Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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 -