Remove Red Tape

Water & Marine: Flood and coastal erosion

These regulations cover flood and coastal erosion risk management. They include regulations relating to flood risk management, coastal protection, and reservoir safety. They also include regulations relating to land drainage.

We want to hear your views on how we could reduce regulatory burdens, and improve implementation of these regulations; to ensure that we can reduce the threat of flooding and coastal erosion in the most effective way. For example would it be useful to consolidate all of the requirements for the Flood and Water Management 2010 Act into one comprehensible, legal document?

Visit the Water and Marine theme landing page here.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

13 comments on “Water & Marine: Flood and coastal erosion”

1. Frances Bowler on April 11, 2012 at 3:22 pm said:

   The Land Drainage Act 1991 has been developed over many decades. It works in harmony with the Water Resources Act 1991 and the clauses in these Acts dovetail together to allow the legislation to be used to police the whole watercourse network. By the removal or altering of some of these clauses ie, Section 24, the Authority would lose their ability to enforce Section 23. Therefore we do not agree with any of the proposed changes to the LDA or the WRA.
   We would welcome an inclusive replacement under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 2nd Edition if it is thoroughly thought out and integrated, which for example would then allow Schedules such as 23 and 24 of the LDA and Schedule 109 of the WRA to simply state that “all persons shall require consent for introducing anything in, over, or below any water body otherwise enforcement action will be taken against them”.
2. John Barrett on March 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm said:

   The Environment Agency is cutting back on maintenance of river banks in rural areas. This is totally unaceptable and allows for flooding to occur in villages. If this does occur there will be a huge back lash against the EA and Government. All river banks must be maintained and indeed improved.
3. Bill Symons on March 27, 2012 at 9:53 am said:

   Internal Drainage Boards are required to advertise a number of administrative events to comply with the relevant acts. In my experience in recent years the cost of public announcements in the local press has increased. I would guess that a number of Acts have formal public advertising requirements which could possibly be delivered by alternative methods with new technology. A review of the formal advertising requirements and method of public communication for Internal Drainage Boards could make some savings.and cut down on red tape.
4. Peter Frew on March 23, 2012 at 10:05 am said:

   The Coast Protection Act 1949 is the relevant piece of legislation. It is simple and straight forward and does not need amending. It gives powers to local authorities to undertake coast protection works and it gives powers to governemt to grant aid such works. However the buraucracy the Environment Agency has put in place to exercise its delegated powers (the Strategic Overview) are excessive. Their processes and procedures are in urgent need of simplification. The forms are badly formatted, their financial approvals procedures are long winded and cumbersome and lead to considerable delays when taking forward capital schemes.
   On the environmental consent aspect, they appear to duplicate much of what is undertaken by Natural England.Comment Tags: Coast protection, Environment Agency bureaucracy
5. Bill Symons on March 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm said:

   Red Tape Challenge – Water and Marine Theme – Flood and Coastal Defence Funding

   Defra and the Environment Agency have recently introduced partnership working. As an example, in the Yorkshire Region of the Agency this feeds from four partnering areas up into the new Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC).

   This approach is tied in with the introduction of a new capital funding system for the National Flood (FDGIA), which is administered by the Environment Agency. The new funding and partnering arrangements seek to encourage funding from other sources along with prioritising future schemes on a local basis. Schemes of varying priority rankings obtain differing FDGIA contributions to the overall work. The fundamental objective is that national funds of flood defence capital works will be augmented with further funds both public and private so the national investment is increased.

   At the current time the Environment Agency appears to be the main beneficiary of FDGIA revenue funding and I am asking why a similar approach for revenue cannot be taken as capital. Internal Drainage Boards as an example pay a precept (Water Resources Act Section 139) as a contribution to the Agency to conduct maintenance works of varying national priority. This system if expanded and run more effectively between partners might achieve far greater expenditure for the national revenue because of additional contributions. This approach also could possibly give greater savings in procurement because of the skills resources and expertise of the partners directing the investment.Comment Tags: FDGIA, funding
6. Roger Thomas on March 14, 2012 at 5:15 pm said:

   Unless there is more direct contact between Local Authority officers responsible for implementing policy and officers of DEFRA and EA we will end up going round in circles. There is a great deal of expertise amongst LA officers that is untapped and unheard.
   More contact between all these officers would show real partnership. DEFRA and the EA do not really understand the breadth and depth of the financial strains LA officers work under. Visit the LA’s and have real conversations.
   We are not listening to voices you have to face the real battles everyday.Comment Tags: Real partnership
7. John O'Flynn on March 7, 2012 at 2:29 pm said:

   The Government’s attitude to funding the reduction of flood and coastal erosion is flawed and short sighted. Works delivered by Local Authorities and the EA provide a return on investment of 8 to 1. Compared with HS2, that has a return below 2, it just doesn’t make sense to under invest in Flood and erosion activities. In addition, the EA’s Long Term Investment Strategy clearly identified the need to increase investment, just to maintain the current standards in the face of climate change. Identifying efficiencies will not meet the shortfall. The Stern Report is also clear that proactive investment delivers substantial benefits against reactive clear ups.Comment Tags: Flood and Coastal Erosion
   • Peter Hebard on March 8, 2012 at 9:05 am said:

     On a similar point, a recent EU project has revealed that the cost/hectare of Managed Retreat projects in the UK, corrected for inflation, has risen from £7000 to £47000 in 20 years, largely because the increasingly costly regulatory requirements and over-engineering in response. Furthermore, 54% of that is now in compensation for habitat lost to coastal squeeze and funded by the Taxpayer to meet EU regulatory requirements. With sea level rise and coastal erosion accelerating, the scale of such projects is accelerating rapidly too. However, they offer no net gain in habitat, neither do they provide any reduction in flood or erosion risk or economic benefit to local communities.

     Only 33% is directed to flood or coastal erosion risk management and the more obvious and cost-effective measures are not being pursued. For example, no one is even investigating known ways used elsewhere in the world to return all maintenance dredgings to coastal saltmarshes, apart from token amounts. This would not only slow the rate of erosion and reduce the dredging costs of dumping far offshore but, in turn, it would reduce the need for compensatory habitat creation in the first place.

     The vast majority is dumped offshore, whereas it perfectly possible to use cost -negative nearshore direct dumping and harness waves and natural processes to carry the sediment back in, as they do else where in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere. However, this apparently not permissible under the Habitat regulations, as you cannot quantify the beneficial effect precisely, regulatory requirement, even though it would obviously be much than the token amount achievable by pumping, the only method that can be quantified but which is too slow and costly to be used for all.

     The collective impact of all these regulatory interpretations is such that the proportion of EA’s budget remaining for genuine flood and coast risk management for property, businesses and people is very seriously depleted.

     Equally in another example the premature devaluation of threatened real estate caused by the publication of Flood and Coastal Erosion risk maps precludes many property owners from getting together and raising the finance to defend their own local community or coastline. Conversely, in the Southern Hemisphere the practice is only to inform those directly affected confidentially and encourage them to manage their own risk collectively, often by more innovative and cost effective ways that provide a wide range of secondary benefits. As a result in one example they found the every dollar spent on the beach returned 50 dollars back into the local economy. They do not have the same insurance blight problems either.Comment Tags: dredging Ris, Erosion risk, Flood, Managed Retreat
8. peter Stewart on February 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm said:

   Flooding – Defra grants. FDGiA
   An example of how the recent change in grant aid will adversely affect most planned flood protection schemes.
   Exeter City has some 4000 properties & businesses at risk of flooding from any event grater than a 1 in 40 return period. The EA has put forward a scheme which will cost circa £25 million, which requires a partnership contribution of of £12 million. Such an amount in times of austerity and unilateral cutting of local authority budgets does not provide much scope for finding the required funding to keep any such scheme on programme. This effectively defeats the national object of getting properties adequately protected from flooding to ensure the insurance industry will maintain appropriate flood cover to properties known to be at significant risk or greater.
   Inevitably this sudden change of funding will cause delays to the majority of flood schemes and inturn will lead to an immediate shortfall in the number of properties expected by the insurance to be protected. No doubt this will also be reflected in an underspend of the governments budget for flooding in the next couple of years.

   In between time, those areas at risk will have to run the risk of being flooded and hope the insurance industry does’nt withdraws its cover for flooding from 2013.
   The ironic thing is, that should a flood occur then the householders and businesses can then apply for property protection grants currently available at £4250 per property, (with any balance being paid by the individual householder).
   In Exeter this would amount to some £17 million which the government would have to pay over a number of years.
   Surely this amount should become the minimum amount of grant on offer to suitable flood scheme as it only offers a low level of protection and is, in comparison to an appropriate flood scheme, not good value for money.
   What makes this even more rediculous is that the local council does not have to pay any contribution towards the property protection grants, so this makes the alternative funding mechanism effectively fundamentally flawed and not thought through in terms of strategy.
   Some one needs to be aware that the number of flood schemes will now dematically deminish or at best be deferred awaiting funding. This than may well lead to an increase in the number of properties being flooded and possibly the withdrawl of insurance cover from 2013. This would mean that the current national cover will fall inline with the rest of Europe. i.e. no flood cover. Exactly what the insurance industry would prefer.
   I would suggest the measured outcome benefits for a scheme should be at least equivalent to the level of funding which would be required for installing property protection measures on all properties at risk.
   To assit with an affordable strategy, the Councils should be allowed to borrow the money at low cost, or aternatively, be able to legal charges against all properties that benefit from such a scheme.
   [Deleted Text]Comment Tags: DEFRA grants
9. Peter Hebard on February 19, 2012 at 6:09 pm said:

   The following is an extract from presentations on how to deliver Integrated Environmental and Economic Management of our Marine and Coastal Zone as presented to Littoral 2010, Coastal Futures 2011 and a paper submitted to the ICE’s Coastal Management Conference by the undersigned and associates, all of which contain supporting illustrative examples.

   The principles therein also apply to the provision of flood protection inland and to every other sub-heading of this Marine and Water consultation, as the key is to include them all in developing mutually beneficial strategies.

   It is based on 40+ case studies around the UK and areas of the rest of the world, particularly those regions where regulation is less prevalent and pragmatic common sense to do what is best to sustain their coastal environment is the primary guiding principle. No sensible person could conceive of scrapping all Marine, Coastal, Flood and Water regulation, as asked at the outset of this consultation and since, I suspect, that was not the intention, this submission does not countenance it.

   Nonetheless, our rivers, coastlines and seas are the subject of an unprecedented increase in the overlying cobwebs of single-issue regulation and these are often administered by separate “Top-Down” government agencies with equally narrow responsibilities and outlook. Progress towards delivering the long-promised benefits of Integrated Coastal Zone Management has been painfully slow in the UK as a consequence.

   Furthermore, our Marine, Coastal and Estuarine environments face an increasingly wide range of challenges, many aggravated by human activity, as do those threatened by flood. Those challenges are fast overtaking us and regulatory protection is not enough. We need to do things differently, if we are to prevail, particularly in these times of financial restraint.

   Rather than rationalising regulation, much of which is dictated by EU and is enshrined in our own legislation, most experts now recognise that what is needed is a change of mindset in our approach to regulation, which this submission seeks to outline.

   The Opportunities

   Coastal Economies can sometimes become depressed but they can be regenerated far faster than their industrial counterparts and they can offer the growth potential we so urgently need. Sympathetically exploiting every aspect of marine resources and coastal assets can help to drive both Environmental and Economic regeneration and collaboration between stakeholders offers a far faster way to achieve recovery.

   Far from threatening the natural environment, the good husbandry to make our seas more productive can help to foster biodiversity too. Every human activity has an impact and by turning each from negative to positive is a powerful way to accelerate progress. Natural processes can also be harnessed to do what is needed in more benign and carbon efficient way.

   Many world-renowned experts are now highlighting the value of “eco-system services” of our marine and water environment. However, to realise that potential value requires an entirely different approach.

   Equally the real estate value of coastline and local areas threatened by flooding and coastal erosion, can help finance their protection, but the utmost discretion is required to ensure that value is not to be lost before it can be put to intelligent use.
   For example, whereas primary flood protection has been the responsibility of government, local collective measures to provide a second line of defence can be economically viable to small groups of property owners.

   Case studies around many UK coastal towns, harbours and further offshore have highlighted that many of the most pressing environmental and economic problems can be addressed simultaneously by more holistic approaches that deliver multiple benefits and can attract multiple sources of funding.

   Empowering Local Communities

   The Coalition’s focus on localism, “bottom-up” community-led strategies, rationalisation of agencies/quangos and, particularly, this initiative of reducing Red Tape, could offer a new way forward and the recently announced Coastal Communities and Catchment Restoration Funds provide ideal opportunities to demonstrate the benefits of allowing local Communities to develop their own integrated strategies and to pilot the more innovative technologies that can better address their wide-ranging environmental concerns.

   The Economy of such Coastal Communities is founded on their Environment, and empowering them to take control of its sympathetic and proactive management can deliver far more effective results, as further case studies around the world, particularly in the Southern hemisphere, have shown.

   DEFRA’s “Market Town Health Checks” piloted some years ago, provide the ideal mechanism for such communities to develop their own Action Plans, possibly under their Coastal or Local Enterprise Partnerships, led by local volunteers drawn from community and business leaders and in collaboration with local authorities. Dorset Coastal Forum and Suffolk Coastal Futures took a similar approach.

   Such pilots frequently found that the same solution could often address a several unrelated problems and opportunities, and be directed to offering yet more secondary benefits. (For example, a simple cost negative plan to return dredgings to saltmarshes, rather than dumping at sea, offered no less that eleven important additional benefits to every sector with an interest in the waterfront.) But for the regulatory hurdles, local stakeholders and community groups are often prepared to take such initiative forward from their own resources, at little or no cost to the Taxpayer.

   The Balanced Seas and the other similar Local Stakeholder Working Groups which helped recommend MCZs, and the recent Coastal Pathfinders set up to communicate the consequences of climate change, both revealed an enthusiasm for local communities to take control of their own destiny. They provide ready-made caucus of informed and interested parties to get such an initiative off the ground.

   Our regulatory and environmental research agencies have a wealth of expertise and switching their resources to providing constructive advice to such local groups and spreading best practice, rather than devoting their time to enforcing “tick box” regulation, often irrelevant to the locality, could make far better use of their resources.

   Equally since several agencies – for example Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Marine Management Organisation – are frequently legally required to be involved on the same project, each has to retain their own advisory consultancy, as does the applicant, and the cost of the paperwork can easily exceed that of the remedial work required.

   Moreover, since the responsibilities of each agency are very narrowly defined by law, they are frequently unable to consider any pragmatic all-embracing strategy, irrespective of the fact that it might be obvious common sense to the community and can be seen to offer them far wider benefits.

   Rationalising the Regulators

   The regulations may be difficult to rationalise but rationalising the regulators, such that the remaining few have far wider responsibilities, would enable them to take a more holistic overview of all relevant regulations. It would also reduce demand on Civil Servants, their retained consultants and every level of government.

   As a first stage, it would make eminent sense to merge Natural England and the Environment Agency, delegating much their role to local authority coastal management partnerships or possibly sharing local staff, whilst relying upon the remaining central staff for fundamental research into best practice and more innovative approaches.

   Equally, the Marine Management Organisation, which has the widest brief and is working hard to become self-funding, could absorb the IFCAs and merge their local offices to regulate fishing both inshore and offshore. Their local knowledge could be key to developing more pragmatic licensing solutions and more widely beneficial marine plans.

   A Far More Effective Approach to Environmental Risk Management

   Whereas the “Precautionary Principle” has its merits and may be required by EU law, it has come under fire in many sectors recently (by Cancer Research for example) with good reason, as it can inhibit more pragmatic action and stifle innovation, possibly partly because it is not in the best interest of Civil Servant’s career or that of his advisors to say “yes,” without other provisos.These add considerably to project costs and impose delays without necessarily reducing risk.

   Bench-marking against other sectors that manage far more challenging environmental and other risks, reveals that commercial risk management techniques, focused on developing action plans to address every real and known risk, are far more effective and have been proven to be reliable over many decades.

   In such sectors, it has long since been recognised that it is essential for those responsible for doing the work to have their own in-house expertise and risk management, as both the Quality Management Standard ISO 9001 and Environmental Management ISO 14001 demand. If not, they must retain a consultant capable of certifying to customers and third parties that they have met all the required standards and regulations. Irrespective, Directors can now be criminally liable for any failure, a far more effective way of ensuring compliance and managing risk.

   Asking central government agencies to oversee specialised projects, in a locality they may not be that familiar with, does little to further minimise risk.

   To Sum up

   As a Turnaround Manager of Technology-led companies for over twenty years, whilst also serving in a voluntary capacity on coastal projects, I had always been struck by the marked difference between Coastal Risk Management practice and those used by my primary Engineering profession. Independently, my prime associate, a practicing Risk Manager of Civil Engineering and Environmental Projects, had reached the same conclusion.

   The 40 + Case Studies used as the basis for the above, many of which have been re-examined hypothetically to assess the benefits of this approach, show that the results could surpass all expectations, accelerating the proactive measures needed, whilst offering major savings and wider economic benefits to both the public and private sector.

   Above all, simply by implementing all their avowed policies, the government could provide the catalyst for major Environmental and Economic regeneration, whilst offering major savings to the Taxpayer, albeit it may require a significant change in mindset to make it happen.

   Comment Tags: Coastal, England, environment agency, Flood, ICZM, Localism, Marine, Marine Management Organisationan, natural, Risk Management
   • Trudi Wakelin on March 22, 2012 at 5:31 pm said:

     I can only support this view. Too often projects are developed in isolation, responding to a single driver, which is encouraged by the way in which regulations are arrranged. A more holistic approach, where regulation provides a supportive approach to seek net benefits within an integrated approach would ultimately deliver more for the tax payer. However, this approach often fails ebcause of the inherent impossibility of regulators to see beyond the immediate boundaries of a set of regulations. Examples of beneficial reuse of dredged material are a prime example – where Government policy is to encourage recycling, Habs Regs may require us to restore a nutrient rich water body but NVZ’s preclude the spreading onto adjacent agricultual land – despite there being a net benefit when the project is considered as a whole.
10. Patrick Webster on February 19, 2012 at 5:45 pm said:

    The EA has produced a flood risk map for the UK and it shows that we are at risk to flooding due to fast flowing New Forest Streams and overflowing Blashford Lakes.However,when we ask for trees to be coppiced to reduce the risk of debris dams forming causing local properties to flood,we are told that conservationists would not like trees to be felled.Surely coppicing of trees is highly beneficial for wildlife and should be encouragedComment Tags: Dockens Water, New Forest
11. Melvin Wood on February 18, 2012 at 11:00 pm said:

    The Environment Agency, Local Authorities, Internal Drainage Boards, Water Companies, Highways Agency and Utility Companies all have a part to play in flood risk management. The legislation should simply set out what each competent authority is doing. The system is going well at the moment with the EA having the overview and the others having their part to play. I would suggest the others need to catch up to where the EA is and perhaps the EA could act as it does with water companies in naming and shaming the bad and praising the good (either Defra or EA should do enforcement if no action). LA’s have greater pressures than flood risk management to worry about and need regulation to force them to act. IDB’s still have a heavy agricultural bias and need regulation to force them to act. Other bodies are often only forced to act because of the threat of prosecution!! Such is human nature. Simply state what each body is doing and give somebody the teeth to enforce if not complied with. Keep the regulations for riparian river bank owners and include culvert ownership as well. Keep the EA and others with permissive powers onlty as to make EA statutorily liable for flood and coastal risk management is untenable.Comment Tags: flood risk management