Agenda item

(1)       Mr Dauben from the Environment Agency gave a presentation on the Environment Agency’s Flood and Coastal Risk Management Review.  Owing to time constraints, he was unable to speak to the entire content of the accompanying slides which have been incorporated with the agenda papers on the County Council’s website:

http://kent590w3:9070/documents/s37102/Presentation%20Slides.pdf

(2)       Mr Dauben said that the review had taken place in the light of the floods in the Summer of 2007, its new coastal overview role starting in 2008, the Pitt Review of 2009, the Flood Risk regulations of 2010 and the Flood Risk Management Act. 

(3)       The Environment Agency’s strategic role was to deliver the national strategy for managing flood risk in England and Wales (providing strategic leadership and joined-up delivery with reduced funding, and improving incident response capacity.

(4)       Mr Dauben said that Phase 1 of the Review had been completed in June 2012. The teams had been restructured and become more outward facing. There was also a greater emphasis on working with others including a better response to funding.  Phase 2 would enable the Environment Agency to improve processes, increase cost effectiveness and deliver efficiency savings.

(5)       Mr Dauben went on to set out what the Environment Agency had achieved since Phase 1 of the Review had been completed in June 2012.  As well as responding to the summer flood events it had given its views on 585 planning applications and  replied to 547 Information requests.

(6)       Mr Dauben then informed the Committee of the Environment Agency’s Indicative Capital Allocation for the next two financial years. The figures were £25 million in 2013/14 and £61 million in 2014/15.

(7)       Mr Dauben described the new resilience partnership funding regime.  The old system had consisted of a nationally prioritised list where full funding had been provided for the most prioritised schemes. The new system now only funded a small number of schemes whilst providing reduced funding for others, which also required a sourced contribution from a beneficiary of the project.  The Environment Agency’s role was to meet potential contributors and discuss the most effective ways of securing the project’s success.  Contributions did not need to be financial. They could take the form of equipment or even (as was happening at Aylesford) a disused quarry.  The DEFRA priority list was determined by an algorithmic formula based on the level of risk, the number of properties at risk and cost benefit amongst other factors.

(8)       Mr Dauben moved on to the Environment Agency’s overall priorities for the next year.  These could be summed up as taking a leadership role in flood risk, helping to link the various flood risk management strategies together and ensuring that its statutory obligations were met. 

(9)       Mr Dauben then set out the priorities in the next year for the teams in the new structure. The Flood Resilience Teams would implement an area programme for flood and coastal risk management community engagement; recruit to its incident management rotas; and develop its duty officers’ skills, knowledge and tools.

(10)     The Partnership and Strategic Overview Teams’ priorities were to develop a strong, manageable and deliverable medium term plan for all Risk Management Authorities; support the Lead Local Flood Authorities and strategic flood partnerships; build up the evidence base; produce Local Authority briefing packs using the Communities at Risk data; and prioritising their planning consultations.

(11)     Mr Dauben gave some examples of joint projects. The first of these was the Deal Sea Defences at a cost of approximately £6 million.  This involved recharging the beach through the importation of rock and shingle and the creation of a wave wall. This project would protect some 1,500 homes and 150 commercial properties.

(12)     The Tonbridge Town Lock Wall was a £1 million scheme (mainly funded by external contributors) which would assist regeneration and protect some 100 properties by reconstructing the old flood wall.

(13)     The North Kent Coast Modelling scheme had cost £110,000 over a two year period and was due for completion in December 2012.  It would improve understanding of flood risk between the Dartford Creek Barrier and Margate.  Further modelling was taking place on the rest of the Kent and part of the East Sussex coastline.

(14)     The Environment Agency was also at the planning stage with its application to re-open Dungeness Borrow Pit, which had been closed for 70 years.  This was a joint application with EDF which aimed to reinforce local sea defences.  Extensive work had been undertaken to meet local people’s concerns and to make the proposed operation more sustainable.

(15)     Mr Dauben concluded his presentation by confirming that the Environment Agency’s emergency response role was unaffected by the review.

(16)     Mr Dauben replied to a question from Mr Hills on the resilience partnership funding scheme by saying that information on the new regime would be disseminated through the Borough/District and Parish Councils.

(17)     Mr Dauben replied to a question from Mr Muckle by saying that the purpose of the North Kent Modelling scheme was to consider different scenarios such as a 1 in 100 year event or a 1 in 200 year coastal inundation.  This modelling had only been concerned with risk (rather than cost).

(18)     Mr Cooke asked in respect of the Royal Military Canal whether its maintenance programme might become a capital project.  Mr Dauben replied that the Environment Agency was trying to use the Internal Drainage Board’s precept as a funding source whist undertaking smarter maintenance.

(19)     RESOLVED that Mr Dauben be thanked for his presentation and that the report be noted.