Download Making Space for Water

Making Space for Water:
The RSPB’s Response
Contents
1
General Comments ................................................................................................. 1
A framework for sustainable management of rivers and coast ................................................ 1
Setting Objectives..................................................................................................................................................1
Cost Effectiveness vs. Cost: Benefit......................................................................................................................2
New Legal Powers.................................................................................................................................................3
Ensuring Delivery by Operating Authorities .........................................................................................................3
Funding..................................................................................................................................................................4
2
Detailed Comments: ............................................................................................... 4
Section 3: Our vision and aim ......................................................................................................... 4
Section 4: Assessing and managing the risk of flooding from rivers and the sea and of
coastal erosion ............................................................................................................... 6
Section 5: Strengthening the sustainable approach: Rural land use and managed
realignment of floodplains and the coast............................................................... 11
Section 6: The role of rural land management ........................................................................... 14
Section 7: Measures to reduce flood risk through land-use planning................................... 15
Section 8: Integration of drainage management in urban areas. ............................................ 18
Section 9: Flooding from Sewers .................................................................................................. 22
Section 10: Flooding from Groundwater ..................................................................................... 22
Section 11: Flooding of and from the transport network ......................................................... 25
Section 12: Managing the consequences of flooding through resistance and resilience
measures. ...................................................................................................................... 25
Section 13: Raising awareness ....................................................................................................... 26
Section 14: Flood warning systems and emergency responses ............................................... 27
Section 15: Coastal issues ............................................................................................................... 27
Section 16: Funding issues ............................................................................................................. 29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
The RSPB welcomes this review, and supports the continued shift in policy emphasis
from land drainage and hard flood defences towards the sustainable management of
rivers and coastlines.
•
This management should no longer solely be aimed at reducing flood risks to people
and property. Instead, it should use a range of interventions to promote safe
communities, thriving businesses and a wildlife rich environment, treating the
environment as a “customer”, rather than a constraint on schemes.
•
Objectives for river and coastal management should reflect Government aspirations for
sustainable development, and their delivery should monitored by means of appropriate
high level targets.
•
Appraisal systems, including multi-criteria analysis, should focus on identifying cost
effective contributions to sustainable development objectives.
•
Managing rivers and coastlines for multiple objectives will require a revision of the
current legal duties and powers for operating authorities, and may require the allocation
of additional Government resources, as well as the more strategic deployment of
existing funds.
•
The RSPB welcomes the commitment to retreat from unsustainable rural defences.
However, this will need to be actively managed, to deliver on Government objectives for
sustainable rural communities, the food and farming sector and biodiversity.
•
Revision of the planning guidance affecting development in floodplains must account
for the long-term environmental, social and economic costs of such development, not
just costs during a notional ‘development life.’
•
There is a clear need for integrated drainage plans, with Environment Agency taking on
co-ordination and supervision.
•
Local Authorities should be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of
Sustainable Urban Drainage systems.
•
The RSPB believes that there should be a single body with overall responsibility for
flood and erosion risks on the coast. However, new arrangements should take full
account of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, and be undertaken in
conjunction with the development of new legislation affecting the marine environment.
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
1 General Comments
Introduction
The RSPB welcomes this review of flood and coastal erosion management and supports the
continued shift in policy emphasis from land drainage and hard flood defences towards the
sustainable management of rivers and coastlines. We also recognise the great efforts made in
recent years to reduce and mitigate the environmental impacts of land drainage and flood
defence policy and practice. However, the progressive re-definition of the river and coastal
engineering – from land drainage, to flood defence to flood risk management, needs to be taken
a step further: to water management, a term that encompasses intervention for a range of
outcomes. Furthermore, we are not convinced that the package of reforms presented in Making
Space for Water are sufficiently far-reaching even to deliver the vision of flood risk management
set out in this document.
If the Government is to fulfil its commitments to the environment and broader sustainability,
physical modification of our rivers and coasts must no longer be aimed solely at achieving the
greatest cost: benefit in terms of flood risk reduction, with accompanying mitigation of adverse
environmental impacts. Instead, management should aim to identify and deliver on clear
environmental, economic and social objectives for a catchment or coastline through a range of
integrated, cost-effective solutions.
Under this new paradigm, operating authorities would recognise the environment as one of
their legitimate “customers”, rather than simply a constraint on schemes designed to reduce
flood risk. The rationale for such an approach lies not only in the Government’s own
commitment to furthering sustainability (enshrining social, economic and environmental wellbeing), but also in environmental objectives established under domestic and European law.
Achieving this shift in emphasis, from solely managing flood risk, to making a broader
contribution to sustainable development, will require a fundamental change in the culture of
operating authorities, and to the legislative, administrative and funding framework that
underpins their activities.
A framework for sustainable management of rivers and coast
Setting Objectives
The first step towards integrated river and coastal management is to establish a vision which
supports the social, economic and environmental outcomes Government that would like to
deliver through its interventions. This should be underpinned by an understanding of the
Government’s wider policy agenda for, amongst other things, biodiversity, agricultural reform,
rural diversification and land use planning and development, and be set within the context of
anticipated climate change impacts.
This vision should then be used to establish aims and objectives that assist in focussing and
monitoring delivery. The RSPB is surprised and concerned at the omission of any expressions
of tangible outcomes in the document. We would have expected the vision and aim to be keyed
-1-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
into Government’s High-Level Targets (HLTs) for flood defence, which already fulfil a part of
this function (although relatively narrow in their scope and overdue revision).
The RSPB believes that the HLTs should include ambitious targets that encourage delivery on
the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development. For the
environment, this should include habitat creation targets that go beyond compulsary
requirements and the current “no net loss” objective.
At a catchment level, the objectives set by Catchment Flood Management Planning (CFMP) and
Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) process should reflect these national targets and legal
designations, alongside the aspirations of local people. The setting of clear objectives through
public engagement at the catchment level should also help diffuse any potential outrage felt by
those affected by flooding, by placing the investment decisions made in a national context. This
does not mean pleasing everyone, but it does mean letting people have their say before
decisions are made in a clear and accountable fashion.
Cost Effectiveness vs. Cost: Benefit
The broadening of river and coastal management objectives to encompass social, environmental
and economic goals inevitably raises questions about the way in which plans and schemes are
to be appraised and prioritised. We are surprised that Making Space for Water does not discuss
the intellectual framework underpinning public expenditure on flood risk management.
Instead, it concentrates rather narrowly on the details of the current system, which is limited to
making decisions about whether an individual scheme should go ahead, and then prioritising
funding.
.
The current system is driven by cost: benefit analysis that has evolved to identify where and
whether the costs of risk management measures are outweighed by their economic benefits. The
inclusion of moneterised environmental impacts has had some limited success in improving
conservation outcomes, but intervention inevitably still focuses on the provision of defence and
warnings, with the delivery of wider environmental, social and economic outcomes remaining
peripheral considerations.
The appraisal system envisaged by the RSPB would focus on identifying the most cost effective
mix of interventions that can deliver the objectives set by HLTs and CFMPS. Taking an
objective-led approach to the sustainable management of rivers and coasts should broaden the
range of options to be considered, and drive the adoption of multi-functional solutions.
Such an approach should lead to the adoption of options currently ruled out under the singleobjective flood risk management regime. For example, planned retreat from the current line of
defences could be coupled with the re-location or flood-proofing of properties and the targeting
of agri-environment payments for wetland creation. Such an approach would help deliver
environmental obligations (such as the ecological objectives of the WFD), reducing the damage
caused by flooding, and contribute to the future sustainability of rural communities, by
promoting diversification into the delivery of public goods and tourism.
-2-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
We do not see such an approach as a move to compensation per se, but a continuation of the
principle of Government offering discretionary intervention to enhance the quality of life of
people and provide the conditions to ensure sustainable development, in face of new challenges
such as climate change and CAP reform. We believe that such an approach will ultimately avert
the risk of having policy formed by the “outrage factor”, so clearly identified in the Foresight
Report.
New Legal Powers
Managing rivers and coastlines for multiple objectives will require a revision of the current legal
duties and powers under which operating authorities work. Experience has shown that
managing watercourses and coasts to deliver environmental outcomes is often difficult, because
the current legal framework is designed to facilitate the drainage and defence of land. As a
result, it remains easier to drain and defend land (even where it is of questionable economic
value), than to raise water levels, remove flood defences or re-naturalise coastal and fluvial
processes to achieve statutory nature conservation obligations and UKBAP targets.
The RSPB believes that new powers are urgently required to allow the Environment Agency
(EA) to undertake the restoration of high water levels, wetlands and water body morphology, to
deliver statutory obligations on Natura 2000 sites and Water Framework Directive (WFD) water
bodies, as well as domestic SSSI PSA and UKBAP targets. Such powers, which would parallel
those that exist to carry out land drainage and flood defence works.
We also believe that the remit for the consenting function of flood defence and land drainage
operating authorities should be reformed, in order to allow broader consideration of
sustainability interests. At present, this regulatory function has a single focus on promoting the
efficient drainage of land. Reform would allow the EA to balance consideration of the
desirability of an outcome (for example, delivery of wet grassland BAP targets) against minor
changes in flood storage or time to peak of an event.
Finally, at present EA funding allocated to its FRM function is restricted to spending on
schemes which deliver reductions in flood risk to people and property. This is structurally
embedded in the legislation which established the Agency; we believe it would require a
change in law, to ensure that they were able to deliver effectively on the proposed new agenda.
Ensuring Delivery by Operating Authorities
Establishing new powers for operating authorities does not guarantee that they will be used;
indeed there is substantial evidence that the existing targets and duties supporting nature
conservation are not doing the job for which they are intended. The RSPB is surprised that in
such a wide-ranging consultation as Making Space for Water, there is no discussion of delivery
against existing nature conservation targets, in particular by Inland Drainage Boards (IDBs).
The continued reliance on IDBs and local authorities to undertake certain river and land
drainage functions raises the important question of how the EA, under any new strategy, will
ensure compliance with environmental obligations, including WFD objectives, favourable
conservation status for SACs and SPAs, favourable condition for SSSIs and UK BAP outcomes.
-3-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
If, as is currently the case in certain areas, IDBs continue to operate drainage infrastructure in a
way that is incompatible with European obligations, the UK Government could be open to
infraction proceedings. The RSPB suggests that Government should review the incentives
and/or sanctions that will available to ensure that its own legal and strategic goals are achieved.
Of course, some IDBs and local authorities have excellent environmental records, and have
adopted innovative and imaginative approaches to improving the natural environment. Where
existing operating authorities take on this role with enthusiasm, their local knowledge and
experience can bring real benefits (as seen, for example, in the Gaywood River Restoration
project, led by the Kings Lynn IDB consortium). However, we are concerned that such examples
of IDB’s taking an integrated view of their water management responsibilities remain rare. As a
result, the RSPB remains to be convinced that IDBs have a long-term future.
Funding
The RSPB recognises that managing rivers and coastlines to achieve a broader set of sustainable
development outcomes will require investment, not least to reverse and mitigate the
environmental impacts of generations of flood defence and land drainage works.
Some of this investment should be achieved through a re-appraisal of existing priorities, and in
particular through cost savings in the capital and maintenance budgets currently supporting
unsustainable defences of agricultural land. However, the RSPB recognises that the demands
on flood risk management increasing, as a result of expanding urban development in flood risk
areas, and climate change impacts.
Under a water management system that embraces the delivery of multiple objectives, we would
expect the EA to be funded to deliver integrated solutions. Other Agencies (e.g. EN, CCW or
the new Integrated Agency) may also need to provide funding to owner occupiers in order
facilitate the acceptance of such solutions.
The ability of the EA to fund and deliver measures aimed at achieving multiple objectives is
currently hampered by their organisational and legislative structure, which ring-fences
spending by the FRM function, for schemes with a demonstrable FRM outcome. Serious
consideration must therefore be given to the steps needed, to allow the EA sufficient flexibility
to deliver integrated water management at the catchment scale.
2 Detailed Comments:
Section 3: Our vision and aim
Question 3.1 Comments are invited on the draft vision for a new Government strategy for
flood and coastal erosion risk management in England.
The RSPB welcomes the Government’s commitment to place sustainable development at the
heart of coastal and flood risk management. However, we are concerned that the proposals
presented in Making Space for Water do not follow this aspiration through, and continue to focus
-4-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
solely on reducing flood risk, rather than maximising the social, economic and environmental
benefits of an integrated river and coastal management programme. As a consequence, the
environment is still treated as a constraint on flood defence and land drainage, rather than a
customer of river and coastal management activities.
The environmental element of the new Vision statement appears to be contained within the
concept of working with natural processes. The RSPB agrees that such an approach has the
potential to provide more sustainable and environmentally sound solutions for tackling coastal
erosion and flood risk. However, we do not see working with natural processes as an end in
itself. As outlined in Section 5 of the consultation document, a move to re-naturalisation does
not guarantee positive habitat gain. This is particularly true where unique, rare or valuable
habitats and species are at risk from flooding, for example where freshwater habitats are
threatened by coastal inundation, or rare plant species may be flooded by nutrient rich river
water.
We recognise, however, that climate change and sea level rise make re-naturalisation of fluvial
and coastal systems, and the re-alignment of flood defences, inevitable in many places, and that
the challenge is therefore to get the most out of this change, for people and wildlife. In our
view, this can only be achieved by managing the process and rate of change (see response to
Questions 5.1 & 5.2).
We suggest that the following amended wording for a Vision places a more appropriate
emphasis on environmental outcomes, rather than the processes through which these are to be
achieved.
The results of the strategy will be seen on the ground, in the form of coastal and fluvial
management that protects and enhance the natural environment. This will be achieved by
working with natural processes wherever possible.
Question 3.2 Comments are invited on the draft aim for a new Government strategy for
flood and coastal erosion risk management in England.
The RSPB believes that the Aim of the new strategy should more closely reflect Government’s
sustainability principles.
We are concerned that the Aim presented here treats people and their property on an equal
footing, by promising action to reduce the threat from flooding posed to both. Unlike risk, the
term threat is undefined in the consultation; but taking the dictionary definition of “a thing
regarded as dangerous”, it is clear that reducing threat to human life should be a priority for
action. It is also entirely feasible, through a range of interventions that include flood warning,
evacuation, re-location or the construction of traditional hard defences.
By contrast, it may not always be technically feasible, affordable or environmentally acceptable
to reduce the threat to property. Indeed, it is clear that the powers of operating authorities
remain permissive, and that investment decisions will be prioritised using criteria that seek to
identify the best return on investment in river and coastal engineering. Under this system, it is
inevitable that the threat to some property will remain static or increase over time. This is not
clear from the Aim, and we are concerned that the draft wording gives the impression that the
-5-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Government is making a commitment to continually reduce the threat of flooding for all
property.
We also believe that the wording could more clearly articulate the Government’s commitment
to sustainable development. For these reasons, we suggest the following amended wording.
To manage rivers and coasts in an integrated way, employing a portfolio of approaches,
so as to reduce the threat to human life, whilst delivering the greatest environmental,
social and economic benefit, consistent with the Government’s sustainable development
principles.
Section 4: Assessing and managing the risk of flooding from rivers
and the sea and of coastal erosion
Question 4.1: Do you agree that as part of the agenda for implementing a robust and
transparent system under this new strategy:
a. That we should continue with work to put in place a multi-level strategic framework
for assessing risk in a nationally consistent way?
Yes, the RSPB believes that where taxpayers money is used to deliver flood risk
management objectives, it is entirely right that they are apportioned according to clear
national priorities, including legal obligations to WFD, Birds and Habitats Directive
outcomes, the delivery of the SSSI PSA objectives and UK BAP.
This has implications for the manner in which stakeholders are engaged in the process
(see below).
b. That the assessment of risk at all levels should take account not just of economic
damage but of environmental and social factors as well?
Yes, assessments of risk should reflect the impacts on, and opportunities for, all three
pillars of sustainability.
c. That the assessment of risk should involve stakeholders at all levels?
Yes, involving stakeholders in the assessment of risk could play an important role in
helping to improve the understanding of local and regional priorities, as well as the way
in which the fluvial or coastal system operates, and the opportunities for delivering on
local aspirations.
However, it is important that stakeholders are aware of the national context in which they
are being engaged, because ultimately the scale of intervention available is likely to
depend on national priorities, which are not amenable to change through local fora.
d. That the national system of risk assessment should be the driver to secure the
most cost-effective risk management action on flooding and coastal erosion,
including prioritisation?
We believe that national prioritisation will remain an important way to direct investment.
However, as outlined in our introduction, the RSPB believes that the focus of river and
coastal management should shift from simply reducing flood risk, towards delivery and
-6-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
facilitation of the Government’s sustainable development agenda. The system of
prioritisation should therefore be modified to favour schemes that deliver on social,
economic and environmental priorities not just flood risk.
Question 4.2 Do you agree that the methodology for dealing with scheme appraisals
should be developed as proposed using multi-criteria approaches to take better account
of non-quantifiable aspects?
Yes, the RSPB believes that environmental benefits are underplayed in the current system.
Multi-criteria analysis is one of a range of tools that can help capture the non-monetary benefits
of a scheme or strategy. However, it is important to underline the fact that such approaches are
not entirely ‘objective’, and rely on the weightings apportioned to the inputs. As a result, the
outcomes inevitably reflect the political priorities of those designing and using the system. The
RSPB would therefore which that the development process is open to full public scrutiny and
engagement.
Question 4.3 Do you have any alternative approaches to suggest?
As outlined in our answer to 4.1(d) the RSPB believes that prioritisation and appraisal should
reflect the Government’s sustainable development agenda, rather than simply capturing
economic benefits of flood risk reduction.
One practical example of this would be to establish a clear linkage between the delivery of
Government conservation targets (e.g. PSA, UK BAP) and the scheme’s ranking, so that there is
a clear incentive to promote multifunctional schemes.
Question 4.4 If you are a practitioner or have used the existing Defra guidance on
scheme appraisal:
a. Do you have any comments on the general level of detail, format or presentation?
b. Do you find the guidance user-friendly and effective as a decision making support
system?
c. Have you any suggestions on how the format might be made more effective so that
the guidance is easier to use and understand?
There is a general concern that those unfamiliar with or sceptical about the benefits of
alternatives to hard engineering may choose simply not appraise soft engineering, or multifunctional approaches, or may significantly underplay the economic value of the habitat
created, and so make such options less attractive in pure cost: benefit terms.
The RSPB believes that this could be partially overcome by including risk reduction as one of a
number of criteria against which schemes should be scored. The others should reflect delivery
of the Government’s sustainable development objectives for the environment, society and the
economy.
-7-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Question 4.5 Views are requested on factors relevant to sustainable rural communities
that might be included in multi-criteria approaches, and on any alternative approaches
that might be adopted to take account of sustainable rural communities, whilst
continuing to take appropriate account of urban communities.
A clear distinction needs to be made between delivering a framework in which sustainable rural
communities can flourish, and the protection of rural land and property as it exists today.
Sustainable communities require a policy framework that can identify and protect locations for
socially important rural settlements, and where flood risk can be efficiently and affordably
managed (for example, without further property investment on floodplains, and without major
flood management that impacts on the hydrology of the whole catchment). This is different to
committing to the protection of individual rural properties, which may not be economically
sustainable in the long-run; such an approach could reinforce existing land uses, and reduce the
overall sustainability of options, by preventing adaptation to new and emerging environmental
conditions.
Ultimately, rural communities need a river and coastal management strategy that recognises
and embraces the changes to the rural economy, and the likely impacts of reforms to the
Common Agricultural Policy. In particular, this should encourage the restoration or creation of
water level regimes that allow rural communities and businesses to take advantage of the agrienvironment payments for public goods, such as habitat creation and flood water storage.
Effective implementation of such a strategy will require operating authorities to identify
defences from which they propose to retreat, and develop an ‘exit strategy’ in co-operation with
the new ‘Integrated Agency’, which will maximise benefits to the environment and facilitate
access to agri-environment schemes. In many cases, such exit strategies will require active river
and floodplain restoration measures to deliver the most cost effective outcome. The synergies
between CAP reform, WFD implementation and biodiversity enhancement are discussed in
more detail in the discussion paper on The Water Framework Directive and Flooding, included as
an appendix to this response.
Question 4.6 Do you agree that the present approach to climate change is appropriate,
and if not can you identify alternative approaches and the benefits that they would
provide?
The RSPB supports the use of sensitivity analysis to assess the sustainability of outcomes under
various climate change scenarios. This should include an economic assessment of the
implications of the more rapid sea level rise scenarios, which would allow decision makers to
identify and avoid economically unsustainable flood defence plans. Appraisal based on current
market prices of the assets protected would not perform this function. (See below).
In general, the RSPB believes that there is a need to adopt a precautionary principle towards the
impacts of climate change. In particular, greater emphasis should be placed on increasing the
storage and permeability of rural and urban landscapes, in order to help “climate change proof”
catchment responses (see response to Question 6.1).
-8-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
We also believe that, in order to tackle the threat of climate change, Government will have to
broaden the basis upon which economic interventions are made to reduce flood risk. In
particular, we believe the Government should re-examine the role it could play in funding the
active migration of assets under a permissive system. Such intervention could avert the threat of
widespread “outrage” discussed in the Foresight report and help provide the basis for
sustainable rural communities.
Finally, we believe that, wherever possible, the Government should promote a stepwise
approach to the migration freshwater habitats that are threatened by sea-level rise. Such an
approach would allow freshwater habitats to be created for the economic life of a seawall (30-50
years) before being migrated further inland behind subsequent re-alignments. Such an
approach mimics natural processes more closely than the wholesale movement of significant
chunks of freshwater habitat some distance from where it is lost.
Question 4.7 Do you agree that Defra should review its guidance to see if further
encouragement can be given to the adoption of reversible and adaptable flood
management and coastal erosion solutions? Can you identify ways in which those
undertaking risk management activities can be given further encouragement to adopt
resilient and adaptable flood management and coastal erosion solutions?
The Appraisal system should include an element of aversion to future climate change risks
across a range of climate scenarios. This should encompass a consideration of the economic
sustainability of options under the predicted scenarios to identify the option that will be most
affordable and environmentally acceptable to current and future generations.
The RSPB is concerned that the current appraisal system is unable to take the escalating future
costs of flood defence infrastructure into account, because it uses current market prices to reflect
land values. These reflect the value of current and potential future land uses, based on current
and anticipated flood defences. Where potential future values are high, this will influence the
cost: benefit analysis of the defence options, increasing the benefit: cost ratio of options to
maintain the defences. This makes protection more likely, which in turn increases potential
future value, which will in turn be reflected in market prices - and so the cycle is perpetuated.
Question 4.8: Do you agree the current system of indicative standards should continue?
The indicative standards are useful, in that they help to manage expectations of the levels of
protection that communities, business and habitats might reasonably expect to receive. We fully
support this approach, as any attempts to set fixed thresholds could undermine broader
sustainability and prioritisation criteria.
The RSPB welcomes the Government’s intention to review the application of indicative
standards of protection for designated conservation sites (paragraph 4.33), but we are extremely
concerned that there is no mention of consultation in this process. The RSPB has a great deal of
experience in land management and a wealth of sound monitoring data and analysis, which
will be invaluable in informing any debate on the resilience of ecosystems to fluvial and coastal
flooding.
-9-
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
The RSPB agrees that it is sensible to look at appropriate standards for conservation assets. We
believe this needs to be based on achieving an agreed target for the ongoing condition of a site,
for example, the likelihood that favourable condition will be maintained for 95% of a given
time period for a SSSI (reflecting the current PSA target). Determining the standard of defence
will then be a function of the probability of flooding, and the recovery time for the ecosystem.
This is a different approach to that forward in the recent paper to the annual Defra Flood and
Risk and Coastal Management conference (paper 05a-2), which suggested that if a site can
recover from inundation in, for example, 10 years, that a 1 in 10 standard of protection is
appropriate. This would lead to a significant risk that the site will would be in a perpetual state
of degradation, recovering from and then being re-impacted by flooding events.
A progressive lowering of indicative standards might be applied where nature conservation
organisations wish to create freshwater habitat behind sea defences, which have been identified
as being unsustainable, and earmarked for re-alignment. All such creation schemes should be
undertaken within the context of a sea-level rise plan, which clearly identifies the opportunities
and challenges posed by breaching and/or re-alignment, and proposes an appropriate ‘exit
strategy’ for the habitat concerned (see response to 4.6).
Question 4.9: Do you have any modifications to propose? If so, please identify the
benefits and how implementation of the changes should be funded.
To help long term planning, flood defence strategies should consider the indicative standards of
defence that current structures will provide under climate change and sea rise scenarios. For
example, by answering the question “if existing banks height are maintained on the Essex coast, what
would be the indicative standard in 50 yrs time under different climate scenarios?”
This would give an indication of potential future costs of defences or adaptation, and an idea of
what the implications of holding the line (and indicative standard) might be in terms of
landscape and amenity.
Consistent standards of protection within the same community
Question 4.10: Views are welcome on this report together with any suggestions for
taking the work forward.
Under the water management framework favoured by the RSPB decisions about standards of
protection offered would reflect the wider social and economic objectives set both centrally and
locally for communities.
Question 4.11 Do you agree that the involvement of stakeholders in assessing risks and
management options should be in the context of an agreed national framework?
We agree that a national framework for engagement is necessary, not only to map out the
process, but also to make it clear what the public are empowered to influence at a local level,
within a framework of national and international obligations and government policies.
We also support the proposal to align the statutory public participation requirements of WFD
with arrangements for involving stakeholders in flood and coastal risk management decisions.
- 10 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
The WFD requires the development of a planning cycle at the river basin scale, delivering a
river basin management plan once every six years. Whilst the RBMP is focussed on the
environmental objectives of WFD, and is not therefore of itself and ‘integrated water
management plan’, it does offer the opportunity to bring together two key elements of water
management, by linking FRM and ecological outcomes. Moreover, the very close interactions
between the achievement of WFD outcomes and FRM activity, as well as the potential to use
WFD appraisal methods to promote sustainable and cost-effective water management practice,
make links between FRM and WFD planning processes both necessary and desirable.
The WFD also includes within it a very clear requirement for full public participation in
decision making about how to achieve its environmental objectives (Article 14). The RSPB also
believes that this offers an opportunity to engage with stakeholders more systematically and
effectively at the catchment or sub-basin scale, in making FRM decisions.
Clearly, at present FRM planning regimes are not designed to support or dove-tail with RBMPs,
and to achieve an appropriate level of integration will be challenging, and require time.
However, the RSPB believes that there are some crucial steps which should be taken now, or
clearly timetabled, towards this goal.
1. FRM strategy and policy should identify clearly the contribution FRM will be required
to make to achieving WFD outcomes, along with a range of other sustainable
development goals.
2. The development of new economic appraisal systems for FRM should take full account
of the WFD concepts of disproportionate costs, cost effectiveness, and the need to
identify the most environmentally acceptable route to achieving FRM outcomes.
3. FRM plans and RBM sub-plans (currently being mooted by the EA in England Wales)
should cover the same catchment areas.
4. Participative structures at this catchment scale should be developed jointly for WFD
planning and FRM, involving in all cases a core group of key stakeholders; statutory
agencies; land-use planning; rural development services; water companies; farming
bodies; ports authorities; environmental NGOs
Section 5: Strengthening the sustainable approach: Rural land use
and managed realignment of floodplains and the coast.
Making Space for Water
The RSPB agree that a portfolio of responses will be required to tackle flood risk and coastal
erosion in the most sustainable way. This will include the re-alignment of current defences, an
approach that offers exciting opportunities for restoring wetland habitats over large areas,
helping deliver UK nature conservation obligations, and stimulating the leisure-based economy
in rural areas.
- 11 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
However, we are concerned that the document contains little analysis of how the public are
likely to react to this pro-active policy of retreat or abandonment policy, particularly where it is
property rather than farmland that will be impacted. Therefore, while we agree with the
analysis of the legal implications of abandonment under a permissive power regime (presented
in the supporting document), we are concerned that action on the ground will be constrained by
political pressures applied at all levels from national organisations to local pressure groups.
Moreover, although abandonment may appear attractive from a financial perspective, we are
not convinced that unmanaged, it will necessarily support the broad aims of sustainable
development, meet obligations under the WFD, or prove the most cost effective, as opposed to
cost: beneficial response. The Water Framework Directive brings with it new restoration
obligations in circumstances where the morphology of a water body impacts its ecological
status. As the consultation document points out, abandonment does not guarantee ecological
outcomes, and where restoration is required it is far from clear if the Environment Agency or
other operating authorities have the powers or money to carry out such works.
Managing flood risk to agricultural land behind existing flood defences.
The RSPB notes the assessment that up to 0.5 million ha of agricultural land are currently
behind “potentially non-viable flood defences”. It is important to be aware that if morphological
modifications cannot be economically justified, the case for applying the Heavily Modified
Water Body derogation under the WFD is substantially weakened. This could have important
consequences for the type and scale of restoration work that will be required in order to achieve
Good Status, an issue discussed in more detail in our supporting discussion document.
The economic case for maintaining agricultural defences will also impacted by CAP reform,
because decoupling (due in 2005) will reduce the financial reliance of farm businesses on the
value of their agricultural produce: they will receive the Single Farm Payment in England, if
their land is in good agricultural and environmental condition. This condition can be fulfilled
on land at higher flood risk, and therefore the significance of flood defences to rural land use,
although still potentially high, will reduce from 2005. These changes should be factored in to
the valuation of agricultural land when appraising and prioritising schemes, along with the
potential availability of funds through agri-environment schemes to support farming on land
with raised water levels
Question 5.1: Do you agree that approaches that work with natural processes to provide
more space for water should be identified and pursued wherever possible within the
framework set out in Section 4?
The RSPB agrees that coastal and flood risk management practices should work with natural
process wherever possible. However, the restoration of natural processes should not be seen as
an end in itself, but rather an approach to delivering wider Government objectives, including
national/international obligations towards the environment. Therefore, the test of whether
restoration is appropriate should not simply be “is it technically feasible?” but rather “is it the
most sustainable approach?”. This is in line with the economic appraisal process of the WFD (see
supporting document).
- 12 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Question 5.2: Do you have any comments on the realignment policy proposed above?
The RSPB broadly supports the approach to managed realignment outlined in the document,
and welcomes the assurance that flood and coastal risk management activities will comply with
the Habitats and SEA Directives at all levels (para. 5.6).
We also welcome the commitment to require “..realignment of river corridors and shorelines, and
restoration of natural processes to be considered in all cases.”, and hope Government will take this
forward by amending Project Appraisal Guidance accordingly.
It is important to note that with the advent of the WFD, the realignment of defences may be
required in order to achieve statutory ecological objectives for a water body, rather for flood
risk management purposes
Where proposed or existing morphological modifications impact the ecological status of a water
body, the competent authority will only be able to justify relaxing the statutory ecological
objectives where a strict set of criteria are met. These include proving that less damaging
alternative approaches to managing flood risk are either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately expensive. This disproportionate cost test is a markedly different approach to
the cost: benefit analysis currently applied through scheme appraisal, and could see the
financing of schemes that would not be justified in flood risk management terms alone. These
issues are explored more fully in our supporting document.
Realignment of defences will need to be proactive in most cases, if it is to deliver significant
ecological benefits Actively managing the process of retreat, rather than simply abandoning
defences, will help maximise the benefits for both wildlife and people, by providing more
certainty about where, how and when habitat will be created, and a greater level of confidence
for landowners and farm managers in planning investment and decisions, based on the water
levels they can anticipate on their land. What remains unclear is whether operating authorities
can use their existing flood defence and land drainage powers to carry active restoration works
of the type required, particularly where landowners refuse to cooperate, or where the primary
driver behind a scheme is not flood risk management, for example delivering Good Ecological
Status under WFD.
Creating new, high quality habitats
The RSPB welcomes the recognition (in paragraph 5.13) that some important freshwater Natura
2000 sites are protected by sea walls, and that withdrawal of public maintenance and
realignment will not usually be appropriate options in such circumstances.
We are, however, disappointed that the Government is currently questioning the need to
provide compensatory habitat for inter-tidal SPAs and SACs lost to coastal squeeze. Although
we have been denied access to the legal opinion underpinning this change in policy, we believe
that is a very narrow and misleading interpretation of Birds and Habitats Directives, and one
that will inevitably lead to infraction procedures.
We welcome the recognition in 5.13 that it will be appropriate in some cases to use managed
realignment to create new intertidal habitats, where existing intertidal habitats are lost due to
the maintenance of existing defences.
- 13 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
We agree that the biodiversity outcomes of re-alignment cannot be taken for granted and
welcome the commitment to establishing a national, strategic approach to the creation of new
habitat. Where habitat creation is driven by the need to comply with the Habitats Directive, this
should be underpinned by strategic level appropriate assessments of SMPs and CFMPs, to
make the link between schemes where damage is likely, and appropriate locations and
functional matches for the compensatory habitat.
Question 5.3: Do you agree that targets for wetland habitat creation to fulfil biodiversity
commitments should be put in place as proposed above?
The RSPB agree that targets will be necessary to stimulate delivery of habitat creation.
However, it should be noted that the current high level target for habitat creation (HLT 9) has
not been reported on since 2001, making progress difficult to assess, and giving an impression
that the target itself is not regarded by Government or Operating Authorities as a sufficient
priority to spur action. We hope that by linking any new proposed targets to performance
measures and ultimately Defra grant-in-aid funding, this lack of urgency will be addressed..
Moreover, there is a need clearly to distinguish between the delivery of compensatory habitat in
response to the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives, and the provision of
additional habitat to offset other losses to sea-level rise and/or meet UK BAP targets. Clarity
between these two objectives should extend to the provision of funding, to ensure that both are
able to be met.
Section 6: The role of rural land management
Question 6.1: Do you have any comments on the approach to rural land management
proposed above?
The ongoing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is bringing about significant
changes in the basis of financial support for farm businesses, shifting the emphasis from food
production to the delivery of social and environmental goods. This is reflected in new ‘cross
compliance’ requirements for farmers in receipt of subsidies, and in the introduction of the
Entry Level (ELS) and Higher level (HLS) agri-environment schemes.
Whilst flood risk management is listed as a secondary objective of the HLS, it is not clear yet,
that the links between flood management planning and rural delivery will be sufficiently welldeveloped to make the most of the opportunity this offers. The RSPB believes much greater
effort must be put into identifying the links between land use and flood risk management at a
range of scales. We hope that Government will look very carefully at the scope of projects such
United Utilities’ Sustainable Catchment Management Project (proposed for funding under the
Periodic Review of Water Pricing), to quantify the benefits of large-scale hydrological
restoration works for flood risk management.
Many of the practices that increase infiltration and reduce run-off are also linked to the control
of diffuse pollution and habitat protection/creation. These links should be fully considered
- 14 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
when appraising the cost effectiveness of measures used to achieve the statutory objectives of
the WFD.
Question 6.2: Do you agree with the suggested approach of using water level
management to bring SSSIs into favourable condition?
The implementation of Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs) for the delivery of SSSI
condition has been slow and patchy. The RSPB have been involved in the latter stages of the
joint Defra, English Nature WLMP study and are hopeful that it will highlight key blockages to
the agreement and implementation of plans. It is disappointing that the report has not be
finalised in time for this consultation and we would welcome a commitment from Government
to consult widely on its findings and proposals..
We fully endorse the statement in paragraph 6.10, that it is important to ensure that the renewal
and future use of pumps and structures are compatible with the nature conservation objectives
of SSSIs. We have been involved in a number of cases where operating authorities have sought
to justify infrastructure either partly or wholly on nature conservation grounds, without
providing an operating agreement that guarantees the future operation will be compatible with
favourable SSSI conservation status.
The problem is particularly acute where capital expenditure on pumps and sluices is justified
on the basis that it is necessary for the management of Natura 2000 sites thereby avoiding the
requirement for an appropriate assessment and cost: benefit scrutiny which is applied to other
flood risk management schemes.
Although efforts to raise water levels for nature conservation sometimes meets vociferous local
opposition, the designation of these Natura 2000 sites as protected areas under the WFD will
require the identification and delivery of suitable water level management by 2015. There are
no derogations to this obligation; questions remain, however, as to whether Government and
its Agencies have the powers or political will to tackle the outstanding issues around delivery.
Section 7: Measures to reduce flood risk through land-use planning.
Question 7.1: Do you agree with this general approach, and in particular are there any
other possible mechanisms for managing flood risk through the land-use planning
system?
No. Although we recognise that there may be overriding social or economic reasons for some
development in flood risk areas, the RSPB remains concerned that the approach outlined in the
document focuses too heavily on engineering out flood risk, rather than avoiding it.
As outlined in paragraph 7.10, the positioning of more properties in floodplains will increase
flood risk. We are concerned that the resulting increase in asset base value will lead to the
justification of ever more expensive, elaborate and potentially unsustainable flood defences,
which are then themselves used to justify future development.
- 15 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Although the first bullet of paragraph 7.10 suggests that investment in risk reduction is time
limited over the “life” of a development, it is difficult to see how this will work in practice. The
priorities and expectations of planning authorities are likely to shift significantly over the so
called “life” of a development and what is more, the “life” of a development is, in itself, purely
notional, unless the development permission time-limited in some way.
In addition, once an acceptable level of protection is established, investment in and
development of an area are likely to continue, increasing the value of the asset base behind the
defences. Indeed continued investment would be encouraged to further economic prosperity.
That, in turn, will demand continuing flood protection guarantees, because without it areas are
likely to become economically blighted.
For example, coastal caravan sites are theoretically mobile assets; however, their development
has lead to increased investment in fixed leisure infrastructure, ever-larger caravans and
increased occupancy periods. As a result, many of the most valuable assets are not mobile and
more people are spending more time in flood risk areas.
In reality, once an area becomes developed and defended, it is highly unlikely to return to
functional floodplain. Even if a decision is made to abandon defences, there are likely to be
residual costs associated with site clean up, particularly in industrial areas.
In the light of our concerns, we question whether it is appropriate for developers simply to pay
a one-off charge to cover a purely nominal development “life”; or whether they (or the property
owners) should instead be subject to ongoing charges, to cover future flood defence costs and/or
environmental mitigation needs (eg. from coastal squeeze). Where developments do go ahead,
the scale of payment for the requisite level of defence should reflect the impacts of a range
climate change scenarios.
The Role of the Environment Agency
The RSPB is pleased to see the reduction in the number of planning applications granted
contrary to Environment Agency advice. However, we note that the figures presented are
incomplete, because final planning notices are not always provided to the Environment Agency.
We are surprised that the evidence presented in paragraphs 7.5 and 7.9 shows that the
percentage of new homes built in the floodplain is roughly equivalent to the percentage of
England’s land area designated as floodplain. This would suggest that the designation of land
as a floodplain does not generally make it less attractive to develop.
Question 7.2: Do you agree that the Government should consider making a direction as
outlined above?
Yes, the RSPB supports the introduction of a call-in procedure as outlined in paragraph 7.15.
This should also be extended to cover the EA’s input into regional spatial strategies and
instances where development is authorised in contravention to policies established in the
proposed integrated drainage plans. (see comments below).
- 16 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Question 7.3: Do you have views on the arrangements described above, and on whether
any changes are needed?
The RSPB supports Option D (a combination of [b] and [c]). It seems entirely appropriate that
Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks are informed by the EA’s
assessment of flood risk; and such an approach would underpin the delivery of PPG25.
We are pleased that the Government makes such a positive assessment of the current level of
cooperation between the EA and local planning authorities over flood risk policies. This
suggests that the extra costs in making such cooperation compulsory will be small, falling
largely on those local authorities that have so far failed to implement best practice.. The work
undertaken to fulfil such a statutory duty would also form an important element of integrated
drainage management, discussed in Section 8 of the consultation.
Although the consultation mentions the financial cost associated with regulatory reform, there
is no discussion of the significant savings that this new requirement could bring, by reducing
uncertainty for developers, and averting public investment in flood risk management where
land is developed, and subsequently needs to be protected over a number of decades.
We also think it is reasonable to require individual developments to include flood risk
assessments. Whilst this might represent a limited cost to the developer, it seems entirely
reasonable that this cost should rest with those likely to benefit from the development, and not
the general taxpayers, who fund the EA. Such a policy would also underline the importance of
understanding and taking account of flood risks, and could reduce the time wasted EA staff
objecting to inappropriate applications.
We suggest that a risk-based approach should be taken in determining the size and location of
development requiring such assessment. Such an approach would allow assessment effort to be
focussed on developments whose scale or location represent a potential problem, whilst
minimising the overall regulatory and financial burden.
Paying for defences or other mitigation required under PPG25
In our answer to question 7.1, we outlined our concerns about the use of the concept
development “life”. If the financial contribution made by the developer/occupier is based purely
on costs over the notional “life” of development, the public purse will have to pick up any longterm costs of maintaining the line, or the residual risk associated with retreat; particularly if the
developer subsequently goes out of business.
The RSPB is concerned that such a system implicitly equates the willingness of a developer to
pay any up front charges with the long-term sustainability of a proposal. In reality uncertainty
over climate change impacts and the costs of maintaining defences beyond the ‘development
life’ may make the development environmentally, economically or socially unsustainable.. .
This ignores the potential long-term consequences and financial implications of development.
- 17 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Section 8: Integration of drainage management in urban areas.
The planning, construction and maintenance of drainage infrastructure is complex and
expensive. It is essential that the water companies and their regulators have confidence that the
integrated plans will be given sufficient weight in the development planning process so that
they provide a sound basis upon which to make long term investment decisions. We suggest
that where planning authorities allow development to take place outside of the drainage plan,
that the plans will be subject to call-in
Question 8.1
A. What kinds of actions do you think would be most effective in delivering more
integrated management of drainage in urban areas?
The most fundamental step in furthering integration, and one that is missing from the current
discussion, is the setting of objectives. Answers to the key questions of ‘How, Who and Who
Pays?’, all stem from a clear idea of what integration is meant to achieve.
Although this consultation treats water quality and quantity as secondary objectives of
integration, run-off from roads, car parks and other hard surfaces, along with intermittent
discharges form overloaded sewers, can deliver significant loads of heavy metals, organic
pollutants and biological oxygen demand to rivers, causing both chronic and acute problems to
aquatic ecosystems. Tackling these problems in order to meet the statutory objectives of the
WFD is a challenge that will, by necessity, change the way urban drainage is managed.
Integration could also be driven by the introduction of a statutory requirement to carry out
flood risk assessments in Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Frameworks
(LDF), as suggested in Section 7 of the consultation. As well as being a consultative process in
which the EA, Water Companies and others can participate, these planning documents will be
subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), incorporating the requirements of the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directive.
At an early stage in the production of the RSS/LDF, a scoping consultation exercise should be
carried out by the local authority, to decide which sustainability issues are significant enough to
warrant more detailed assessment. In areas where flooding is an issue, this should be identified
for consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal. The Sustainability Appraisal should identify
where the RSS / LDF conflicts with sustainability objectives, and suggest how these conflicts can
be resolved, as well as assessing the potential sustainability impacts of the plan and its
'reasonable alternatives'. So, for example, where proposals in the plan are likely to result in
flooding problems, the SA should suggest how this conflict could be resolved. In this way the
appraisal process could provide a useful way of assessing alternative approaches to managing
flood risk through the use of the planning system.
- 18 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
B. Do you think action should be focussed on voluntary incentives or on compulsory
requirements, or a mixture of both.
The RSPB believes voluntary initiatives will play an important role in furthering the integration
of drainage management. However, statutory requirements and potential reforms exist, which
will inevitably require an element of compulsion, to ensure legal compliance, where
cooperation is not forthcoming. For instance, the statutory ecological objectives set by the WFD
will require action to manage the water quality and hydro-morphological impacts of urban
drainage on water body status. It remains unclear how, or if, the EA (as Competent Authority
for the WFD) has sufficient influence over the planning system to ensure compliance.
Integration would also be encouraged by to modifying the automatic right to connection to
combined sewers and surface water drains (Section 8 & supporting document). This would
force planning authorities to liase more closely with water companies, so as to plan and adapt
development in line with existing infrastructure and the carrying capacity of the natural
environment.
C. Which end of the spectrum do you think action should be focussed on - less
intervention or more?
The RSPB believes that level of intervention should be dictated by outcomes required and the
risks associated with not achieving them, rather than a dogmatic preference or dislike of certain
policy instruments. It is clear that a strategic overview of just what Government is trying to
achieve in this area is needed, before the right mix of policy and fiscal instrument can be
developed.
D. Do you have any suggestions for additional actions which might be included?
No comment.
Question 8.2: Comments are invited on the options for lead responsibility above.
The consultation presents compelling arguments that point to the EA as the body ultimately
best placed to take responsibility for the integration of urban flood risk management. This
would compliment the Agency’s roles of Competent Authority for the implementation of the
WFD, and flood risk management operating authority with a general supervisory duty.
The Agency also has a central role in the Periodic Price Review process, which governs water
company investment, including the renewal, replacement and construction of urban drainage
infrastructure. The question remains as to how open Ofwat may be to funding new approaches
(including SUDS) to reducing sewer and drain flood risk, particularly those which would repay
investment over long time scales.
The success or failure of the Agency in this role rests with the influence that they can exert over
strategic planning decisions made by Local Authorities.
- 19 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Question 8.3: If this consultation exercise shows support for an Option B approach, do
you agree with the proposals that there should be piloting of Option B actions and that
Defra should examine whereby it would fund the preparation of those pilots?
No Comment
Sustainable urban Drainage
The RSPB believes that the range of techniques embraced under the banner Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems (SUDS) have the potential to bring real long term benefits for people, wildlife
and the economy. The consultation and supporting document do not refer to the situation in
Scotland, where SUDs are routinely used in new developments as the preferred method of
surface water disposal. This has been made possible by a different regulatory structure
combined with strong political will and leadership.
The background paper to this question rehearses many of the key concerns, debated at length in
the various conferences, stakeholder meetings and technical groups that have met in recent
years to discuss why SUDS are not widely used in England and Wales.
Paragraph 42 lists a number of these “issues”, raised during the National SUDS Working Group
consultation on the SUDS Framework. Whilst all of these points need to be considered, it is
important to realise that they are not necessarily exclusive to SUDS, but apply to all designs of
surface water drainage systems. For example:
•
Right to refuse to adopt a poorly designed system: Poor design and construction is an
issue for all drainage systems. As the document points out, traditional private sewers
are a cause of real concern, and there is no reason to believe the situation would be made
any worse if SUDS were to become the normal route of surface water disposal, provided
the correct design standards are used. It could be argued that the capacity, design and
maintenance of the surface elements of SUDS are more easily checked than traditional
underground piped systems, and therefore compliance with planning requirements and
design standards are more readily assessed.
•
Disposal of waste from surface water drainage systems. SUDS systems do not cause
pollution, they simply trap it. Therefore, the technical challenges and costs associated
with disposing of silt are merely the flipside of preventing pollution in the receiving
water body. The dredging of well-designed ponds and wetlands should only be
required after a number of years, and is likely to be far cheaper (and more effective) than
the use of traditional silt traps and petrol interceptors.
•
Liability for downstream flooding: All surface and combined drainage systems have
the potential to cause flooding and pollution when their capacity is exceeded. This is a
question of good design, so that systems fail safe, rather than a question over the
effectiveness of SUDS versus conventional systems.
Possibly the only concern unique to SUDS is that of health and safety of open water features.
However, minimising the risk to the public is largely a function of good design, and there is no
evidence that SUDS ponds and wetlands have become significant hazards in other countries
- 20 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
where their use is widespread. There may also be health and safety benefits, because the staff
who have to operate and maintain the systems are less likely to be required to work in confined
spaces.
Question 8.4: The background paper [on SUDS] sets out a number of issues and
proposals concerning the implementation and management of SUDS, based on
discussion with stakeholders. We would value your views on all of the issues raised, in
particular regarding:
• The difference options suggested to clarify ownership and responsibility of SUDS
•
The legislative changes suggested to remove obstacles and disincentives to
design and implement more sustainable surface water drainage systems.
Ownership and responsibility of SUDs:
As the supporting document highlights, all the options for clarifying ownership and
responsibility for SUDS are fraught with difficulty. However one thing is clear: the current
system has failed to deliver sustainable drainage systems and there is no reason to believe this
will change unless the system is reformed. As a result, Option A is the least desirable presented
in the paper.
We favour a single operating authority responsible for the ownership and maintenance of SUDS
(Option C); and, having considered the evidence, we support a model where Local Authorities
take on this role. There are several reasons for this:
•
Local authorities are already responsible for the maintenance of public open spaces, and
the maintenance of the above ground elements of SUDS systems is essentially landscape
gardening, albeit to standards which are designed to maximise storage, conveyance etc.
•
Local authorities are politically accountable to the communities they serve, so their longterm involvement should be guaranteed.
•
Local authorities can affect the design and layout of SUDS through the planning process
and, therefore, maximise the landscape, amenity and wildlife benefit of SUDS.
In many cases, Local Authorities may wish to sub-contract these maintenance activities to
contractors, community groups or NGOs, whilst retaining overall responsibility.
The supporting document suggests that in order to adopt SUDS, Local Authorities would have
to become responsible for all surface water drainage systems. We believe this could prove very
costly and complex, as many Local Authorities simply would not have the staff or expertise to
take this on. Instead, we suggest that Local Authorities are made responsible only for SUDS up
until the point where they discharge to ground or to a watercourse, OR where they connect to a
surface or combined water sewer. Ownership could be further clarified through the proposed
drainage plans, which will identify water company infrastructure.
Part of the current discussion centres around whether Local Authorities would fund
maintenance through the council tax charge. This could be seen as unfair in many cases, as the
costs of those who drain to SUDS would be spread across all council tax payers, many of whom
- 21 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
will already be paying for surface water disposal through their water bills. We suggest,
therefore, that there should be an additional levy for those drained by SUDS.
We reject the comparison made between the outcomes of a separate consultation on the future
of private sewers and the question raised here about the ownership of SUDS. The adoption of
private sewers would involve taking on a huge liability for poorly constructed and ageing
infrastructure, the design of which has had little or no input from Local Authorities.. By
contrast, there are relatively few existing SUDS and, even before new systems come on line,
Local Authorities will be able to exert control on their design and construction through
planning policies and conditions.
Legal changes and incentives required:
The type of legal changes required to ease the use of SUDS depends largely on the outcomes of
proposals to reform ownership and responsibility. However, in general the RSPB supports
removal of the current automatic right to drain surface water to the sewer system, where
ground conditions permit the use of SUDS, or a separate surface drainage system is provided
for new development.
We also support the proposal to broaden the criteria that must be met, before a connection is
permitted. These criteria could be established locally through the development of “Integrated
Drainage Plans” (proposed in Section 8), giving the plans “teeth” to direct the type and pace of
drainage development.
Criteria could include the size of the pipe (and therefore flow rate) that can be connected to a
combined sewer/surface water sewer. This would encourage developers to design and
owner/occupiers to maintain systems (including SUDS) which attenuate storm flows on site,
preventing the surcharging of the receiving sewer.
Section 9: Flooding from Sewers
No comment.
Section 10: Flooding from Groundwater
Question 10.1: We welcome all views and comments on the scoping study and
suggestions for further developments.
The scoping study provides a valuable starting point for developing an understanding of
groundwater flooding and the policy mechanisms that may be used to reduce risk. Clearly, at
this stage, this is a very broad, high-level assessment of risk. Other components that might be
addressed in future include:
Climate change: - How will future predictions of climate change impact the assessment of risk?
Will drier summers bring about reduced summer aquifer levels and thus reduce the threat, or
will this be offset by higher winter recharge?
Impact of mitigation measures on terrestrial ecosystems:- The
WFD requires that
anthropogenic impacts on groundwater levels do not significantly damage dependent terrestrial
- 22 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
ecosystems. These impacts will have to be assessed as part of the project design and appraisal
system.
Groundwater levels and integrated drainage management: The functioning of traditional
sewer systems and SUDS infiltration devices can be compromised by high groundwater levels.
The work undertaken as part of this project could provide a useful resource for the
development of options under integrated drainage plans.
Question 10.2: Do you agree with these research priorities? Are there any additional
research priorities?
Yes, the priorities outlined seem entirely sensible. Our suggestions for future work are
presented above.
Question 10.3: Do you agree that there should be better co-ordination and management
of groundwater flooding risks in combination with other types of flooding?
Who should be responsible for this?
There seems little doubt that the EA is the only national body with the expertise to deal with
groundwater issues. It is also the body with a general supervisory duty for flood defence, a
responsibility for conserving, redistributing, augmenting and protecting water resources and, as
Competent Authority, has groundwater management duties under the WFD. In addition, the
Agency already owns many of the geological and hydro-geological datasets that are needed to
understand the issues.
The only other possible contenders are Local Authorities; however this option would require a
massive investment in expertise and resources.
How should this work at the national level, regional and local level?
If, as seems appropriate, the management of groundwater flood risk is to be treated alongside
fluvial and coastal flooding, it would seem appropriate that Defra should set overall policy and
the EA should be responsible for delivery.
At this early stage, it is difficult to know what, or even if, there is a universally applicable local
model for engagement, because the scale of the problem is so poorly understood. It seems likely
that, at the very least, groundwater flood risk should be mapped by the Agency and thereby
become a consideration for the allocation of development land and granting of planning
applications. This may require a revision of PPG25.
How should co-ordination and mitigation be funded?
The funding of action depends on the nature of the work undertaken. Further studies and
groundwater flood risk mapping will, inevitably have to be funded centrally because the threat
and beneficiaries are at this stage ill defined and diffuse. The source of the funding should
either be grant-in-aid or, potentially, the insurance industry, who will have a significant interest
in improving their exposure to this risk.
- 23 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Generally, new development in groundwater flood risk areas should be discouraged through
the planning system. However, where development does take place, it will be important to
ensure that the developer bears the cost of mitigating risk, by applying suitable design and
construction methods.
Developers could also be required to contribute to a fund analogous to the Floodplain
Development Charge; however this might raise questions about what level of defence would be
guaranteed, a question that cannot be answered sensibly with the current level of knowledge.
Question 10.4: Do you support more accurate, consistent record keeping across England
to monitor the frequency and occurrence of groundwater flooding events? Who should
be responsible for this?
Clearly, if the Government wish to tackle groundwater flood risk they must first understand the
nature and frequency of the problem. The responsibility for collating the information should
probably lie with the EA; however, they will not be in a position to identify all the cases
themselves and so they will inevitably have to rely on Local Authorities, fire service records and
IDBs for much of the data.
Question 10.5: How could groundwater flooding risk be assessed in the context of the
flood and coastal risk management scheme appraisal system?
Groundwater flooding may have significant economic impacts and cause stress-related illness
amongst those property owners affected. However, the rate and height of inundation are
unlikely to pose a serious threat to human life. It is also likely that true groundwater flood risk
will be dictated by very local topographic and hydro-geological conditions.
As a result, it is difficult to envisage how public expenditure on expensive engineered
intervention schemes will be justified, when competing against potentially more catastrophic
fluvial and coastal threat. It may be that action remains focussed on reducing risk by preventing
new development and greater use of flood warning and flood resilience measures.
Question 10.6: Should a national database be compiled to monitor rising groundwater in
urban areas? Who should have responsibility for this?
No comment
Question 10.7: Should parties involved in addressing urban groundwater rebound
problems be required to commit to some kind of formal, long-term agreement? What
shape could such an agreement take?
No comment
Question 10.8: Views and comments on the issue of rising groundwater in former mining
areas are welcome.
No comment
- 24 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Section 11: Flooding of and from the transport network
Question 11.1: How useful do practitioners find this guidance? Do you think it addresses
all concerns in relation to flooding and highway drainage?
No comment
Question 11.2: Do you think that the production of such guidance on the design and
maintenance of non-strategic roads, and in particular their drainage systems is
necessary, and if so do you have views on who should produce and maintain this
guidance?
No comment
Question 11.3: Do you agree that the urban road network should be covered by
integrated drainage management proposals, and that it should be possible for these to
include consideration of how roads might be used where appropriate for flood mitigation
in extreme events?
The RSPB agrees that the urban road network should be included in the design of integrated
drainage management schemes. We also support the idea of adapting road design to convey or
store water and would welcome wider discussion of these options at CFMP and FMS stage.
We would also like to see greater discussion of road-raising as an option for reducing the
frequency of road flooding, so as to avoid the need to defend large areas of floodplain. We
would welcome further consultation and discussion on how the renewal and funding of roadbuilding and maintenance schemes could be integrated with flood defence objectives, to secure
multiple benefits whilst minimising costs.
Question 11.4: Do you have suggestions on how the use of railway earthworks/structures
as flood defences can be made more effective?
No comment
Section 12: Managing the consequences of flooding through
resistance and resilience measures.
The RSPB believes that improving the resilience and resistance of buildings to flood damage is
an important and, as yet, under-utilised tool for reducing flood risk. We believe that the costs
and benefits of resistance and resilience measures should be included as a matter of course in
the options appraised during the flood defence planning and design process, from CFMPS
andFMSs, through to scheme selection and design.
The judicious retrofitting (and funding) of flood resistance and resilience measures could offer a
reduction in flood risk to isolated properties and communities, whilst reducing the footprint,
cost and environmental impacts of flood defence schemes.
- 25 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Question 12.1: Do you agree with the way the Government plans to take forward issues
relating to flood resilience and resistance in new building built on the floodplain?
Yes, we support changes to the Building Regulations. We would also like the Government to
consider incentives and regulatory options to ensure that these features are not removed or
compromised by house modification or renovation.
Question 12.2: views are sought on how you think owners of existing buildings can be
encouraged to use flood resistance or resilience products.
The RSPB recognises that property owners will ultimately be responsible for carrying out
works to improve the flood resilience or resistance of their buildings. However, we are
concerned that the approach taken in the consultation rules out the use of central flood defence
budgets for grant schemes to improve resistance/resilience of private property. This creates a
nonsensical position, where expenditure from the public purse may be used for the construction
or maintenance of hard engineering , whilst cheaper and/or less environmentally damaging,
resilience/resistance approaches are left up to the property owner to fund.
We believe that if the current system of publicly funded risk reduction is to continue, this
should be directed by considerations of cost-effectiveness and not be constrained according to
the type of investment involved. There should be more flexibility for flood risk management
funds to be used to grant aid the retro-fitting of flood resistance/resilience measures than is
currently the case, or is proposed in the consultation..
We recommend that the use of retro-fitting flood resistance/resilience measures should be
included as a matter of course throughout the CFMP, FMS and options appraisal process, and
that further economic research is undertaken, to help improve understanding of the costs and
predicted outputs of flood resistance/resilience options.
Question 12.3: Comments are invited on whether a quality scheme for surveyors in
respect of flood repairs/resilience would be welcome and practicable.
No comment.
Section 13: Raising awareness
13.1 How useful do you find the information currently available on flood risk, and how
could it be improved?
13.2 Views are sought more generally on how you think awareness can be raised and
sustained, particularly in those areas on the floodplain that have not experienced recent
flooding and in areas at lower risk.
13.3 How aware are you of local flood activities in your area? What would you find
helpful?
- 26 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
13.4 How aware are you of the activities of the Regional Flood Defence Committees?
See Section 4 on stakeholder engagement.
Section 14: Flood warning systems and emergency responses
Emergencies
The consultation paper fails to address the links between the abandonment of uneconomic flood
defences and the inevitable demands that this may place on the emergency services, in
evacuating individuals or communities that become increasingly vulnerable to flooding.
Question 14.1 Should the Government undertake a review of whether greater account
should be taken of the availability of flood warning services when appraising schemes?
Any views on this issue are welcome.
The RSPB would welcome a review of how flood warning systems should be taken into account
when appraising schemes. Such systems could play an increasingly important role in reducing
flood risk, both by minimising the threat to human life and by increasing the viability of
demountable defences and flood resistance measures. As highlighted in the supporting
documentation, these temporary measures rely on timely and reliable flood forecasts for
effective deployment.
Question 14.2 How effective do you find flood warning services as currently provided?
What would you find helpful?
No comment
Section 15: Coastal issues
Question 15.1 Views are sought on the effectiveness of the current management
arrangements for flood and erosion risks on the coast, compared to the possible
alternative options described in Section 15. Any further suggestions for change,
identifying the improvements and benefits that it would deliver, are invited.
The RSPB believes that there should be a single body with overall responsibility for flood and
erosion risks on the coast, given the links between cliffs as sources of sediment supply and the
lack of sediment on most beaches and foreshores. Although SMPs have attempted to make
these links, the system is not joined up in practice, and District Councils are often too parochial
in their responses to coastal erosion issues.
This could be achieved through either option B or C (not D, as District Council’s would be
unlikely to take a strategic enough view of the issue). On balance we prefer Option B, although
we believe that operational delivery should be delegated to Local Authorities where they have
- 27 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
the skills and experience to carry out the work, and have a coastal frontage which is especially
important to the character of their area e.g. resorts or leisure beaches.
This approach would minimise administrative upheaval and provide the EA with more direct
powers to fulfil its duties as the competent authority for delivery of the WFD.
Question 15.2 Views are sought about the effectiveness of the Shoreline Management
Plan process, in particular:
a. How useful are the outcomes of the process?
b. To what extent are the findings taken forward and implemented in practice?
c. Should more be done to monitor how the findings are taken forward?
d. Do you have any suggestions about supporting the Shoreline Management Plan
process and how the outcomes are implemented in the future?
At present, the planning process does not always work as intended, and more should be done
to monitor how SMPs are taken forward and delivered on the ground. Experience on the
Suffolk coast has shown that the strategic policies set out in the SMP may be revisited at both
the strategy stage and the individual scheme stage. This may reflect a lack of confidence in the
original SMP (particularly as many were perhaps seen as ‘first attempts’), or it may reflect
competition between firms of consultants. Whatever the reason, it undermines confidence in
the SMP as a basis for making other decisions, eg land use planning.
We also believe that CHaMPs should be integrated within SMPs rather than exist as stand
alone documents.
Question 15.3: Views are sought on the structure and arrangements for Coastal Groups.
Any proposals for supporting the work of Coastal Groups in the future are welcome.
Question 15.4: Views are sought on the relationship between ICZM, strategic planning on
the coasts and Shoreline Management Plans. In particular:
a. How could the findings of Shoreline Management Plans be better Integrated with the
statutory planning system, especially local development plans?
b. How could the findings of Shoreline Management Plans be better integrated with other
specific issues on the coast, such as biodiversity, land instability and regeneration?
c. How should Shoreline Management Plans be taken forward in the Context of the Water
Framework Directive?
The Water Framework Directive sets very clear statutory objectives for the management of
all coastal waters and public engagement in the decision-making process. The development
and review of SMPs should be aligned to the timescales and objectives of the WFD, so as to
reduce consultation fatigue and duplication of effort.
- 28 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
d. How could ICZM principles be used to best effect in the context of managing coastal
flooding and erosion risks? In particular, what might the roles of Shoreline
Management Plans, Coastal Groups, local authorities and planners be within an ICZM
framework?
The ideal must be to work towards a holistic coastal plan, which will not be dominated by a
single sector. In this way rounded decisions more in line with sustainable development
principles can be expected, as such plans will be better able to incorporate environmental
and social objectives alongside economic needs.
Section 16: Funding issues
We believe that funding mechanisms may require further review in light of the aim we have set
out, and in order to remove anomalies is the current system. For example, Highland Water
Charge Payments in respect of capital schemes between IDBs and the Environment may no
longer be appropriate. If Government concludes that drainage of 0.5million hectares of land
longer viable, then presumably replacement of capital schemes will no longer be grant-aided. At
present this would lead to the perverse situation where the Environment Agency is charged a
higher levy by through the Highland Water Charge, a cost which is funded by Defra through
the block grant.
The RSPB believes that if IDBs wish to maintain a standard of drainage higher than that which
is considered viable by Government, then this should be paid for solely by rate-payer
contributions to the IDB, and not supported through the public purse.
Question 16.1: Comments have already been received in respect of the Floodplain
Development Charge as part of the Funding Review (2002) (see footnote 71). In light of
the principles set out in this consultation and experience since 2002, do you have any
additional comments?
The recent increases in flood risk management funding should be used to achieve more
sustainable arrangements and outcomes. In the long term, these approaches should cost less
than current provisions ( for example, where coastal defence embankments can be protected
from wave action by saltmarsh). If increased funding simply leads to more intensively
engineered solutions, this could be to the detriment of environmental and social welfare, and
prove economically unsustainable in the medium to long term..
Question 16.2: Is there a role for Business Improvement Districts in the area of flood
management services?
Question 16.3: Would there be any value in different approaches to the Land Drainage
Consent Scheme?
The RSPB would welcome a review of the way in which Land Drainage Consents are applied.
There appears to be little justification for a flat charge approach, which takes no account of the
complexity of the issues raised or, the amount of time taken by EA staff to consider the
application.
- 29 -
Making Space for Water: The RSPB’s Response
Conversely, the current scheme penalises minor, multiple applications that may be made for
nature conservation or monitoring purposes e.g. dip wells on flood plains.
- 30 -