riding Partnership (Current Programme, Recommended Additions and Pipeline)
Page 2 of 8
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
North Yorkshire
Projects with identified Local Levy needs ending in 2019/20
57 Carr Lane, York York City of York Council 12 50 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
58 Strategy and delivery in Eastburn/Glusburn Beck catchment North Yorkshire Environment Agency 141 727 16 14 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Change
The initial assessment was completed in 2019/20 and we have been notified of the release of the remaining £3k of the allocation back into the Levy programme. A long list of options for managing flood risk issues from all sources has been developed and will now be reviewed to decide on the appropriate way forward.
2020/21 Local Levy Programme Progress to the end of May
59 Kirkby Wharfe Flood Alleviation Scheme North Yorkshire Environment Agency 14 288 22 38 10 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 Reprofile
Work on the project was progressing well to the end of 2019 however staffing changes and capacity limitations following February’s floods and Covid-19 have caused delays. These issues have been resolved and work is progressing with ground investigations, therefore the unspent allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
60 Cell 1 Water Framework Directive and Strategic SEA North Yorkshire Scarborough Borough Council 0 104 50 0 0 0 -46 -46 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
61 Filey Flood Alleviation Works North Yorkshire Scarborough Borough Council 0 4,740 755 0 930 -930 955 25 0 0 0 0 0 1,710 0 18 Reprofile
At a programme level the opportunity was taken to adjust the balance of funding between Local Levy and FCRM GiA on this project in 2019/20 in order to achieve end of year targets for both funding streams. This has the effect of advancing the Levy allocation previously in 2020/21 into 2019/20.
62 Robin Hood's Bay Seawall Capital Maintenance Scheme North Yorkshire Scarborough Borough Council 0 823 0 0 0 0 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 86
Subtotals - North Yorkshire Partnership (Currently Programmed) 167 6,732 843 102 1,001 -899 1,109 207 0 0 0 0 0 2,051 0 104
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs in the pipeline (not yet recommended for inclusion in programme)
63 Bradley Moor/Low Bradley SW flood alleviation North YorkshireNorth Yorkshire County
Council39 100 0 0 0 0 12 12
64 Cononley Flood Alleviation Study North YorkshireNorth Yorkshire County
Council31 146 0 0 0 0 30 30
65 Whitby Coastal Strategy 2 New quay and Langbourne
Rd PLPNorth Yorkshire
Scarborough Borough
Council10 330 0 0 59 59 0 118
Subtotals - North Yorkshire Partnership (Pipeline) 80 576 0 0 59 59 42 160
247 7,308 843 102 1,001 -899 1,109 207 0 0 59 59 42 2,210 0 104Combined Subtotals - North Yorkshire Partnership (Current Programme, Recommended Additions and Pipeline)
Page 3 of 8
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
South Yorkshire
Projects with identified Local Levy needs ending in 2019/20
66 Chesterfield Integrated Pluvial Fluvial Model Derbyshire Derbyshire County Council 0 0 80 -80 -80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 Renishaw Flood Alleviation Scheme Derbyshire Derbyshire County Council 52 250 0 31 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
68 Sheffield Watercourses Culvert Renewal Programme Sheffield Sheffield City Council 305 4,338 100 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500
2020/21 Local Levy Programme Progress to the end of May
69 Upper Rother Natural Flood Management Officer Derbyshire Derbyshire County Council 0 186 0 35 0 35 35 70 39 39 39 0 0 186 0 70 Reprofile
Additional
Work has been progressing throughout 2019/20, however the claim for the 2019/20 allocation was not able to be processed by year end. It is now expected that the full £70k allocation will be drawn down in 2020/21.
The P&I Sub-Group recommend that the YRFCC approve the additional Local Levy allocation of £116k across 21/22 - 23/24 to fund an extention of this post. See Technical Appendix A08, line 1, for more details.
70 Rotherham To Kilnhurst Flood Alleviation Scheme (Phase 2) Rotherham Rotherham Borough
Council 46 19,174 180 200 200 0 320 320 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 193
71 DMBC Flood Risk Culvert Programme Doncaster Doncaster Borough Council 0 98 0 20 50 -30 78 48 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 48 Reprofile
DMBC have confirmed a total value of £50k Levy was claimed in error at year end, which was £30k over the approved allocation for 2019/20. These funds are being used in 2020/21 along with the remaining allocation on progressing the culvert development OBC.
72 Wilder Waterways in the Lower Don (WiLD) Doncaster Environment Agency 0 115 0 0 0 0 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 11
73 Upper Don Catchment NFM Programme* Sheffield Environment Agency 0 2,287 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 3 Reprofile
The Levy was not able to be spent in 2019/20 due to delays in agreeing scope, which have now been resolved. The allocation has therefore been reprofiled into 2020/21 and will be spent on continuing with programme development and business case.
74 Blackburn Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme Sheffield Sheffield City Council 250 2,583 41 9 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 9 Reprofile
A claim for this allocation was not able to be made by Sheffield CC by year end due to delays associated with review and re-validation of the model following the November 2019 floods. The allocation has therefore been reprofiled into 2020/21.
75 Three Brooks Environmental Scheme, Manor, Sheffield Sheffield Sheffield City Council 28 1,673 50 75 0 75 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 41 Reprofile
Work on developing this project continued in 2019/20 using other funding sources. The project scope is being revised and Sheffield City Council have requested that the remaining Levy allocation is transferred into 2020/21 until a final solution and costings are confirmed.
76 Sheffield Upper Don Flood Alleviation Scheme Sheffield Sheffield City Council 276 30,159 180 0 0 0 145 145 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 118
77 Putting The Sheaf Back Into Sheffield Sheffield Sheffield City Council 0 550 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
Subtotals - South Yorkshire Partnership (Currently Programmed) 957 61,414 631 710 601 109 713 822 0 0 0 0 0 1,984 0 492
Subtotals - South Yorkshire Partnership (Recommended Additions) 0 186 0 39 39 39 0 0 186
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs in the pipeline (not yet recommended for inclusion in programme)
78 Cheswold Culvert Refurbishment DoncasterDoncaster Borough
Council0 700 0 20 0 0 0 20
79 Upper Don Catchment NFM Programme Sheffield Environment Agency 0 2,287 0 25 13 13 0 50
80 Sheffield Upper Don Reservoir Storage Sheffield Environment Agency 1,372 5,500 50 50 0 0 0 100
81 Broom & Clifton Flood Alleviation Scheme RotherhamRotherham Borough
Council257 520 20 0 0 0 0 20
Subtotals - South Yorkshire Partnership (Pipeline) 1,629 9,007 70 95 13 13 0 190
2,586 70,607 631 710 601 109 713 822 109 134 51 13 0 2,360 0 492Combined Subtotals - South Yorkshire Partnership (Current Programme, Recommended Additions and Pipeline)
Page 4 of 8
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
West Yorkshire
Projects with identified Local Levy needs ending in 2019/20
Bradford Flood Programme Projects:
82 Baildon Surface Water Study Bradford Bradford City Council 55 244 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
83 Goose Eye Surface Water Study Bradford Bradford City Council 40 179 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
84 Bradford Aire Catchment FAS Bradford Environment Agency 270 15,781 104 54 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157
85 Burley in Wharfedale Bradford Bradford City Council 82 490 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
86 Dalton and Waterloo Flood Alleviation Scheme Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 175 980 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
87 Dearne Valley Initial Assessment Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 0 8 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
88 Wortley Beck Improvements, Leeds Leeds Leeds City Council 88 1,100 75 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
89 Wyke Beck Phase 2 Leeds Leeds City Council 146 580 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
2020/21 Local Levy Programme Progress to the end of May
Bradford Flood Programme Projects: 0 0
90 Bradford Resilience Group Bradford Bradford City Council 0 155 122 33 25 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 155 0 8 ReprofileBradford City Council have requested to reprofile the remaining £8k of the 2019/20 Levy allocation into 2020/21 due to delays with the procurement of flood forecasting software.
91 Keighley and Stockbridge Flood Alleviation Bradford Environment Agency 497 14,818 5 0 0 0 125 125 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 60
92 Worth Catchment Modelling Bradford Environment Agency 0 281 103 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 ReprofileWork on this project is drawing to a close and therefore the remaining allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21 until final accounts have been confirmed.
93 Bradford Culvert Remediation Programme Bradford Bradford City Council 322 1,670 0 0 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 60
94 Brighouse Flood Alleviation Scheme Calderdale Environment Agency 42 13,383 0 500 458 42 500 542 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 33 235 Reprofile
An underspend of Levy on this project was due to securing a lower price for site ground investigation works than was originally quoted, meaning the forecasted risk allowance was not fully realised. Therefore the unspent allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
95 Hebden Bridge FAS Calderdale Environment Agency 130 27,240 32 400 399 1 365 366 0 0 0 0 0 797 25 276 Reprofile This project has spent less than its allocated amount and the unspent allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
96 Land management in rapid response catchments Yorkshire Calderdale Environment Agency 0 222 88 27 14 13 25 38 0 0 0 0 0 140 3 28 Reprofile
The project experienced delays due to issues with ground conditions and limited supplier capacity following the flooding events in November 2019. This project has therefore spent less than its allocated amount and the unspent allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
97 Erringden Hillside Calderdale Environment Agency 33 1,367 0 0 0 0 235 235 0 0 0 0 0 235 10 279
98 FRRS2: Calderside Flood Alleviation Scheme Calderdale Environment Agency 27 125 0 0 0 0 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0
99 FRRS2: Copley Village Flood Alleviation Scheme Calderdale Environment Agency 45 667 0 0 0 0 170 170 0 0 0 0 0 170 3 49
100 FRRS2: Machpelah Flood Alleviation Scheme Calderdale Environment Agency 17 136 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0
101 FRRS2: Shaw Wood Road Flood Alleviation Scheme Calderdale Environment Agency 2 163 0 0 0 0 70 70 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 27
102 Mirfield Surface Water Alleviation Scheme Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 139 713 0 10 10 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 20
103 Marsden Flood Alleviation Scheme Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 107 311 10 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 Reprofile
104 Milnsbridge and Golcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 367 261 10 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 Reprofile
Kirklees Borough Council confirm that work on these projects is drawing to a close, therefore the remaining allocations have been carried forward into 2020/21 until final accounts have been confirmed.
Page 5 of 8
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
105 Priority Clusters #4 (Linthwaite/Cowersley/Crossland) Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 84 250 0 14 14 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 6
106 Priority Clusters #5 (Lindley/Birkby/Fartown) Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 66 255 0 14 0 14 6 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 Reprofile
Kirklees Borough Council confirm that work on this study has been progressing during 2019/20 and the claim was funded by FCRM GiA. This has meant that the allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
107 Priority Clusters #6 (Kirkheaton/Upper & Lower Hopton/ Gomersal) Kirklees Kirklees Borough
Council 62 234 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0
108 Priority Clusters #7 (Thornhill lees/Thornhill & Overthorpe/Highburton Kirklees Kirklees Borough
Council 140 226 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0
109 Farnley Wood Beck FAS, Cottingley, Leeds Leeds Leeds City Council 15 444 59 20 41 -21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Reprofile
Leeds City Council confirm that the end of phase 2 of the study has been completed and a preferred solution has been identified. The aim was to progress straight to a detailed design and OBC submission early in 2020/21 in order to be ready to implement the de-culverting downstream of Old Close in 2021/22. The Levy allocation was claimed ahead of year end to enable LCC to make an early start to this next phase.
110 Potternewton Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme, Leeds. Leeds Leeds City Council 44 280 0 30 30 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 50 8 20
111 Victoria Road Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme, Guiseley, Leeds Leeds Leeds City Council 39 150 0 30 30 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 20
112 Meanwood Beck Leeds Leeds City Council 110 3,410 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 0 0 0 0 60 30 30
113 Otley Flood Alleviation Scheme Leeds Leeds City Council 58 2,809 0 0 0 0 664 664 0 0 0 0 0 664 0 819
114 Sheepscar Beck Refurbishment Leeds Leeds City Council 54 2,600 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 0 0 0 0 60 15 30
115 Thorner Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme, Thorner, Leeds Leeds Leeds City Council 51 425 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 50
116 Wyke Beck Improvements Leeds Leeds City Council 0 5,548 50 0 50 -50 0 -50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 -50 Change£50k unapproved Local Levy was paid in error for this project during 2019/20. The process for refunding this payment is underway and it is expected to return to Levy balances during 2020/21.
117 South Elmsall FAS - Ea Beck & Langthwaite Beck Wakefield Environment Agency 242 1,258 14 86 19 67 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 24 Reprofile
The delivery of the model, on which this study will be based, was delayed due to issues clarifying the validity of hydrological data. The project has therefore spent less than its allocated amount and the unspent allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
118 Reid Park Beck, Horbury, Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Metropolitan District Council 17 105 0 0 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs
119 Priority Clusters #3 (Clayton west & Scissett/Skelmanthorpe/Denby Dale)Kirklees Kirklees Borough Council 77 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20
Subtotals - West Yorkshire Partnership (Currently Programmed) 3,643 99,038 696 1,410 1,307 103 2,553 2,656 80 0 0 0 0 4,739 129 1,994
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs in the pipeline (not yet recommended for inclusion in programme)
120 Bramhope Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme,
LeedsLeeds Leeds City Council 42 160 0 20 20 0 0 40
121 Cock Beck, Stanks Leeds Leeds City Council 44 650 10 10 15 15 0 50
122 Oil Mill Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme Leeds Leeds City Council 31 400 30 0 0 0 0 30
123 Otley Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme Leeds Leeds City Council 58 550 0 0 25 25 0 50
124 Rodley, Bagley Beck Leeds Leeds City Council 125 685 0 0 0 30 30 60
Subtotals - West Yorkshire Partnership (Pipeline) 300 2,445 40 30 60 70 30 230
3,943 101,483 696 1,410 1,307 103 2,553 2,656 120 30 60 70 30 4,969 129 1,994Combined Subtotals - West Yorkshire Partnership (Current Programme, Recommended Additions and Pipeline)
Page 6 of 8
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
North and West Yorkshire
2020/21 Local Levy Programme Progress to the end of May
125 Wharfe Flood Partnership Resilience and Stewardship Programme Yorkshire-wide Environment Agency 0 100 0 45 15 30 25 55 30 0 0 0 0 100 18 46 Reprofile
Work has been progressing on two of the three strands of this project, with the underspend represented by delays associated with Tadcaster FAS. This has meant that the project has spent less than its allocated amount and the unspent allocation has been carried forward into 2020/21.
Subtotals - North and West Yorkshire Partnership (Currently Programmed) 0 100 0 45 15 30 25 55 30 0 0 0 0 100 18 46
Yorkshire Wide
2020/21 Local Levy Programme Progress to the end of May
126 LLP Programme Management Officers Yorkshire-wide Environment Agency 0 433 388 45 45 0 45 45 45 0 0 0 0 523 8 45
127 SCRIMP Programme (Yorkshire) Yorkshire-wide Environment Agency 0 40 0 0 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 40
128 Sub-Regional Partnership Development and Secretariat Service Yorkshire-wide Environment Agency 0 360 180 90 90 0 90 90 90 0 0 0 0 450 15 90
129 SME Indirect Costs and Flood Risk Yorkshire-wide Environment Agency 0 254 0 0 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0
NEW Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (COP) Yorkshire-wide Leeds City Council 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 14 27 27 13 0 0 81 0 0 New The P&I Sub-Group recommend that the YRFCC approve the Local
Levy allocation. See Techinical Appendix A08, line 2, for more details.
Subtotals - Yorkshire-wide (Currently Programmed) 0 1,087 568 135 135 0 193 193 135 0 0 0 0 1,031 23 175
Subtotals - Yorkshire-wide (Recommended Additions) 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 14 27 27 13 0 0 81
Projects with future identified Local Levy needs in the pipeline (not yet recommended for inclusion in programme)
Residual Environment Sub-Group NFM programme Yorkshire-wide TBC 0 TBC 0 0 0 0 0 200 200 200 0 0 0 600
The P&I Sub-Group support the Environment Sub-Group's request to earmark £600,000 of Local Levy to support a strategic, region wide approach to developing Natural Flood Managment. Please see agenda item 5.4 paper YRFCC/303 for more details. This holding line represents the remaining earmarked value.
Subtotals - Yorkshire-wide (Pipeline) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 200 200 0 0 0 600 0 0
0 1,206 568 135 135 0 193 407 362 227 13 0 0 1,712 23 175Combined Subtotals - Yorkshire-wide (Current Programme, Recommended Additions and Pipeline)
Page 7 of 8
Technical Appendix A06- Local Levy Programme July 2020 including P and I recommendationsShowing all projects with identified Levy needs starting within the current programme and pipeline
16/07/2020
Total Cost£k
Approved Local Levy Allocation
£k
Local Levy for Approval
£k
20/21Year 0
Full Year Forecast
TotalAll Years
Change to allocation
requested?
21/22Year 1 Reason for changeSpend to
Date22/23Year 2
20/21 Progress - local levy funding only
(to end of May 2020)£k
25/26 onwards
20/21Year 0
23/24Year 3
Future Years indicative Local Levy profile (not yet approved)£k
Previous Local Levy
Spend£k
Final Outturn 19/20 £k
19/20 Approved 19/20 Outturn Variance 24/25
Year 4
REFERENCE Descriptive Details
Total Project Cost
(all funding sources)
Previous Years
Pre 19/20
Estimated No. Houses to
Benefit (OM2/OM3)
Line Number Project Name LLFA Location Lead Risk Management
Authority
Location and Ownership
Totals - YRFCC (Currently Programmed) 6,210 211,913 3,999 2,770 3,403 -633 4,693 4,057 271 168 96 60 0 11,983 169 2,870
Totals - YRFCC (Recommended Additions) 0 305 0 0 0 0 0 14 66 66 52 0 0 267
Grand Totals - YRFCC (Currently Programme and Recommended Additions) 6,210 212,218 3,999 2,770 3,403 -633 4,693 4,071 337 234 148 60 0 12,251 169 2,870
Totals - YRFCC (Pipeline) 3,863 44,840 0 0 0 0 0 200 390 1,265 1,257 507 677 4,295
Overall Totals - YRFCC (Current Programme, Rec Additions and Pipeline) 10,073 257,058 3,999 2,770 3,403 -633 4,693 4,271 727 1,499 1,404 567 677 16,545 169 2,870
Current Programme 19/20 Outturn 20/21 Approved 20/21 Proposed 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 Key
2,529 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 Red text
3,267 2,393 2,393 929 3,250 5,675 8,171
5,796 4,986 4,986 3,521 5,843 8,267 10,764
2,770 4,693 4,693 271 168 96 60
3,403 4,693 4,057 271 168 96 60
2,393 293 929 3,250 5,675 8,171 10,704
With recommended additions to the programme:
Total LL available in year 4,986 3,507 5,763 8,122 10,566
Total programmed spend 4,071 337 234 148 60
Balance to carry at year-end 915 3,170 5,529 7,974 10,506
Current Programme with recommended additions and pipeline 20/21 Approved 20/21 Proposed 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25
2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593
2,393 2,393 715 2,580 3,674 4,862
4,986 4,986 3,307 5,173 6,267 7,455
4,693 4,271 727 1,499 1,404 567
293 715 2,580 3,674 4,862 6,888
Total programmed spend following April RFCC
Balances carried from previous yr
Local Levy raised
Balance to carry at year-end
Total programmed spend
Total LL available in year
Allocations approved in principle at April YRFCC meeting requiring ratification
<> Change from previous programme
+/- £50k
* projects appear in both currentprogramme and pipeline
New / Additional Requests for Local Levy Funding
Balance to carry at year-end
Local Levy raised
Balances carried from previous yr
Total LL available in year
Total programmed spend inc recommended additions and Pipeline (not yet approved)
Page 8 of 8Back to agenda
Data correct as at end of May 2020 Technical Appendix A07 Back to agenda
Back to agenda
[1] Project outcomes are based on Defra’s defined Outcome Measures for the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) capital programme.
of which
of which
And contributes to:
£621k (15%) is being used
alongside GiA funding only
£203k (5%) is
being used alongside
public funding
only£2,883k (71%) is being used with multiple funding
sources
£349k (9%) is being used on its own
There are 48 projects to a value of just under £4.1 million in the baselined 2020/21 Local Levy
Programme.
Over the lifetime of these projects:
2020/21 Local Levy programme headline statistics
the creation of 42 hectares of water
dependent habitats
and the proposed £4.1 million levy investment in 2020/21 breaks down as follows:
this investment is part of a total investment of £138m coming from:
and just under £350m of non-residential
benefits
3,309 households with reduced risk of flooding and 21
with reduced coastal erosion risk
… and contributes to the delivery [1] of:
2,209 households taken out of
significant risk
632 households are in deprived
areas
Total Levy need
£8.9m
GiA£33.4m
Growth£28.9m
Public£38m
Private£200k
Further Contributions Required £28.5m
Technical Appendix A08a - New Levy Requests Summary July 2020
20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 Residential Other
New Requests for 2020/21South Yorkshire Partnership
1
Accelerating NFM Impact in the Upper Rother Catchment (Upper Rother NFM Officer Phase 2)
Derbyshire County Council
Stand-alone project Yes 186 Post-investment
decision 116 67% 70 0 39 39 39 0 186 143
In 2019 a partnership between the Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT), Derbyshire County Council (DCC), North East Derbyshire District Council (NEDDC), Chesterfield Borough Council (CBC) and Environment Agency (EA) secured funding from the Local Levy for a two-year trial of an NFM Officer in the Upper Rother Catchment. We firmly belief that this has been very successful. Her work has enabled £127k to be invested in NFM at Grassmoor Country Park. She has built her expertise of NFM techniques, funding and local circumstances, and has accumulated contacts with landowners, communities and professionals. Her portfolio of NFM opportunities has grown rapidly, demonstrating the rich seam of potential interventions waiting to be realised.
The officer and Project Board are keen to maximise the positive impact of the role and have devised an ambitious package of deliverables for the next three-year phase (April 2021 – March 2024) of the officer’s employment:1. A programme of NFM capital works2. Engagement with the agricultural sector to provide farm advice and develop more NFM on farmland (a new strand to theofficer’s activities).3. To research how an NFM grant scheme for landowners could operate and be funded and to draw up plans for such ascheme.4. Organisation of volunteering to deliver small-scale NFM measures.To engage with flood-impacted communities (e.g. presentations, guided walks) and encourage involvement in volunteering.
DCRT’s contribution will be:· £90k likely to result from a civil sanction· the raising of match funding in the region of £100k - £300k· expertise of their NFM Officer and Trustees· proven capability for community engagement and ability to persuade landowners of the benefits of NFM
This proposal from DCRT requires an investment of £116.36k (£38.79k per year for three years) from the Levy to cover the officer’s salary and overheads, enabling the proposed package to be delivered.
939 368
Road network,agricultural land, industrial units and commerical property
Limited N/A Mod
erate
Yorkshire Wide
2
Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (COP)
Leeds City Council
Stand-alone project No 119 Pre-business
justification 90 76% 0 14 27 27 13 0 81 27
An awareness for the need to integrate land and catchment scale management decisions to successfully increase flood resilience and progress wider environmental priorities has grown rapidly over recent years. This is especially pertinent when considering pending changes to agri-environmental policies due to Brexit and recent flood events across Yorkshire. Successfully implementing Natural Flood Management (NFM) requires working in complex multi-stakeholder partnerships.
High profile NFM projects across Yorkshire including work in Pickering, the Yorkshire Dales, Airedale and Calderdale have established Yorkshire’s approaches to NFM as some of the exemplars in this field, with a number of projects initiated by local communities. More recently, the development of the Leeds University iCASP programme (https://icasp.org.uk/) has facilitated further opportunities to learn from published research to answer current questions in catchment scale land management practices. Many of the outstanding challenges in delivering NFM are still being addressed.
This proposal is supported by the YRFCC Environment Sub-Group Task and Finish (T&F) Group. Local Levy is being requested to: 1. Build on the pilot iCASP NFM Community of Practice (currently 65 organisations working across Yorkshire) sharinglearning and exchanges for practitioners, academics and communities. (Total project costs include those of pilot to date and project in-kind going forward).2. Resource a co-ordinator to organise events, visit NFM sites, and host discussions to build consensus and best practice.3. Develop an online resource of NFM projects across Yorkshire extended to share national best practice.4. Open dialogue with national and regional NFM experts.
2,600 400 N/A Limited N/A
Significan
t
Subtotals - New Requests 2020/21 70 14 66 66 52 0 267
Overall totals - New Requests 70 14 66 66 52 0 267
20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25
2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593
2,393 715 2,580 3,674 4,862
4,986 3,307 5,173 6,267 7,455
4,057 271 168 96 60
4,071 337 234 148 60
200 390 1,265 1,257 507
4,271 727 1,499 1,404 567
715 2,580 3,674 4,862 6,888
Total programmed spend if all requests are recommended and incl. Pipeline (not yet approved)
Estimated No. of Properties to Benefit
Amount of Levy
per property
(£)
Balances carried from previous year
Local Levy raised (assumed)
Project Narrative, including why Levy is requiredNew / additional Levy requested (£k)
Total programmed spend (current programme) from A06
Basic details
Line No. Project Name Project Stage
Assessment against Essential Criteria:
Estimated Benefit
Cost ratioRat
ingOther Infrastructure
to BenefitConfidence in Benefits
Confidence in CostsProject Type
Available for commitment or carry forward to next year
% of Levy requeste
d for current phase
Lead Risk Management
Authority
KEY
Ineligible
None
Moderate
Total YRFCC Levy pipeline from A06
Limited
Total programmed spend (current programme) if all requests are recommended
Total Local Levy available in year
Levy details
Rat
ing
Is the project in
the YRFCC 6 Year
Programme
Significant
Estimated Total Project Cost(all funding
sources) (£k)
Total Levy all years
Funding (£k)
Total cost of current phase (£k)
Delivers flood risk/coastal erosion benefits Value for money
Existing Levy
approved (£k)
Page 1 of 2
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A08a - New Levy Requests Summary July 2020
New Requests for 2020/21South Yorkshire Partnership
1
Accelerating NFM Impact in the Upper Rother Catchment (Upper Rother NFM Officer Phase 2)
Yorkshire Wide
2
Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (COP)
Basic details
Line No. Project Name
Extensive interventions across publicly accessible sites (see E2), as well as volunteering and community engagement programme means the proposed package will make a significant improvement to the character and biodiversity of NFM sites, and increase physical and mental health and social wellbeing.
Significan
t
Helps reduce flood risk in the Rother Valley, the location of several major new developments. It also aligns with Chesterfield’s Local Plan, which aims to prepare for the impacts of climate change
Moderate 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0
£90k will likely come available for capital works in the Moss Valley through the settlement of a civil sanctionIf approved DCC can contribute £10kA further £100k - £300k will be ‘sought for delivery of capital works’ (not secured, though DCRT has a strong track record in securing project funding)
Moderate
Involves the recruitment of volunteers from and consultation of local communities.
Improved catchment management and community involvement in NFM delivery can deliver multiple integrated catchment management benefits, recreational and wellbeing opportunities.
Moderate
The potential project outcomes: active delivery of NFM, best practice has the potential to deliver on inward investment for catchment management, improved flood resilience (economic stability), wider environmental and community welfare benefits.
Moderate 68% 0 0% 29 24% 9
The pilot NFM COP has been funded primarily by iCASP but also secured contributions in kind from a number of partners (speakers, venues, food). Contributions in partner time, expenses not claimed and venues are expected going forward. Potential new partnerships and project proposals to access funding are expected outcomes of the COP learning and networking. Securing new funding for project delivery, monitoring and research is potentially unlimited.
Moderate
Some community based organisations are currently involved in the Community of Practice and this is open to grow. Participating organisations are outlined in Appendix 1.
Actively engage communitiesBenefits the local or regional economy
Assessment against Added Value Criteria:
Likely maximum GiA (£k)R
atin
g
Rat
ing
Details Details
Other:
Time criticality
Level of community
engagementDetailsFunding gap
(£k)
Other contributions
(£k)
% of other contributions
securedDetails
Potential for reputational
damage
Confidence in
Contributions
% of Levy requested for whole project
% of GiA
Wider recreational / environmental benefits
Rat
ing
Levers in additional investment Other drivers
Page 2 of 2
Back to agenda
Technical Appendix A08b - New Levy Requests Simplified Summary July 2020
20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 Residential Other
New Requests for 2020/21South Yorkshire Partnership
1
Accelerating NFM Impact in the Upper Rother Catchment (Upper Rother NFM Officer Phase 2)
Derbyshire County Council
Stand-alone project Yes 186 67% 70 0 39 39 39 0 186 143 939 368 Limited N/A Moderate Significant Moderate 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Moderate
Yorkshire Wide
2
Yorkshire Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice (COP)
Leeds City Council
Stand-alone project No 119 76% 0 14 27 27 13 0 81 27 2,600 400 Limited N/A Significant Moderate Moderate 68% 0 0% 29 24% 9 Moderate
Overall totals - New Requests 70 14 66 66 52 0 267
20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 23/25
2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593 2,593
2,393 715 2,580 3,674 4,862
4,986 3,307 5,173 6,267 7,455
4,057 271 168 96 60
4,071 337 234 148 60
200 390 1,265 1,257 507
4,271 727 1,499 1,404 567
715 2,580 3,674 4,862 6,888
NoneBalances carried from previous year
Local Levy raised (assumed)
Available for commitment or carry forward to next year
Limited
Moderate
SignificantTotal programmed spend (current programme) if all requests are recommended
Total programmed spend (current programme) from A06
Total Local Levy available in year
Total YRFCC Levy pipeline from A06
Total programmed spend if all requests are recommended and incl. Pipeline (not yet approved)
% of GiA
Rat
ing Estimated
Benefit Cost ratio
KEY
Ineligible
% of Levy requested for whole project
GiA (£k)Confidence in Costs
Confidence in Benefits R
atin
g
Rat
ing Other
contributions (£k)
% of other contributions
secured
Funding gap (£k)
Confidence in Contributions R
atin
g Level of community
engagement
Potential for reputational
damage
Time criticality
% of Levy requested for current
phase
Existing Levy approved
(£k) Rat
ingTotal Levy all
years Funding (£k)
Amount of Levy per property
(£)
Estimated No. of Properties to BenefitNew / additional Levy requested (£k)
Project Type
Is the project in
the YRFCC 6 Year
Programme
Estimated Total Project
Cost(all funding
sources) (£k)
Line No. Project Name
Lead Risk Management
Authority
Assessment against Essential Criteria: Assessment against Added Value Criteria: Other:
Basic details Levy details Delivers flood risk/coastal erosion benefits Value for money
Wider recreational /
environmental benefits
Benefits the local or regional
economyLevers in additional investment
Actively engage
communitiesOther drivers
Page 1 of 1
Back to agenda
Back to agenda
