Agenda item

(1)       John Byne from the Environment Agency gave a presentation. The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic agenda papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Byne said that the Environment Agency was working on the Medway Estuary and Swale Flood and Coastal Risk Strategy in partnership with their consultants, Mott MacDonald.  

(3)       Mr Byne described the area covered by the Strategy.  It started at Stoke by the Kingsnorth Power Station, went down the Medway to Allington, extending as far east as Graveney Marshes (Cleve Hill). It also covered the Isle of Sheppey.

(4)       Mr Byne then described the three tiers of coastal defence planning.   The EA had published the Shoreline Management Plans by 2010 and was now working on the strategies which would consider the Plans in greater detail, consider whether their policies were still relevant and establish policies for smaller frontages.  The strategies were considering costings for high level options rather than undertaking any scheme design. 

(5)        Mr Byne went on to say that Phase 3 of the Strategy (short list to preferred options) had now been signed off by the Project Board during the summer and Phase 4 had now begun.   The Consultants were now completing the reports in preparation for consultation which was due to commence towards the end of winter 2018. 

 NB: The consultation is now live. The Link is:   https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/ksles/medway-estuary-and-swale-strategy/

(6)       Mr Byne turned to the development of the preferred options.   It had taken two years to develop the criteria which would enable the Project to consider the best way to manage the various frontages through the coastal area.   The main priority was to reduce the risk and the threat of coastal flooding and coastal erosion to people and their property.   The second criterion was to deliver the greatest environmental, social and economic benefit. There were a large number of designated areas in the Medway/Swale area which needed to be preserved and protected, including their natural habitats.   The EA had worked closely with Natural England on their Coastal Footpath project.  The third criterion of working with natural processes aimed to ensure that work on coastal flood protection dovetailed with the protection of natural habitats.   The “adapting to future risks” criterion took account of the Strategy’s hundred year duration.  Adaption to phenomena such Climate Change and other factors was therefore crucial.

(7)       The process of identifying options had taken the form of identifying a longlist of options through workshops and other forms of consultation, screening them down in order to create a shortlist of realistic and sensible options for evaluation in greater detail.   These had been evaluated through a number of investigations and reports which paid particular regard to environmental and social aspects as well as costs and benefits.  This process had led to the selection of preferred options. 

(8)       Mr Byne then showed the Committee how the area covered by the Strategy had itself been broken down into 11 Benefit Areas.  The needs of each of these had been considered in great detail. 

(9)       The preferred options took three forms for consideration in each of the Benefit Areas.  The first was to “hold the line” by maintain or improving the existing defences.   The second option was “no active intervention” which consisted of ceasing to maintain defences, allowing them to return to their natural state. This was suggested in some of the more rural areas, although this approach would not prevent landowners from establishing their own defences.   The third option was “managed realignment” involving establishing defences inland from where they currently stood.   There were 6 “managed realignments” across the Strategy area.   These could be set at natural high ground (reducing maintenance liability).   This would also enable the creation of new habitat areas where to compensate for those that would be lost due to climate change during the 100 year period, particularly in respect of the salt marshes.   

(10)     Mr Byne next set out the project tasks that were currently being undertaken.    Several Stakeholder Groups had been set up over the previous two or three years, involving the Parish Councils as well as the other Local Authorities, landowners and businesses.    These Groups had supported the development of the preferred options.   A Stakeholder Group meeting had also been held in September on the identified preferred options. Following that meeting all the affected landowners (some 180 in total) had been written to in order to invite them to attend drop-in meetings in October to discuss the Strategy.   The Team had also needed to carry out a great deal of statutory environmental reporting. The Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitat Regulations Assessment had both been completed and been published for consultation.   The public consultation had gone live on 6 November 2017, consisting of on- line questionnaires and three public drop-in events at Eastchurch, Gillingham and Halling.   Meanwhile, the necessary draft appraisal work was being undertaken, including the draft Implementation Plan. 

(11)     Mr Byne concluded his presentation by showing the Committee a map (Slide 12) which broke down the Strategy area into coloured segments and identified the preferred option for each of their frontages. 

(12)     Mr Byne replied to a question from Mrs Doyle by confirming that high level costings had been calculated for each of the proposed schemes.   These would be applied over time as individual schemes were introduced.  

(13)     Mr Bowles said that Swale BC had just received an application for Europe’s largest solar park (890 acres) at Nagden and Cleve Marshes.   He asked how much consultation there had been between the developers and the Project Team and whether the current designation for the area between Faversham Creek and Seasalter was likely to be its final one. 

(14)     Mr Byne confirmed that discussions had been held with the developers of the solar park.  These had taken place during a landowner’s meeting a year earlier.   More detailed discussions had taken place during the summer with the aim of co-ordinating timescales.   Consideration had also been given to costings. The site was intended to have a 40 year life.  For the first 25 years the area would be maintained as it was. He was reasonably confident that the developers and the Strategy would work successfully together.   It would be theoretically for the Environment Agency to leave responsibility for the flood defences entirely to the developers, although it was unlikely that this would happen.   The most likely approach would be based on partnership funding with the developers acting as major contributors.  The Strategy was based on current Government funding rules. The partnership funding rules that was being applied to all schemes would also apply in relation to this project using the benefit cost ratios and funding scores that applied to all of the frontages. 

(15)     Mr Payne asked whether Mr Byne could confirm that there were no plans to “advance the line” in the area covered by the Strategy.  Mr Byne confirmed that this was the case. 

(16)     Mr Tant agreed to pass on the address of the consultation website to Members of the Committee.   The costings that accompanied the proposal were for the most part more beneficial than expensive. He added that the Government’s contribution to the cost of the implementation of the scheme would be low in most areas.   He asked what strategy was being used to secure partnership funding.   Mr Byne replied that the Project Team had amassed considerable data on existing beneficiaries who would be identified in the Implementation Plan.   The primary driver in the development of the Strategy had been flood risk management considerations as opposed to costings.   Nevertheless, high level costs had needed to be included. 

(17)     Mr Byne explained that “high level cost” meant the generic overall figure that the work was expected to cost in total based on unit costs. This figure had been used to inform the Project Team whether the benefits would justify the cost. This figure would not include detailed considerations such as design or the materials to be used.   There would be no levy on landowners, but the Government would only pay for the benefits it identified through its funding formula.   The rest of the cost would need to be borne by the local beneficiaries, who would be consulted at a later stage once the details had been fully worked out. 

(18)     The Chairman asked how the flood defence requirements were updated to take account of the most recent climate change projections and data.  He also asked whether there were any implications for wildlife identified by Natural England arising out of the requirement to secure partnership funding from landowners. 

(19)     Mr Byne replied that the Strategy would be reviewed approximately every ten years, taking account of climate change developments.  The Strategy itself had also been prepared in the light of the most recent data gathered in the Thames Estuary area over the previous 10 to 15 years, including the effect of the differences between that data and previous forecasts.   He then confirmed that discussions had been held with landowners in areas such as the Medway Marshes who were more than happy to undertake their own maintenance. Natural England had been involved as part of the Project Team, and they would still need to be consulted if people were undertaking works in designated areas to ensure that the work proposed was not harmful to wildlife.   There would also be other controls such as the need to obtain a Flood Risk Activity Permit.  

(20)     Mr Laws asked what approach would be adopted in respect of individual landowners who could disrupt an entire flood defence scheme by refusing to participate.  Mr Byne agreed that this was definite risk. The NFU was participating actively in the Stakeholder meetings and had also assisted with liaison with individual landowners.  He referred to landowner partnerships in East Anglia which had been facilitated by the NFU with input from the EA.   This approach was a model which could be applied in the Medway Estuary and Swale.

(21)     Mr Harwood said that local multi-agency flood planning acknowledged the inter-relationship between fluvial flooding and tidal flood risk, as well as local or surface water impacts. This was particularly important in some of the project areas such as the Isle of Sheppey where tide-locking could be an issue.  KCC’s professional officers would be looking very closely at the Environment Agency’s proposals and plans to see whether there was an opportunity to achieve holistic benefits both for areas subject to tidal flood risk and adjacent inland areas. 

(22)     RESOLVED that Mr Byne be thanked for his presentation and that its content be noted for assurance.