1
2 SECURITY MARKING: PROTECTMANAGEMENT - PROTECT Regional Flood and Coastal Committees Paul Hayden Chair Anglia (Eastern) Regional Flood & Coastal Committee
3 Issues Arising for RFCC?How do we satisfy ourselves that there are coherent plans in place across stakeholders? How do we ensure efficient, targeted and risk-based investment? Are we doing enough to provide a link between the Environment Agency, LLFAs, other risk management authorities, and other relevant bodies and stakeholders to engender mutual understanding?
4 Overview for Session Reminder of the current structures and why they were formed as they are? Proposals on how we can we work together locally to make communities safer?
5 Reminder of the current structures and why they were formed as they are?
6 2007 – Floods / Chaos and Reaction25th June major flooding hits Sheffield, Humberside and the north. 21st July, major flooding hits Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and the south. 9th November East Coast Surge. 13 deaths, 7000 rescues, chaotic response shown live on 24/7 rolling news Institutionalised Confusion – multiple bodies owning a part of the solution, each acting diligently in isolation but no clarity over who should do what!
7 2007 Floods and Pitt Review Sir Michael Pitt appointed to lead a cross- government review into all aspects of flood risk (erosion not included at that time) The review was very politically sensitive, Sir Michael took a “Citizen-centric” approach Led to fundamental changes in legislation and structures that we are still implementing today
8 2007 Structures – “Pre-Pitt”Main focus for EA was on “building defences” and spending national (Westminster) money. Schemes either fully (nationally) funded by EA or received no funding at all Main focus for local groups was minor funding for local / minor schemes, and to comment on (rubber stamp) EA Plans Many local bodies own part of the problem, but no single authority had overall leadership
9 Sir Michael Pitt’s ReviewReview contained 92 recommendations addressed to the Government, local authorities, Local Resilience Forums, providers of essential services, insurers and others, including the general public. Government accepted all recommendations and committed to their implementation.
10 Pitt’s RecommendationsSir Michael rightly put the needs of ordinary people at the heart of his Review. It identified six themes for action: Knowing when and where it will flood; Improved planning and reducing the risk of flooding and its impact; Being rescued and cared for in an emergency; Maintaining power and water supplies and protecting essential services; Better advice and helping people to protect their families and homes; and Staying healthy and speeding up recovery
11 Pitt’s Recommendations on local flood structuresRecommendation 14 - Local authorities should lead on the management of local flood risk, with the support of the relevant organisations. Creation of Lead Local Flood Authorities – County and Unitary Authorities Creation of Regional Flood and Coastal Committees with devolved decision making authority over EA plans and spending – with majority of members appointed by LLFA’s
12 The “Post Pitt” Revolution Continues today
13 Flood and Coastal Structures
14 2017 Gov’t Response to EFRA ReviewWe do not agree that there is a need for substantial change to the existing national and local governance provisions for flood risk management It is true that many different public and private bodies are involved in flood and coastal erosion risk management. This will always be the case as flooding has impacts for many aspects of daily life (property, business, health, transport, utilities, environment and more).
15 2017 Gov’t Response to EFRA ReviewRegional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) play an important role in ensuring that there are coherent plans for identifying, communicating and managing flood and coastal erosion risks across catchments and shorelines; and promoting efficient, locally targeted and risk-based investment of nationally and locally raised income. They are mandated to hold the Environment Agency and other Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) to account on behalf of the communities they represent.
16 what do RFCC’s do?
17 Roles and Responsibilities of RFCCsLocal “Flood Committees” nothing new, Role of RFCC’s similar to previous Committees However, when created, RFCC’s were given a number of new statutory duties and devolved decision making responsibilities So, RFCC’s look familiar but have a very different role to previous / historic committees.
18 RFCC Purpose To ensure there are coherent plans for identifying, communicating and managing flood and coastal erosion risks across catchments and shorelines; To promote efficient, targeted and risk-based investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management that optimises value for money and benefits for local communities; To provide a link between the Environment Agency, LLFAs, other risk management authorities, and other relevant bodies to engender mutual understanding
19 RFCC Statutory FunctionsSection 23 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires the Environment Agency to: Consult with each RFCC about the way it proposes to carry out its flood and coastal erosion risk management functions in the Committee’s region (s23(1)(a)). Take into account representations made by the Committee about the exercise of its flood and coastal erosion risk management functions in the Committee’s region (s23(1)(b))
20 RFCC Statutory FunctionsEA must obtain the consent of the RFCC: Before it can implement its regional programme for the Committee’s region (s23(2)). Before it can issue a levy under Section 17 of the Act (s23(3)) To the spending of revenue under Section 118 of the Water Resources Act in the region where the revenue is raised (s23(4)).
21 Additional Considerations for RFCCSupport the delivery of Government flood and coastal erosion risk management policy and strategy, taking into account Defra and Agency guidance; Support the Agency in its strategic overview role by providing a link between national and local flood and coastal erosion risk management and in assisting LLFAs in the development of their Local Flood Risk Management Strategies;
22 Additional Considerations For RFCCReview LLFA outputs and other current requirements imposed on LLFAs by legislation and guidance; Review and endorse Catchment Flood Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans; Review and endorse medium and long term business plans for its region.
23 RFCC Constitution
24 Reg 6.—(1) The composition of a Regional Flood and Coastal CommitteeMajority of the RFCC’s Members appointed directly by LLFA’s. Only those Members appointed by LLFA’s can vote on setting of a Local Levy charged on LLFA’s. Remaining (minority) of RFCC Members appointed by the EA. Independent Chair appointed by the Minister after National Advertisement and full Public Appointments Process All RFCC members are local people with local knowledge, contacts and experience
25 RFCC Anglia (Eastern) The Anglian Eastern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) is responsible for overseeing the management of coastal and fluvial flood risks in an area of over 9,000km² from the north banks of the Thames Estuary to Hunstanton on the North Norfolk Coast, and as far inland as Fakenham.
26 RFCC Anglia (Eastern) Over 4,000 flood defence assets are in place to help protect 84,269 properties and 384,785Ha of registered agricultural land at flood risk across the Anglian Eastern RFCC. Anglian (Eastern) has nearly 8000km of sea wall to help defend those areas at risk of tidal flooding. In addition to the properties at risk of fluvial and tidal flooding, there are 122,700 properties which are vulnerable to surface water flooding. Anglian Eastern is highly susceptible to coastal erosion. For example, 54% of the Suffolk coast is eroding, making it one of the fastest eroding coastlines in Europe.
27 RFCC Principles and PrioritiesRFCC has established a number of principles and strategic priorities to ensure its work delivers maximum benefit for the investment available. Some local funding used to support major schemes. We generally leverage in £8 – £17 of national funding for each £1 of local money we invest. We invest in “pump priming” to ensure we have a healthy pipeline of local works and future projects for national funding
28 RFCC Principles and PrioritiesWe invest local money to support community level schemes that may never qualify for national funding, but are nevertheless important to local communities. We use local funding to support “invest to save” initiatives and capacity building to help local authorities draw down national funding We keep a small proportion of local funding to allocate in year to any urgent works or priorities
29 Looking to the Future How can we work together locally to make communities safer?
30 Local People / Local ChoicesRFCC already has links into communities, both through their elected representatives and RFCC Members drawn from the local community. RFCC also interacts with all of the major local FCERM stakeholders through the various partnership groups and strategic forums established by LLFA’s. HOWEVER – we know there is more to do – you can help.
31 RFCC’s Ambition Long term strategic plan for investment taking account of all partners needs and plans. System for reassuring ourselves that there are coherent pans in place across all agencies More transparent links between RFCC and partners and stakeholders and clarity about how plans are made and finance allocated
32 Where are we now? Local Plans Community level District CouncilLocal Partners (IDB etc) LRF – Emergency Flood Plans General partner and stakeholder plans LLFA Brings together local partners and stakeholders and produces local plan Note: Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex have LLFA level Flood Partnership Groups “varying degrees of maturity” Environment Agency RFCC Shapes and approves EA Plans, taking into account requirements of LLFA and Strategic Stakeholders – LEP etc.
33 Challenges? Lots of plans, but difficult to identify gaps, coordinate and prioritise spending, or provide strategic focus? Many stakeholders remain unaware of the RFCC role or how we might assist them? EA/RFCC plans might not be fully aligned with partners, limiting opportunities for cost saving?
34 EA / RFCC Planning? Objective How Outcome Community InputStatutory Partner Input Future Opportunities Ensure Communities can input to RFCC Plans and are updated regularly Direct engagement with key stakeholders, attendance at meetings, annual RFCC event RFCC is aware of community stakeholder views and suggestions, and incorporates them into plans to improve outcomes or reduce costs Incorporate local partner requirements into EA / RFCC plans, identify opportunities for efficiencies and joint working Annual planning cycle and engagement with LLFA’s and other risk management authorities leading to annual RFCC “Local Choices” review. Costs for flood and coastal protection minimised, positive impact and multiple benefits maximised. Opportunities for partnership are identified early, projects designed to deliver multiple benefits. Production of a 10yr forward look, capturing all risks and partner plans. Improved engagement and strategic planning involving all stakeholders EA / RFCC investment delivers maximum benefit for minimum cost and supports multiple local priorities Objective How Outcome
35 What Can You Do to Help? Share your comments, experience and suggestions – todays engagement is just a start, contact the RFCC and / or its local members at any time and we will repeat this engagement event / process annually. Find out what you can do to make a difference at a local level – reducing risk is about much more than simply “building defences” or spending money. Consider joining RFCC in the future – all vacancies are advertised widely