Thames Regional Flood and Coastal

Committee

Main Committee meeting

Thursday 17th October, 10.30am – 1pm

Address: London Councils, 59½ Southwark

Street London SE1 0AL

1

Cover photo Millbrook floodplain restoration

2

Contents

Item No. Item

Item 1. Partnership Funding for the Future Flood and Coastal Erosion

Investment

Item 2. Programme Item including in-year, indicative allocation and local

choices. Levy setting vote for 2020/21 will come within this

programme item

Item 3. Future levy strategy and RFCC 25 year approach

Item 4. RFCC Progress Questionnaire

Item 5. The Future of the Thames Flood Advisors

Item 6. River Basin Management Plan consultation and engagement

Item 7. Surface water management and Drainage Water Management Plans

Item 8. Key Issues Report

3

Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

London Councils, 59½ Southwark Street London SE1 0AL Thursday 17th October 10.30 – 1pm

Time Agenda Item and Objective Lead and Paper

references Decision

Required? Notes to support members with their understanding of

RFCC business 10.30 (10 mins)

1. Welcome and introductions Robert Van de Noort N At full RFCC meetings, elected and independent members have a seat at the table along with a number of staff from the Environment Agency (EA) including Area Flood Risk Managers, Area Directors and the Programme Managers. Presenters may also sit at the table. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and EA Officers sit around the outside of the table as observers and will only contribute if invited to do so by the Chair or another member. It would be helpful when you introduce yourself at the start of the meeting if you could also mention the partnership you represent.

10.40 (20 mins)

2. Progress Updates: - Chairman’s Announcements, - Environment Agency

Update from Area Director - Thames Water - Lead Local Flood Authorities

(LLFAs) 2 elected members will provide updates for their partnerships at each meeting (agreed in advance)

Robert Van de Noort, Simon

Moody, Lawrence Gosden

Cllr Walsh and Cllr Neden-Watts

N This is a standing item on the agenda where members are updated on items of note from the Chair and each of the key Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) in Thames. There will be an opportunity to ask questions or discuss issues but this is usually fairly brief. Given the number of Lead Local Flood Authorities in the Thames RFCC Area (54), members represent groups of authorities based around 13 Strategic Partnership areas. For each meeting 1 or 2 elected members from London and outside London will be asked to provide a short update highlighting a success and a risk from across their partnership area from the last quarter. Members should be briefed in advance by their LLFA officer. We are preparing a rota for members to provide their updates. For this meeting we have asked Cllr Walsh and Cllr Neden-Watts to provide updates on their partnerships.

FOR APPROVAL 11.00 (20 mins)

3. Partnership Funding for the Future Flood and Coastal Erosion Investment Programme Aim

Note the progress in preparing a case for a future capital programme.

Members are asked to

Sarah Smith The Environment Agency and Defra have been preparing proposals for a future FCERM investment programme beyond 2021. This will inform government decisions on the nature of the investment programme. The Environment Agency are now seeking RFCC views on a number of proposed amendments to the current partnership funding rules. The Environment Agency and

4

Note the progress in preparing a case for a future capital programme.

Note that outcomes from a future investment programme will be dependent on amending the Partnership Funding rules, including those coming into operation in April 2021.

Provide support and views on a number of potential Partnership Funding rule amendments being considered by Defra and the Environment Agency.

Defra will take these views into account when deciding on the approach to a new investment programme. Subject to decisions by government on the nature of the future investment programme and Defra’s associated funding policy, these could be implemented from the start of the next programme in 2021.

11.20 (45 mins)

4. Programme Item including in-year,indicative allocation and local choices. Levy setting vote for 2020/21 will come within this programme item Aim

To update members on current programme progress, consent the allocation from the latest programme refresh, including levy use and revenue

Members are asked to approve in year levy requests discuss the indicative allocation and

approve local choices vote on levy setting for 2020/21

Richard Oakes, Carol Ward, Sara

Robinson and Sarah Smith

Y Each RFCC meeting includes a programme item as this is one of the most important aspects of the committee. We provide an in-year progress update at each meeting. We describe how the Risk Management Authorities are performing in terms of spend on projects and the number of houses that are better protected as a result of completed flood schemes. We also discuss programme risks, slippage and any opportunities to bring projects forward. RFCCs have an important role in considering and approving the capital and revenue programme. More information about the annual programme cycle and what members are asked to approve at each meeting is included in the pack of papers At this particular meeting members will be asked to approve in year levy requests, discuss the indicative allocation and approve local choices, and vote on levy setting for 2020/21

12.05 (20 mins)

5. Future levy strategy and RFCC 25 year approach Aim

Introduce members to the future levy strategy post 2021 and potential to update the Thames RFCC 25 year vision.

Members are asked to Note and endorse the

recommendations of subcommittee Discuss future levy setting strategy Volunteer to participate in planning

group for workshops

Sarah Smith and Robert Van de Noort

Y Next year is the end of the first 6-year programme and this item will be an update and discussion to explore our aspirations beyond 2021. We will consider our future levy strategy (including raising of levy and a further potential rolling agreement), updating the 25 year vision and reviewing our levy principles. We will be asking for volunteers to support this work.

5

FOR ADVICE 12.25 (15 mins)

6. RFCC Progress QuestionnaireAim

To update members on LLFA progress

Members are asked to Note the information Discuss engagement with strategic

partnerships

Andy Sparks and Siu Fa Ng (from

London Borough of Lewisham)

N This item will summarise the results of the 2019 Thames RFCC Questionnaire. This annual survey of LLFAs provides an update on their progress in delivering the capital programme and their strategic partnerships. This item will also cover the results of the questions about the Thames Flood Advisors team.

12.40 (15 mins)

7. The Future of the Thames Flood AdvisorsAim

Provide initial options for members to consider on the future of the Advisors post 2021.

Members are asked to Consider the options and agree

options for further investigation.

Sarah Smith N The 12 advisors were recruited in 2016, funded by Thames RFCC local levy to support LLFAs deliver capital projects, support pipeline development and build capability. The advisors are funded until March 2021. This item will consider what options the committee wish us to explore in more detail for the future of the team.

FOR INFORMATION 12.55 (no time allotted)

8. River Basin Management Plan consultation and engagement Aim

Update members on the consultation Members are asked to

Note the update

Information only, no discussion

N River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) were first produced in 2009 and are reviewed and updated every six years. As part of the review and update of the third cycle of the RBMPs, the Environment Agency are launching a consultation in October seeking everyone’s views on the challenges our waters face and the choices we all need to make to improve or maintain this precious resource.

12.55 (no time allotted)

9. Surface water management and Drainage Water Management Plans Aim

Update members on the plans and how members can promote them to their organisations.

Members are asked to Note the update and promote where

possible Give consideration of the future role

of flood advisors in DWMP stakeholder engagement

Yvette de Garis N Thames Water will provide an update on surface water management and Drainage Water Management Plans, including circulating the recently completed industry working together guidance. This note will be referred to in Thames Water’s progress update during item 2 in the agenda.

6

12.55 (no time allotted)

10. Key Issues Report Aim

Members are made aware of key national and local progress and issues

Members are asked to Note the update Encourage officers to contribute to

future reports

Information only, no discussion

N The key issues paper provides members with useful information/updates/links on both local and national flood risk management related items. This paper is always included in the pack and parts of it are often referred to during the progress updates item at the start of the meeting. We invite all LLFAs to contribute as well as local Environment Agency teams and members.

12.55 (2 mins)

11. Approval of Minutes Aim

Minutes are approved Members are asked to

Read the draft minutes from main committee on the 10th July and the subcommittee minutes from the 1st October in advance and notify the secretariat of any changes that need to be made.

Robert Van de Noort Y Minutes are generally circulated a few weeks after each meeting and are then included in the pack of papers for approval at the next meeting. Members will be asked to approve the minutes from the 10th July.

12.57 (1 min)

12. Forward Look Aim

Members help shape future agendas and are aware of forthcoming dates

Members are asked to Request items they would like

included in future RFCC meetings. Note the dates and locations of future

meetings.

Robert Van de Noort

N We want members to help shape future agendas with items of interest to them. We also use this item to update on any forthcoming meetings/events that members can attend.

12.58 (2 mins)

13. AOB and close Robert Van de Noort N

Next meeting: TRFCC Subcommittee – Tuesday 14 January, London Councils, London TRFCC Main Committee – Friday 24 January, London Councils, London

7

RFCCpurposes,statutoryfunctionsandProceedingsThames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) members are reminded of the RFCC purposes, and the expectations of RFCCs based on the statutory functions in the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act. In particular, members are asked to note Part 6 of the 2011 regulations covering the proceedings of RFCCs relating to Quorum and Voting procedure (shown below) and the requirement in Defra advice for LLFA members to be informed by discussion before consenting to a levy. RFCC purposes The RFCC brings together members appointed by Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and independent members with relevant experience:

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 of flood and coastal erosion risks in its area

Expectations of RFCCs (Defra advice on how to approach the statutory functions in the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act) The RFCC will be expected to:

engage constructively with, and offer advice to, the Agency having developed its own view as to the flood and coastal erosion risk management needs within its region informed by local knowledge, contacts with other risk management authorities and engagement with risk management planning;

consider the balance between the different types of risk that need to be managed with the limited resources available and strike an appropriate balance between local risk management needs and those of wider catchment interests;

scrutinise and consent to the Agency’s regional programme in respect of flooding and coastal erosion in its region considering the programme as a whole taking appropriate account of local risks;

LLFA members of the RFCC, when consenting to a levy on LLFAs in the Committee’s region, will be expected to take into account the impact of the levy on risk management activity in the region and be informed by discussion between the Committee and the Agency regarding proposals for work and the funding needed. In the event that there are elements of the regional programme that are not agreed, consent may be given for parts of the programme, where this is not contentious, allowing further discussion and investigation of those elements that are not agreed to the point where consent can be given. S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2011 No. 695 COAST PROTECTION, ENGLAND AND WALES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENGLAND AND WALES FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, ENGLAND AND WALES WATER INDUSTRY, ENGLAND AND WALES

8

The Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 PART 6 Proceedings of Regional Flood and Coastal Committees Interpretation 24. In this Part, “member” includes a person acting as the deputy of that member. Quorum and consents 25.—(1) The quorum for any meeting of a Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is the majority of the total number of members of the Committee. (2) A consent given for the purpose of section 23(2), (3) or (4) of the 2010 Act may only be given at a meeting of a Committee. (3) For the purpose of section 23(2) of the 2010 Act, a Committee consents to the implementation of the regional programme if the majority of the members present at the meeting are in favour. (4) For the purpose of section 23(3) of the 2010 Act, a Committee consents to the issue of a levy if a majority of the members who are entitled to vote are present at the meeting and are in favour. (5) For the purpose of section 23(4) of the 2010 Act(5), a Committee consents to the spending of revenue under section 118 of the 1991 Act if the majority of the members present at the meeting are in favour. Voting procedure 26.—(1) Each member of a Regional Flood and Coastal Committee who is entitled to vote has one vote. (2) A member who is entitled to vote may only vote if present at a meeting of the Committee. (3) For the purpose of section 23(3) of the 2010 Act, only members appointed to a Committee under regulation 6(1)(b) are entitled to vote on a motion that the Committee consent to the issue of a levy. (4) If there is a tied vote on any motion other than a motion that the Committee consent to the issue of a levy, the chair of the Committee has a casting vote. This means a quorum for a Thames RFCC meeting will be 13 members when all vacancies are filled. Only a full RFCC meeting can approve the regional programme. Any business conducted by the Programme Sub Committee must be endorsed by the full Committee. To set the levy, at least 7 LLFA members must be present and all support the levy  

9

10

Item 3

Appendix: Further details of the proposed Partnership Funding amendments

Paper by: Director of Strategy and National Adaptation, Environment Agency & Deputy Director of Floods, Defra Subject: Partnership Funding for the Future Flood and Coastal Erosion Investment Programme

Recommendations The RFCC is asked to: 1. Note the progress in preparing a case for a future Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) capital programme. 2. Note that outcomes from a future investment programme will be dependent on amending the Partnership Funding rules, including those coming into operation in April 2021. 3. Provide support and views on a number of potential Partnership Funding rule amendments being considered by Defra and the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency and Defra will take these views into account when deciding on the approach to a new investment programme.

1.0 Introduction 1.1 We have been enormously successful delivering the current Flood and

Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) investment programme (2015-2021). We are on course to better protect 300,000 homes from flooding, made possible by securing up to £600m of additional funding from partners (government departments and local contributors).

1.2 Over the past 18 months the Environment Agency and Defra have been preparing proposals for a future FCERM investment programme beyond 2021. This will inform government decisions on the nature of this investment programme. It will also inform any changes government wishes to make to the funding policy which guides the allocation of the Grant in Aid (GiA). During this time, we have also collected feedback from Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) on current Partnership Funding rules that define the maximum grant payment Government will contribute towards specified outcome measures.

1.3 Having delivered the most overwhelmingly cost beneficial schemes in the past few years, schemes in the future programme on average would require more contributions from others. Previous feedback from RFCC Chairs has been supportive in principle of updating payment rates. This feedback has highlighted the opportunity to reflect wider benefits that can be achieved through FCERM investments, such as safeguarding mental health, and the government’s wider objectives such as those in the 25 Year Environment Plan and Surface Water Management Action Plan.

11

Paper for: Comment

1.4 We are now seeking RFCC views on a number of proposed amendments to

the current rules. Subject to decisions by government on the nature of the future investment programme and Defra’s associated funding policy, these could be implemented from the start of the next programme in 2021 on the basis that they are relatively straightforward improvements to the existing Partnership Funding policy framework. Defra and the Environment Agency will take account of these views.

2.0 Proposed rule changes 2.1 Views are sought on four proposed amendments as soon as possible. These

are described in summary below, and will be presented in more detail during the meeting.

2.2 Payment rates would be updated and increased to take into account inflation

since 2011 when the policy was first introduced. They would also be amended to take account of the mental health impacts of flooding, which are currently poorly valued in flood risk appraisals and were not fully understood when the policy was agreed in 2011. This is supported by evidence from the Environment Agency and Public Health England that shows that mental health impacts are a major part of the householder experience of flooding.

2.3 An Intermediate Risk Band would be introduced to encourage schemes

(particularly surface water) that cannot currently achieve a high enough Standard of Protection to trigger a change to a lower likelihood of flooding category. This would be an amendment to the current risk bands and should help more surface water schemes progress.

2.4 Climate Change Impacts would be introduced to further reflect climate

change in the funding system, by recognising the benefit to households and properties that become “at risk” during the lifetime of schemes. Some schemes have a design life of 100 years. This amendment would account for the longer term impacts, better integrating climate change into our FCERM scheme appraisal.

2.5 Environmental Benefits / Outcome Measure 4 would amend the existing

environmental outcome measure to better account for the additional environmental benefits delivered by FCERM schemes rather than only focussing on statutory designated sites, like Sites of Special Scientific Interest. This amendment would encourage FCERM schemes to embed natural flood management and natural capital approaches and support the objectives of the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.

2.6 Based on engagement with RFCC chairs, we believe these changes would

result in an achievable partnership funding requirement in the next programme. Wider contributions to schemes will remain an important part of the funding policy based on the original principles. They would enable our future programme to contribute positively to a wider range of benefits from the FCERM investments made by the Environment Agency and other risk management authorities. They would also align to the ambitions of the draft FCERM Strategy due to be finalised at the end of this year following Ministerial approval.

12

Paper for: Comment

2.7 As part of the suite of funding improvements, Defra and the Environment Agency are also proposing to introduce an Asset Replacement Fund. This fund would pay more grant in aid for significant capital upgrades when assets have reached the need for replacement - where there is no realistic prospect of securing local contributions and these works have a high benefit-cost ratio. This would strengthen existing practice where the Environment Agency manages deteriorating assets by planning for their sustainable replacement before they require emergency works. The fund would be used as part of the existing Partnership Funding arrangements and would be subject to meeting eligibility criteria.

3.0 Implementation of rule amendments 3.1 Subject to feedback, and Ministerial approval, we propose to capture the data

necessary to implement the four rule amendments above, during the next capital programme refresh. This would require clear guidance and tools to be available to Environment Agency, other risk management authorities and suppliers by April 2020, in order to prepare for a new programme start in April 2021.

3.2 Subject to government decisions on the nature of the next investment

programme, Defra will need to update the overall Partnership Funding policy in advance of April 2021. Defra will work with the Environment Agency to determine how any further rule changes would be applied to the next programme.

4.0 Recommendations 4.1 The RFCC is asked to:

1. Note the progress in preparing a case for a future Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) capital programme. 2. Note that outcomes from a future investment programme will be dependent on amending the Partnership Funding rules, including those coming into operation in April 2021. 3. Provide support and views on a number of potential Partnership Funding rule amendments being considered by Defra and the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency and Defra will take these views into account when deciding on the approach to a new investment programme.

Author: Julie Foley and David Cooper Job title: Director Strategy & National Adaptation (EA), Deputy Director of Floods (Defra) Sponsor: Julie Foley, EA Date: 23 September 2019

13

Paper for: Comment

Appendix

Further details of the proposed Partnership Funding amendments The detail described here will be considered further as part of the overall development of the proposed changes – to inform a final decision.

1 Payment Rates & Damage Values The proposed amendments will reflect the updated benefits of investment and result in more grant funding being available to FCERM schemes. This will be a combination of increasing payment rates overall, and counting some benefits, particularly people-related benefits, at the higher household rate. This will reduce the partnership funding requirement for some projects. Outcome Measure 1 (OM1) focuses on the economic damages avoided and the benefits to businesses, commercial properties and infrastructure. The current payment rate is 5.56p per £ of benefit. The proposed amendment uses the latest evidence from the 2013/14 and 2015/16 floods on the distribution of flood impacts across different sectors. This will update the payment rate to 6p of Grant in Aid per £ of benefit. Outcome Measure 2 (OM2) focuses on the benefits to households better protected from flooding. The current payment rates ranges from 20p per £ of benefit (for the least deprived households) to 45p per £ of benefit (for the most deprived households). Outcome Measure 3 (OM3) focuses on benefits to households better protected from coastal erosion. The current payment rates ranges from 20p per £ of benefit (for the least deprived households) to 45p per £ of benefit (for the most deprived households). Under our proposals, payment thresholds in both OM2 and OM3 will be updated for inflation since 2011 in line with the HM Treasury recommended approach. The proposed amendment will update the definition of ‘household benefits’ (OM2) to include people-related benefits, notably recognising mental health impacts. The evidence for this amendment comes from research by the Environment Agency and Public Health England that unequivocally shows mental health impacts are a major part of the householder experience of flooding. The scale of household mental health impacts was unknown when the Partnership Funding policy was agreed in 2011. The proposed amendment will give mental health the same weighting in the funding formula as damages to buildings and contents and will be valued in line with number of households better protected from flooding. This amendment will significantly increase the total potential households protected in a future capital programme and increase average payments per scheme under OM2 by around 20%. 2 Intermediate Risk Band The current eligibility for GiA is dependent on a FCERM scheme demonstrating that they move households from one risk band to a lower one. The risk bands are based on protection against events of a given annual likelihood. The current and proposed risk bands are described in the table below.

14

Paper for: Comment

Currently, some schemes, particularly surface water schemes, cannot develop a deliverable option to reduce flood risk to moderate or low risk. This may be because highways or sewerage systems have a much lower capacity and would be very expensive to upgrade, or because there is an unrealistic partnership funding gap, that means a scheme will never progress. This proposal will introduce an additional risk band of 2% annual probability (1 in 50). This will mean schemes that cannot achieve a high enough standard of protection to move properties to the moderate risk band can still qualify for FCERM GiA. The existing moderate and significant risk bands will be adjusted as illustrated in the table below. Current Risk Bands

>0.5% AEP* 0.5% to 1.33% AEP 1.33% to 5% AEP <5% AEP >1:200 1:200 to 1:75 1:75 to 1:20 <1:20

low moderate significant very significant

Proposed Risk Bands

>0.5% AEP 0.5% to 1% AEP 1% to 2% AEP 2% to 5% AEP <5% AEP >1:200 1:200 to 1:100 1:100 to 1:50 1:50 to 1:20 <1:20

low moderate intermediate significant very significant

*AEP = Annual Exceedance Probability, the likelihood of flooding in any given year 3 Climate Change Impacts Over the lifetime of flood and coastal defence schemes, the underlying risk in terms of sea level, storminess, and peak river levels, will increase due to climate change. Without new schemes, some households currently considered at very low risk of flooding would over time move into higher likelihood categories. The proposed change will mean that the benefits to such households can be captured and claimed. These properties are currently captured in the economic benefits (OM1) but will now be captured under the households measure (OM2) resulting in more grant being made available to schemes, and a significant number of additional homes protected in the future. This amendment would enable the future capital programme to be more resilient to future climate change risks. This is in line with government’s policies on climate change including the National Adaptation Programme – which reflects advice from the Committee on Climate Change. The draft FCERM Strategy also recommends that FCERM investments should better plan for future flooding and coastal change in the face of climate change risks. 4 Environmental Benefits / Outcome Measure 4 This proposed amendment to the existing Outcome Measure 4 (OM4) will allow projects to attract a contribution for achieving additional environmental benefits over and above the mitigation or compensation required by legal environmental

15

Paper for: Comment

requirements to deliver the scheme (e.g. Habitats Directive compensation requirements). Currently the outcomes from the existing OM4 are focussed to designated environmental sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The amendment would improve alignment to the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and outcomes to improve habitats and water bodies and enhance natural capital. This improved measure has been in development for some time and is supported by feedback from Environment Agency and other risk management authority practitioners as well as the RFCC conservation members. The proposed amendment would make it easier to deploy FCERM grant for schemes that deliver multiple benefits, reducing flood risk whilst also contributing to environmental net gain. The new OM4 payment would be up to 20p per £ of eligible environmental benefit. The proposal is designed to ensure that FCERM investment in environmental benefits complements the scheme to reduce flood and erosion risk and must be fully justified in the business case. The OM4 payment rate will work in tandem with, but not duplicate, other FCERM GiA funding for statutory, legal environmental requirements associated with existing FCERM assets and operations.

16

Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee meeting SUBJECT: Thames RFCC Capital Programme introduction PAPER BY: Programme Managers Recommendations The Committee is asked to:

- Note the background briefing on how the programme was developed and is refreshed each year, including how Committee has agreed to scrutinise the programme.

- Note accountability for the delivery of the Thames RFCC Programme. 1. Introduction

1.1. In December 2014, the Government announced that it would make a commitment to fund a six year programme of flood and coastal risk management works. This was a marked step away from the annual allocation procedure and supplied greater confidence to communities and the supply chain. The settlement of £2.3bn (capital) came with the provisos that the Programme delivers 300,000 households at reduced flood risk, 10% efficiencies and 15% of partnership funding. Having set out a six year programme, the Government expects that those schemes within the Programme will be delivered unless there are significant changes.

1.2. Whilst a six year settlement with Government has been agreed, the Programme is refreshed once a year and this cycle is described in Figure1.

1.3. The purpose of this paper is to provide background briefing on how the

programme was developed and is ‘refreshed’ each year; how the committee have previously agreed to scrutinise performance of the programme; and the criteria it has agreed for using local levy. The paper also includes the past and future headline figures for the programme to ensure RFCC is sighted of the overall six programme performance.

17

Figure 1: Annual FCRM

Programme Cycle

Abbreviations: EA – Environment Agency RMAs – Risk Management Authorities RFCC – Regional Flood and Coastal Committee GiA – Grant in Aid

April Planning begins for the next financial year and beyond. Agreed work starts on schemes for the current year.

April/May Programme Refresh timetable announced and revised guidance issued.

August/September Environment Agency (EA) National Programme Management Office collate bids and prioritise projects. Indicative allocations are then shared with RFCCs

October RFCCs review and finalise the indicative programme. They can make amendments via ‘Local Choices’, whilst remaining within the indicative allocation ‘bottom line’. RFCC agrees the levy to be set for the following year.

November Environment Agency (EA) National Programme Management Office collates the ‘Local Choices’ return and produces the Final Allocation.

January/February Final Allocation consented by RFCC. The Environment Agency’s Board approves the allocation of FCRM GiA to schemes within approved programmes of work.

March Consented programme published on gov.uk. Final preparations are made to deliver work in new financial year. EA checks with RMAs that their requested budget for the year is still appropriate (‘baselining’).

May All RMAs review and submit their needs-based programmes for work in future years via the online PAFS system for the ‘Programme Refresh’.

June/July RFCCs endorse their ‘refreshed’ programmes.

18

2. Project and Programme accountability

2.1. The accountability for management and delivery of projects that make up the Thames RFCC Programme lies with the relevant Risk Management Authority that is listed on the programme next to the project. Risk Management Authorities are defined in Annexe A3. Within the current programme, at a project level, both Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and the Environment Agency (EA) are responsible and accountable for providing the required governance to deliver their respective projects, contributing towards the settlement conditions that were given when this 6 year programme (2015/16 to 2020/21) was agreed by Government.

2.2. It is the expectation that representatives of both the EA and LLFA’s therefore have an understanding of the projects that lie within their responsibility. In the case of LLFA projects it is the role of the elected member on the RFCC to have an understanding of the projects in the partnerships that they represent.

2.3. The Thames RFCC Programme is administered by officers within the EA,

however it is the role of the Thames RFCC committee to oversee, scrutinise and approve programme level investment to ensure that is balanced and risk based.

3. Programme Reporting and Scrutiny

3.1. Performance is reported at a programme level. It is assumed that project

level scrutiny and project assurance will occur within the organisation responsible for delivering the project. Major projects are also likely to have a multi-partner programme board and sponsoring group. From time to time the TRFCC will request to hear more on a particular project’s progress and this will be accommodated within the agenda under a separate item.

3.2. RFCC Programme Sub Committee meetings are held prior to the Main

Committee meetings. At Sub Committee meetings, more detailed discussions on the Programme are held and recommendations are put forward to the main committee meeting for approval. On behalf of the Thames RFCC, the three area Environment Agency Programme Managers administer and manage the programme. Part of this service is to collate and report metrics derived from the monthly project manager reports. This includes the reporting carried out by Local Authorities.

3.3. New projects that have not been included in the annual Refresh Programme

and/or have not already been approved by RFCC for inclusion into the Thames RFCC Programme, are to be brought to Committee for approval. The EA Programme Managers, as agreed with Committee, review any new projects before they are presented to the Committee. This is to ensure that projects meet the levy criteria as described in section 4.1 and the overall levy position is still affordable as agreed under the over programme scenario (see Annex A4) set by the RFCC. If a request to RFCC is made and the levy criteria is met, then the Thames RFCC will be updated with information

19

concerning the project’s funding requirement profile, project benefits such as homes better protected and key project risk and mitigation measures. If a project does not meet the funding criteria, more detail on wider benefits is expected to be provided to Committee to enable them to decide whether it can be supported by the RFCC.

3.4. For existing projects that have already been previously approved by the

RFCC and meet the levy criteria set, the RFCC Programme Managers have been directed to allow projects to re-profile their levy across years as needed but is subject to levy balances being available. Any changes will be reflected through the RFCC In-Year report. The changed profile across years can be seen during the Annual Programme Refresh Review. If an existing project requires an increase in levy (up to £500k), the assumption is given that this is approved if the following are correct; levy criteria is met and that the project remains above 50% Partnership funding score (adjusted), the levy increase is affordable and the total levy applied to the project is less than £500k.

4. Funding Allocation principles

4.1. Levy Principles used to fund projects in Thames RFCC

4.1.1. Thames RFCC has established a set of principles to guide its levy investment programme. These are refined each year to capture lessons learned from the previous year’s programme and to maximise the outcomes delivered.

4.1.2. The overarching principles are summarised below

risk-led approach with focus on significant risk mix of schemes (major, smaller, community, innovation) value for money (cost: benefit and partnership funding score) deliver efficiencies by planning ahead and packaging work link to redevelopment and water company and transport investment adopt integrated approaches to all types of flood risk plan pipeline including major schemes and “spade ready” portfolio invest in existing assets as well as new integrated approach to outcomes including environmental good spread across RFCC area a surface water scheme in each LLFA an integrated scheme in each LLFA partnership

4.1.3. In April 2018, members discussed the lessons learned from the

programme and agreed to make some changes to the principles for future projects. Previously, any surface water scheme entering the programme would be eligible to be ‘topped up’ with local levy regardless of its Partnership Funding score. Members agreed that schemes would still be eligible for top-up with levy but providing the following two conditions are also met:

Scheme Benefit Cost Ratio is over 1 Partnership Funding Score (raw or adjusted) of at least 50%

20

4.1.4. Any scheme with less than an adjusted 50% partnership funding score

(with other partnership funding included) will be considered by the Committee on a case by case basis. Members also agreed to prioritise those projects which maximise the benefits brought into the programme, including any schemes which contribute to the homes better protected by March 2021 target.

4.1.5. In October 2018, during the refresh of the Programme, the Committee

tasked the programme Managers to construct a refreshed programme. The following additional guidelines alongside the normal levy principles were used:

Underwrite projects with levy to increase GiA over-programme

opportunity Support schemes to design stage to build pipeline; Fully fund select schemes up to a certain value Progress schemes to next gateway Continue to use levy amounts to schemes that have it allocated

already as long as the overarching levy principles are met

4.1.6. In order to prioritise projects, the committee set two objectives. They were to:

maximise homes better protected, which could be for delivery post

March 2021 and; secure partnership contributions.

4.2. Unspent In year levy on projects

4.2.1. In April 2018, Members agreed that any unspent levy in one year will

not automatically roll over and be added to the allocation in the following year. This is a change to previous arrangements. It is to ensure an affordable programme to maximise the number of schemes delivered and build the programme pipeline. It also ensures that all Risk Management Authorities can access levy support for future schemes they put forward.

4.2.2. If Projects wish to roll over their Levy into a future year and it has not been accounted for in the consented programme for that year, they will be reviewed by Committee. Such projects will be highlighted and reviewed by RFCC on a project by project basis.

4.3. National Flood and Coastal Risk Management allocation principles

4.3.1. Protect people and homes

Deliver the £2.5bn six year capital programme Increased protection for at least 300,000 homes between 2015/16 and

2020/21

21

Protect maintenance funding in real terms through this Parliament and re-invest 10%

efficiency savings by 2019/20 Take a risk-based approach to securing the condition of existing assets

including channel conveyance Maintain our ability to warn people and respond to incidents so as to

save lives and property Support the provision of property scale resistance and resilience

measures Working in partnership Provide positive contributions to the recently announced Government-

led reviews into flood risk management Achieve third party, including private, investment in line with the Defra

partnership funding and contributions policy Support community-based solutions that are innovative, cost-effective

and affordable Achieve balanced programmes in collaboration with RFCCs Promoting an integrating approach to managing flood risk working with

other Risk Management Authorities We will take a catchment based approach Improve our understanding with partners of all flood and coastal

erosion risk data and support the government’s ‘Open Data’ commitment making our data

and information easily accessible to all who want it

4.3.2. Way we work

Maintain skills and a pipeline of studies for medium and long-term investment needs

Maximise efficiency savings and value for money Continue to promote schemes that meet statutory environmental

requirements Promote sustainable development that reduces flood risk Provide appropriate funding toward the essential support services that

enable delivery of flood and coastal risk outcomes We will work collaboratively across the Environment Agency and with

external partners to realise multiple benefits.

22

5. Thames RFCC Consented Programme Profile When the original six year Programme was compiled and allocated, RFCCs were given six year budgets and houses at reduced risk targets. This total was generated from a large amalgamation of schemes across multiple sources of flooding and funding types. This original agreement is used as our RFCC baseline to show our progress as a committee against what we agreed to do as part of our commitment to the National £2.5bn allocation and 300,000 houses at reduced risk target from 2015 onwards. Table 1 below shows the Thames RFCC had £301.6m allocation to flood risk management schemes in the region and the profile of that GiA investment over the 6 year period. We refresh our position against this regularly to reflect the profile of investment into the future as well as recording our performance over previous years.

Table 1: 6 year consented capital GiA profile as of April 2015 (Baseline)

Capital GiA Programme £m

Yr1 15/16

Yr2 16/17

Yr3 17/18

Yr4 18/19

Yr5 19/20

Yr6 20/21 Total

15/16 Consented Programme 33.6 37 38.9 50.7 68.2 73.2 301.6

This allocation of GiA was principally to schemes to reduce the risk of flooding to people and property. Table 2 below shows the forecast of these houses to be better protected by this £301.6m of GiA Investment. Thames RFCC’s had a commitment of 33,320 houses over the period April 2015 to the end of March 2021.

Table 2: 6 year consented houses at reduced risk profile as of April 2015 (Baseline)

Houses at reduced risk of flooding

Yr1 15/16

Yr2 16/17

Yr3 17/18

Yr4 18/19

Yr5 19/20

Yr6 20/21

Total

15/16 Consented Programme 4,310 3,169 5,036 6,938 7,051 6,816 33,320

As shown in the levy investment section 4.1 above, Thames RFCC developed a six year levy strategy to support Government investment in flood defence schemes. The RFCC committed to £89.2m of investment to support schemes using the levy principles to maximise the benefits in the region over the investment period.

Table 3: 6 year consented levy Profile as of April 2015 (Baseline) Levy investment £m

Yr1 15/16

Yr2 16/17

Yr3 17/18

Yr4 18/19

Yr5 19/20

Yr6 20/21 Total

15/16 Consented Programme

8.8 8.7 21.3 20.6 14.3 15.5 89.2

23

Annexe A: Extra information to support programme review Annexe A1: Programme funding sources: The Flood and Coastal Risk Management Programme can include funding from several sources such as:

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant In Aid (GiA) Local Levy General Drainage Charge Internal Drainage Board Precepts One-off central funding for Government priorities e.g. deprived communities. Private contributions Additional local authority contributions Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) funding

The Environment Agency raises a levy on upper tier and unitary local authorities each year. The amount payable for each local authority is determined by reference to its approved council tax base. The council tax base changes each year because of the addition of new housing stock and the demolition of older housing stock. Grant in Aid for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (GiA) is allocated according to priorities based on flood and coastal erosion risks and delivery of outcomes determined by Defra. GiA can provide significant additional funding towards local projects to reduce flood and coastal erosion risks in communities. However, local funding from all sources will be needed to lever in and secure the GiA for the majority of projects. Annexe A2: Partnership Funding Policy Partnership funding is the current policy used in allocating capital funding to flood and coastal erosion risk management projects. It was introduced by Defra in May 2011, and began to be applied to FCRM projects in the 2012/13 financial year.

Instead of meeting the full costs of a limited number of schemes, the partnership funding approach means that Government money (FCRM GiA) can help meet the costs of any worthwhile scheme. The amount of money that Government will allocate to a scheme is based on:

the numbers of households protected the damages being prevented other benefits a project would deliver (such as habitat creation)

The partnership funding approach encourages external contributions to be sought wherever possible and allows for a greater number of schemes to be delivered with the GiA available. Contributions fall into one of the following categories on the FCRM1 form: Growth, IDB Precepts, Local Levy, other public contributions, private contributions and funding from other EA functions. More information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-resilience-partnership-funding

24

Annexe A3: Risk Management Authorities

Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) are those responsible for delivering flood risk reduction measures to communities. RMA Type

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA)

The Environment Agency is responsible for managing the risk of flooding from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. As part of this the Agency needs to work in partnership with other risk management authorities to consider holistic solutions to various sources of flood risk.

LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITIES (LLFA)

The Flood and Water Management Act requires Lead Local Flood Authorities (county councils and unitary authorities) to manage flood risk from all other sources, which typically means surface water, groundwater, ordinary watercourses and other static or flowing water bodies (such as, lakes or canals that are not main river).

DISTRICT AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (DC/BC)

District and Borough Councils are responsible for managing flood risk from ordinary watercourses within their administrative area. Along with Lead Local Flood Authorities and Coastal Erosion risk management authorities, they are often referred to as ‘Local Authorities’.

INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARDS (IDB)

Internal Drainage Boards are local public authorities that have been established in areas of special drainage need. They manage water levels within their drainage district and are responsible for ordinary watercourses.

WATER COMPANIES (WC)

Water companies manage the risk of flooding to water supply and sewerage facilities and the risk to others from the failure of their infrastructure. Not all is applicable for Grant in Aid; but there is often opportunity for joint working between the water companies and other risk management authorities (including the EA).

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITIES (HA)

Highways authorities (the Highways Agency and unitary/county councils) have the lead responsibility for providing and managing highway drainage and roadside ditches. Not all is applicable for Grant in Aid; but there is often opportunity for joint working between the highways authorities and other risk management authorities (including the EA).

Non-EA Risk Management Authorities can only attract GiA for a set range of activities as highlighted in the below links.

Gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/flood-and-coastal-defence-funding-for-risk-management-authorities

Annex A4: Over programme

25

Through previous experience, collective reductions in project forecasts have led the FCRM programme to become underspent. For this reason, at the start of each financial year, it is agreed that Areas can bring additional schemes into the programme and where opportunities exist, accelerate existing projects. This means that forecasts at the start of the year are often higher than their budgets (often referred to as the affordable budget). This agreed over-forecast is known as the ‘over programme’ and the Area needs to ensure that they can return from this over-forecast to their affordable budget by year end. The over programme is occasionally termed as an ‘over programme budget’; but it should be noted that there is no additional budget provided at a programme level – it is in reality an agreed over forecast. The over programme is constructed from schemes that suffer slippages at the end of the previous financial year and other costs that arise. In addition, the over programme will also consist of other schemes/expenditure that the Area wishes to accelerate into the current year. Annex A5: Project Gateways The following gateways maybe used when discussing and monitoring the progress of projects within the programme. The exact gateways used will be dependent upon the organisation that is leading the project:

Table 3. Definitions for the Gateways and Milestones often used in an FCRM Project

Heading Definition

GW0 - Strategic Assessment

Confirms when a project has been accepted onto the programme. Following this an Initial Assessment is undertaken and completion of the Strategic Outline Case.

GW1 – Business Justification*

Confirms that the project in principle meets the business needs, is affordable, achievable with appropriate options explored and likely to achieve value for money. This follows approval of the Strategic Outline Case.

GW2 – Delivery Strategy

Confirms the project is fully defined and ensure that the procurement and delivery strategy is robust and appropriate. This follows the completion and approval of the Outline Business Case. After this Gateway the detailed design stage of the project often commences and then the Full Business Case is written.

GW3 – Investment Decision*

This Gateway is reached after the Full Business Case has been approved and confirms the benefits plan following the bid information being confirmed and to check that all necessary statutory and procedural requirements were followed throughout the procurement process. The main delivery contract is awarded to the delivery partners after this stage and construction commences.

GW4 – Readiness for Service

Confirms that contractual arrangements are up to date and that necessary testing has been done to the Senior User’s* satisfaction

GW5 – Operational Review & Benefits Realisation

Confirms the assessment of whether the anticipated benefits are being delivered and that the Business Case justification at Gateway 3 was realistic

GW6 - project Closure The project is complete and all financial and contractual issue are finalised

*The senior user represents the interests of the users who will benefit from the project’s products and deliverables. They are responsible for specifying the needs of those who will use the project products and monitoring that the solution will meet the needs of the business within the constraints of the business case.

26

Agenda item no: 4b

Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee meeting Meeting date: 17 October 2019

Annexe 1a Programme Performance – Homes Better Protected Annexe 1b Programme Performance – Homes Better Protected – Top Ten schemes delivering Annexe 2a Programme Performance – Finance Current Forecasts Annexe 2b Programme Performance – Finance Main Forecast Variances Annexe 3 Programme Delivery Risk and Issues Assessment SUBJECT: Update on Thames RFCC Capital Programme 2019/20 PAPER BY: Programme Managers Recommendations The Committee is asked to:

- Note the current position on the 2019/20 Capital Programme - Approve the new levy requests and levy changes to the Programme - Note the current assessment of Programme risk

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to update the Thames RFCC on the 2019/20 Capital Programme. It sets out the current position on homes better protected, finance, efficiencies, risks and mitigation. Members are asked to refer to the Capital Programme Introduction overview paper to find information on the process and principles of the Thames RFCC Programme and its management.

1.2 As is current practice, Thames RFCC sub-committee scrutinise the programme performance, any new programme proposals and the programme delivery risks as detailed in this paper and Annexes, and will make formal recommendations back to main RFCC on whether to approve submissions to the national programme.

2. 2019/20 Programme Performance – Homes Better Protected (OM2s)

2.1. The 2019/20 National target for properties at reduced flood risk is 63,381. This will take

the National cumulative total to just over 250,000 properties protected, against the 6 year target of 300,000.

2.2. Our original April 2015 baseline target for homes protected for 2019/20 was 7,051 (as shown in Table 2 of the Capital Programme Introduction overview paper). However, the annual refresh process continually refines the profile of investment and the homes protected target, giving us revised targets each year that we are then asked to deliver to. The revised 2019/20 homes protected target for Thames RFCC is 5,724.

2.3. As seen in Table 1 below, we are currently predicting to exceed this target with a forecast total of 6,589 homes better protected by March 2020, a significant 10% of the

27

National forecast. This will take the Thames RFCC cumulative total to 26,097 properties at reduced risk of flooding, against a revised 6 year target of 30,491.

Table 1: Thames RFCC 2019/20 current position - Households at reduced risk of flooding (OM2)

Operating Authority

Households at reduced risk from flooding

Target Forecast Variance

EA 4,890 5,503 613

LA 834 1,086 252

ALL 5,724 6,589 865

2.4. The current forecast for this financial year has increased by 684 since the last meeting.

This is mainly due to the Team 2100 Programme - Thames Delivery project increasing its forecast by 546 homes better protected due to the re-optimisation of work in the programme to accelerate urgent asset work into this financial year. The full list of projects with a change in homes better protected forecasts are shown in Annex 1a.

2.5. Ten projects alone are due to deliver 6,191 properties at reduced risk of flooding – 94%

of the total forecast. These are shown in Annex 1b.

2.6. For completeness and ease of reference, the full list of projects due to deliver homes better protected has also been included in Annex 2a.

3. 2019/20 Programme Performance – Finance

3.1. The Thames RFCC indicative allocation approved in February for capital projects in

2019-20 was £80.5m. This is divided between FDGiA (£52.6m) and Local Levy (£27.9m). This figure includes over programme to take advantage of funding that may be available if projects become unviable or slip from this year.

3.2. The Thames RFCC affordable FDGiA budget approved in May for capital projects in 2019/20 has reduced from £52.6m to £47.5m. This is made up of £45.7m for the Environment Agency led programme and £1.8m for other Risk Management Authorities. This is the revised FDGiA budget that the programme needs to be managed back to. This gives us a total affordable budget of £75.4m.

3.3. This reduction in FDGiA is to help manage the increasing national pressure on FDGiA and to provide RFCCs with early certainty on affordable end of year budget targets. Adjustments were made to accommodate changes in the budget setting process and to reflect the latest reported programme information. This is not a new process but has been agreed much earlier in the programme management cycle following feedback from last year. These targets will be reviewed as part of the National mid-year review process and Areas will be issued with revised FDGiA budgets by the end of October.

3.4. Total Spend - we are currently forecasting a total spend of approximately £66.6m by the

end of this financial year, against our total affordable budget of £75.4m. This represents a stable overall position from the last meeting, where the total forecast was £65.4m. Environment Agency projects are forecast to be 14% below the total affordable budget whilst Local Authority projects are forecast to be 2% above.

28

3.5 FDGiA position - the current FDGiA forecast is £47m against our affordable budget of £47.5m. This is a stable position from the last meeting, with both Environment Agency projects and Local Authority project being in line with affordable FDGiA budgets. Figure 1 below shows the latest FDGiA position.

Figure 1: Thames RFCC 2019/20 current position – Flood Defence Grant in Aid

3.6 Local Levy position – the current Local Levy forecast is £18m against a target of

£27.9m. Again this is a stable position from the last meeting, with very little overall change. Environment Agency projects are currently forecasting 45% under allocation and Local Authority projects are forecasting 11% under allocation. Figure 2 below shows the latest Local Levy position.

Figure 2: Thames RFCC 2019/20 current position - Local Levy

3.7 The main projects forecasting significantly less Local Levy than allocated are:

Houghton Brook (-£3m) – This is due to reprofiling of the project due to a change in the programme of works and delays in Planning permission as well as

29

maximising the amount of GiA used this year. This was reported to the July Committee and approved.

Churchill Gardens (-1.7m) – Updated modelling revised the economic options and further work is underway to determine whether the project is still viable. The levy requirement has now been reduced and re-profiled to 20/21. This re-profile was reported to the July Committee and approved.

The River Roding project (-£1.4m) – This project was re-profiled to spend partnership funding this year instead of levy. This was reported to the July committee and approved. It is expected that this may change during 2019/20 as the final design and scope of works is finalised and we look to maximise contributions and funding, including the extra GiA attracted for 2020/21.

Oxford FAS (-£1m) – re-profiling of programme of works and delays in construction due to Public Inquiry for the Compulsory Purchase Order and work needed on the A423 Kennington Road Bridge

Little Hadham A120 Bypass (-£900k) – Project re-profiled due to funding agreement with local authority. Project is currently in construction and due to complete next year.

3.8 The full list of projects showing current forecasts (both FDGiA and Local Levy) can be found in Annex 2a. The list of projects with the biggest changes in forecast and the reason for these changes can be found in Annex 2b.

4. 2019/20 Programme Performance - Efficiencies

4.1 Our efficiency targets are based on securing 10% savings over the next six year

programme, so our long term focus is on achieving this across all six years. Our six year target is currently £25.8m, based on a GiA allocation of £258m across the 6 year programme. This is slightly higher than last year’s reported figure. As mentioned, we have already exceeded our whole six year target but the expectation is that we will continue to look for efficiencies. Identifying efficiencies and reinvesting the savings back into the programme will enable Thames RFCC to deliver more schemes.

4.2 Our efficiency target for 2019/20 is £3.6m. Any increase in our GiA spent/allocated may

also incur an increase in this target through the year. By the end of Quarter 1 we have achieved £514,608 of efficiencies through innovative ways of working on one of the Thames Barrier shifter tracks during routine maintenance. We need to consider our in year target in the context of the overall six year target performance detailed in the paragraph above.

5. New schemes and new/additional Local Levy requests into the Consented Programme

The following schemes in Table 2 have been added to the programme or are requesting new or additional Local Levy support. Submissions have been reviewed by the Programme Managers as requested by the TRFCC Committee. This list was presented at the October sub-committee meeting where members approved in principle this additional levy support.

Table 2: Projects allocation requests or levy changes applied

30

Scheme RMA Adj. PF score

Homes better protected

Total Project Costs - £

Funds already allocated - £

Additional levy sought

Year Reason

FOR INFO NFM - Dorking FAS

Environment Agency

70% 2 claimable 7 additional properties benefit.

365,000 60,000 Levy, 245,000 GiA

60,000 2019/20

Opportunity to expand the NFM project to provide additional sections to protect 2 houses and deliver 4 additional Hectares of woodland to the 11 already proposed

City of London Riverside Strategy

City of London

N/A N/A 49,000 27,000 City of London Contribution

22,000 2019/20

A pilot project to develop the first riverside strategy for London. The strategy will combine the need to raise defence height and provide the required flood risk management benefits, whilst looking for wider improvements to the riverside.

6. Thames RFCC Six Year Programme Delivery Risks and Issues

6.1 The Programme Risk and Issues Assessment is attached in Annex 3. This shows our current assessment of the risks and mitigating actions. It also highlights where risks have been realised on a number of projects and now present an issue to programme completion. A light touch review has been carried out for this quarter given the focus on the Programme refresh. It is important to note that this is a Programme level risk and issues register and that each project within the programme will have its own project level risk register.

6.2 The format of the risk assessment is in line with the Managing Successful Programmes Framework as recommended by the Cabinet Office’s Best Management Practice Portfolio. We have included an Issue Register and Log, in line with this framework.

6.3 At a programme level, the Thames RFCC top risks continue to be:

Inability to raise contributions The lack of external resource The lack of internal resource

31

6.4 Inability to raise contributions – This risk has remained categorised as an ongoing issue

for the programme. The risk of not receiving partnership funding has remained one of our top risks throughout last year and is expected to remain high in 2019/20. The risk may lower over this year for projects delivering by 20/21 but with 30% of Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) recently reporting their concerns around low partnership funding scores limiting their ability to fully fund projects the trend is difficult to predict. Despite mitigation actions identified, some projects have slipped into this year, with resulting funding challenges particularly with limited GiA available in the next two years.

6.5 Lack of external resource – this risk is currently being managed. Concern with the introduction of a number of new key delivery frameworks across the programme and the amount of projects that are due to be delivered in the next two years was high but early indication from the new delivery partners is positive with resources available for work identified.

6.6 Lack of internal resource – this is emerging as a major risk and issue. Whilst progress was being made in managing and maintaining EA resource, recent trends show that team members in our Partnership and Strategic Overview teams are being drawn towards external based employment and higher salaries. LAs are also still finding stability difficult. This has improved in some Authorities but 71% of LLFAs reported that a lack of time or capacity is prohibiting them from delivering their existing projects.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Committee is asked to:

- Note the current position on the 2019/20 Capital Programme - Approve the new levy requests and levy changes to the Programme - Note the current assessment of Programme risk

Programme Managers (October 2019)

32

Annex 1a – 2019/20 Programme Performance – Homes Better Protected – Changes in Forecast This table shows all schemes with a change in forecast for Homes Better Protected since the last RFCC meeting.

Project RMA Current Forecast OMs

2019/20 Last RFCC meeting forecast

OMs 2019/20 Variance Explanation for variance

Team 2100 Programme - Thames Delivery EA 3892

3480 412 Re-optimisation of work in the programme to accelerate

urgent asset work into 2019/20

Graveney Siphon Initial Assessment EA 116 100 16 Review of benefit area for full business case prior to work starting identified increased beneficiaries

Kings Sutton, Wales Street Flood Alleviation Scheme - Construction

LA 14 38 -24 The project has changed in scope to be a property level protection scheme due to this being the most cost

beneficial option

33

Annex 1b – 2019/20 Programme Performance – Homes Better Protected – Top Ten schemes delivering This table shows the Top Ten schemes in Thames RFCC that are due to deliver the most Homes Better Protected in 2019/20.

Project RMA Forecast OMs 2019/20

Team 2100 Programme - Thames Delivery EA 3,892

Mereway Sluice, Twickenham - Gate Replacement EA 545

Dunstan Park Flood Alleviation Scheme LLFA 512

Upper Mole FAS EA 281

TBAG Drive Equipment EA 200

Turkey Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme LLFA 181

River Wey Weir Refurbishment EA 167

Team 2100 Programme IDT Services Thames EA 134 Graveney Siphon Initial Assessment EA 116

Rainham Tidal Sluice, Rainham - Power Supply EA 100

Godalming Flood Alleviation Scheme EA 63

Total 6,191

34

Annex 2a – 2019/20 Programme Performance – Finance Current Forecasts This table shows all schemes currently forecasting spend in 2019/20. As budgets are based on the original consented programme there are some schemes showing spend but not budget. This is due to slippage from previous years, acceleration opportunities from future years, or new in year opportunities that are not yet in the consented programme. For description of terms such as ‘Gateways’ and ‘Consented’, please see the Programme Overview Paper.

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Brock Hill Bracknell Forest

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 GW6

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Tadley Flood Reduction Study Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 GW2 Nov-

21

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Reading - Caversham FAS Environment Agency

1,710,000 145,368 1,564,632 0 1,927,823 163,885 1,763,938 0 0 0 GW2 Apr-20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Charvil Flood Alleviation Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Crondall Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 731 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Nov-

20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Hurley Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 47,713 47,713 0 0 0 0 GW2 Mar-

21

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex North Yateley Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Nov-

20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Restoration of the River Kennet SSSI at Wilderness Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Aug-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex River Lambourn SAC - Shaw Gauging station removal and river restoration Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 255,500 255,500 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jun-18

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex River Thames Scheme - Community Resilience Measures Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 251,909 54,359 85,100 112,450 0 0 GW1 Feb-17

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Tudor and Cricket Hill Stream Flood Reduction Project Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 3,827 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Great Shefford Flood Mitigation Environment Agency

200,000 0 200,000 0 9,060 0 9,060 0 0 0 GW2 Nov-

19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Bourne End Flood Mitigation Environment Agency

96,102 0 96,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW3 Apr-21

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Fleet Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

61,360 0 61,360 0 44,360 0 44,360 0 0 0 GW1 May-

20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Sandy Lane Ditch Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

61,360 0 61,360 0 49,048 0 49,048 0 0 0 GW1 May-

20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Upper Mole FAS Environment Agency

119,000 119,000 0 0 455,036 455,036 0 0 0 281 GW3 Apr-10

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Restoration of the Kennet SSSI - Marlborough to Ramsbury Environment Agency

25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 May-

19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Restoration of the River Kennet at Sherman Hatches Environment Agency

50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW3 Sep-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex River Kennet River Restoration at Eddington Mill Environment Agency

280,000 210,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jun-18

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex River Thames Scheme - Property Level Protection Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 59,000 12,731 19,931 26,338 0 0 GW5 Oct-20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Newbury FAS Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 0 GW5 Apr-20

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex A32 Farringdon & Chawton - Groundwater Flood Alleviation Hampshire CC

153,700 0 153,700 0 153,700 0 153,700 0 0 0 GW1 Aug-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Rectory Road, Farnborough Flood Alleviation Scheme Hampshire CC

0 0 0 0 60,000 60,000 0 0 11 11 GW3 Sep-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Sycamore Road, Farnborough Flood Alleviation Scheme Hampshire CC

60,000 0 30,000 30,000 150,000 0 75,000 75,000 0 16 GW1 Jul-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Buckskin Flood Alleviation Scheme, Basingstoke Hampshire CC

2,390,000 148,000 702,000 1,540,000 3,020,000 736,713 674,014 1,609,273 170 0 GW1 Oct-17

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Phoenix Green, Flood Alleviation Study Hart DC

0 0 0 0 114,500 0 0 0 0 0 GW4 Mar-

21

35

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Kingsway, Blackwater Flood Alleviation Scheme Hart DC

0 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Dec-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex WBC Dunstan Park West Berkshire Council

591,000 0 591,000 0 917,350 0 917,350 0 512 512 GW4 Dec-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex WBC Lambourn West Property Level Protection West Berkshire Council

30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Dec-22

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex WBC North Thatcham West Berkshire Council

30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 May-

19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex WBC South East Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme West Berkshire Council

2,083,000 0 2,023,000 60,000 2,390,000 0 2,321,157 68,843 41 41 GW4 Dec-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Lambourn East PLP West Berkshire Council

0 0 0 0 180,000 0 180,000 0 0 26 GW3 May-

19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Purley on Thames Property Level Protection West Berkshire Council

0 0 0 0 28,770 0 28,770 0 0 18 GW4 Apr-19

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex Copthorne Stream FAS West Sussex CC

100,000 0 0 60,000 35,000 17,500 0 17,500 0 0 GW2 Dec-19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Marlow Surface Water Drainage Pre-Feasibility Study Buckinghamshire CC

0 0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 GW4 Apr-21

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Monks Risborough surface water and groundwater scheme Buckinghamshire CC

20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Apr-20

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Saunderton surface and groundwater Scheme Buckinghamshire CC

150,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW3 Apr-21

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds

Pednormead End, Chesham Surface Water and Ground Water Management Scheme Buckinghamshire CC

1,407,731 407,731 0 1,000,000 407,731 407,731 0 0 0 0 GW3 May-

19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Dunstable Catchment Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS)

Central Bedfordshire Council

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jul-17

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Caddington - Flood risk study and scheme

Central Bedfordshire Council

40000 0 20,000 20,000 40,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 GW1 tbc

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Houghton Brook Flood Storage Area Environment Agency

4,290,444 626,815 3,000,000 149,565 299,524 299,524 0 0 0 0 GW3 Nov-

19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Colnbrook - County Ditch & Colne Brook Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2 Mar-

20

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Cores End FRMS Environment Agency

104,000 0 104,000 0 36,595 0 36,595 0 0 0 GW2 Jul-20

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Stoke Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, Aylesbury Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jan-19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Marlow FAS Environment Agency

788,343 748,343 0 0 1,028,524 655,975 0 372,549 0 0 GW4 Dec-19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Eton Wick Flood Alleviation Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Bramingham Flood Alleviation Scheme Luton BC

147,000 0 147,000 0 370,000 0 370,000 0 0 0 GW2 Aug-19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Dallow, Bury Park and High Town Flood Alleviation Scheme Luton BC

40,000 0 40,000 0 68,084 0 68,084 0 0 0 GW1 Dec-19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Luton Airport Parkway and Vauxhall Way Flood Alleviation Scheme Luton BC

70,000 0 70,000 0 197,079 0 197,079 0 0 0 GW1 Dec-19

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds Luton Town Centre Flood Alleviation Scheme Luton BC

250,000 0 250,000 0 201,936 0 201,936 0 0 0 GW3 Apr-22

Essex and Thurrock Stanstead Mountfitchet Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

May-19

Essex and Thurrock Rammey Sluice, Waltham Abbey - Replacement of Flood Control Structure Environment Agency 100,000 0 100,000 0 314,636 0 314,636 0 0 0 GW2

Aug-18

Essex and Thurrock Rainham Tidal Sluice, Rainham - Power Supply Environment Agency 4,998 4,998 0 0 0 100 GW5

Jan-20

Essex and Thurrock Hillman Cottages FAS Environment Agency 60,789 60,789 0 0 0 0 GW5 Jul-19

Essex and Thurrock Frog Island Tidal Sluices Penstock Automation Environment Agency 4,964 4,964 0 0 0 0 GW5

Nov-19

36

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

Essex and Thurrock Oval Road Pumping Station, Dagenham - Refurbishment Environment Agency 4,974 4,974 0 0 0 0 GW5

Jan-20

Essex and Thurrock Brentwood Surface Water FAS Essex CC 49,363 49,363 0 0 0 26 GW4

May-19

Essex and Thurrock Harlow (Latton Bush) Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 GW6

Essex and Thurrock Pyrles Lane and Colebrook Lane Flood Alleviation Scheme Essex CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 GW6

Essex and Thurrock West Essex PLR Project Essex CC 0 0 0 0 306,000 0 306,000 0 0 0 GW1

Hertfordshire Hardmead and Stanstead Radial Gate Replacement Environment Agency 100,000 0 100,000 0 229,572 0 229,572 0 0 0 GW3

May-21

Hertfordshire Little Hadham A120 Bypass flood storage area Environment Agency 2,197,840 0 2,197,840 0 1,300,657 0 1,300,657 0 0 0 GW3

Jun-19

Hertfordshire Hardmead and Stanstead Radial Gate Replacement (Hardmead) Environment Agency 229,981 0 229,981 0 0 0 GW3

May-21

Hertfordshire Hardmead and Stanstead Radial Gate Replacement (Amwell) Environment Agency 54,050 54,050 0 0 0 0 GW4 Jul-19

Hertfordshire Welwyn Garden City & Stevenage Flood Alleviation & SuDS Retrofit Partnership Scheme Hertfordshire CC

20,000 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Apr-21

Hertfordshire Stevenage Brook Roebuck Gate Combined Flood Risk Assessment Hertfordshire CC 40,000 0 40,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 GW1

Mar-20

Hertfordshire Travellers Lane, Hatfield Flood Alleviation Scheme Hertfordshire CC 30,000 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Sep-18

Hertfordshire Chapel Lane, Long Marston Local Drainage Flood Alleviation Hertfordshire CC 20,000 0 10,000 10,000 13,500 0 10,000 3,500 0 0 GW1

Sep-20

Hertfordshire Redbourn (Rose Acre, Ridgedown, Snatchup, Lybury Lane) Surface Water Management Hertfordshire CC

0 0 0 0 17,000 0 17,000 0 0 0 GW4 Mar-

22

Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Natural Flood Management Hertfordshire CC 130,000 0 130,000 0 123,000 0 123,000 0 0 0 GW3

Nov-19

Hertfordshire Hertfordshire County-Wide Property Level Resilience Pilot Programme Hertfordshire CC 180,000 34,000 94,000 52,000 128,000 34,000 94,000 0 30 30 GW4

Mar-20

London Central North Sustainable Drainage Systems in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Kensington and Chelsea London Borough

50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 GW2 Oct-19

London Central North Westminster North West Strategy

LB Westminster 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 GW1

Dec-18

London Central North Churchill Gardens Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Westminster 1,900,000 97,872 1,802,128 0 150,000 16,884 133,116 0 0 0 GW2 Jul-19

London Central South Lower Mole FAS Major Refurbishment Works Environment Agency 789,000 789,000 0 0 517,540 517,540 0 0 0 0 GW2

Nov-19

London Central South Graveney FAS Environment Agency 446,000 100,000 346,000 0 164,532 96,783 67,748 0 0 171 GW2

Sep-19

London South East Thames Assets Works Environment Agency 27,000 27,000 0 0 0 5 GW6

London Lee Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 63,500 63,500 0 0 35,662 35,662 0 0 0 0 GW6

Mar-21

London Lee Pymmes Brook Constructed Wetlands Project LB Enfield 16,000 0 10,000 6,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 GW1 Jul-20

London Lee Bullsmoor Lane Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Enfield 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 GW1

Dec-20

London Lee Salmons Brook Natural Flood Management LB Enfield 69,000 0 52,000 8,000 102,000 0 52,000 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-21

London Lee London Strategic SuDS Pilot LB Enfield 700,000 0 400,000 300,000 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-20

London Lee Turkey Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Enfield 723,000 336,430 40,570 346,000 944,000 427,443 76,956 439,602 0 181 GW1 Jul-19

London Lee Green Lanes Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Enfield 20,000 20,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-20

London Lee Enfield Town Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Enfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 GW4

Mar-21

London Lee Chestnuts Park Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Haringey 110,00 0 30,000 80,0000 30,000 0 30,000 80,000 20 20 GW1

London Lee Isle of Dogs Surface Water Study LB Tower Hamlets 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 GW1

Sep-21

37

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

London North East The River Roding Project Environment Agency 1,383,999 0 1,383,999 0 1,015,885 0 0 1,015,885 0 0 GW2 Jul-19

London South East Assessing Risk from Bridges and Culverts Environment Agency 200,000 200,000 0 0 18,300 18,300 0 0 0 0 GW1

Sep-19

London North East River Rom Flood Alleviation scheme Environment Agency 50,000 50,000 0 0 51,569 51,569 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jul-19

London South East Future Thames Barrier sites Environment Agency 120,000 0 0 0 0 0

London North East Parsloes Park Surface Water Project LB Barking and Dagenham 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 GW1

Nov-18

London North East Rylands Estate Surface Water Flood Risk Project LB Barking and Dagenham 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 GW1

Feb-18

London North East Rise Park and North Romford Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Havering 49,985 0 49,985 0 49,985 0 49,985 0 0 0 GW1

Feb-18

London North East Havering Park Flood Mitigation Scheme LB Havering 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

London North East Clayhall Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Redbridge 884,000 633,770 250,230 0 635,000 455,253 179,747 0 0 0 GW4

Dec-19

London North East Seven Kings Water Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Redbridge 100,000 75,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-17

London South East St James Stream at Upper Elmers End Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 7,716 7,716 0 0 0 0 GW2 Jul-19

London South East TE2100 Habitat Creation Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-20

London South East Sutcliffe Park Trash Screen Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 355,000 355,000 0 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-19

London South East Lewisham and Catford FAS Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 -116,160 -116,160 0 0 0 0 GW3

May-20

London South East Kyd Brook FAS Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

London South East Lake 4 PS priority works Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 39,336 0 0 0 0 0 GW5

Jun-19

London South East TBAG Drive Equipment Environment Agency 894,378 894,378 0 0 903,283 903,283 0 0 31 200 GW3

Mar-11

London South East Ravensbourne (East Branch) at Southborough flood alleviation study Environment Agency 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 59,470 59,470 0 0 0 0 GW1

Oct-16

London South East The Beck (East Branch) at Langley Park flood alleviation study Environment Agency 200,000 100,000 100,000 0 8,669 8,669 0 0 0 0 GW2

Sep-19

London South East Graveney Siphon De-Silting Environment Agency 600,000 300,000 300,000 0 467,040 311,360 155,680 0 0 116 GW1

Sep-19

London South East TBAG2 PLA Thames Barrier Act Navigation Reimbursements Environment Agency 265,000 265,000 0 0 306,000 306,000 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A

London South East Team 2100 Programme - Thames Delivery Environment Agency 26,001,596 25,920,596 0 81,000 24,015,858 24,015,858 0 0 4,058 3,892 GW4

Mar-24

London South East Team 2100 Programme IDT Services Thames Environment Agency 4,442,097 4,442,097 0 0 4,346,835 4,346,835 0 0 134 GW4

Mar-24

London South East NFM - Clothworkers Wood - Wet Woodland Flood Storage Scheme RB Greenwich 0 0 0 0 112,300 0 0 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-19

London South West Surbiton Stream Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 4,835 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

London South West Beverley Brook at Worcester Park Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 29,100 29,100 0 0 0 0 GW5 Jul-19

London South West Mereway Sluice, Twickenham - Gate Replacement Environment Agency 1,406,453 1,406,453 0 0 1,364,938 1,364,938 0 0 545 545 GW2 Jul-18

London South West Marsh Dykes sluice repairs and permanent access works Environment Agency 100,000 100,000 0 0 69,502 69,502 0 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-20

London South West Barnes Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 500,000 500,000 0 0 382,578 382,578 0 0 0 0 GW2

Mar-19

London South West CDA 18 Hook Kelvin Grove Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Kingston upon Thames 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

May-19

London South West CDA 09 - New Malden North Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Kingston upon Thames 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

May-19

London South West Wimbledon Park Lake Reservoir Safety and Desilting Project LB Merton 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW4

May-20

London South West Peckham Rye Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Southwark 1,172,600 597,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jul-19

38

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

London South West South Beddington Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Sutton 0 0 0 0 14,840 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Oct-15

London South West Wandle East Sutton J2 & J3 Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Sutton 220,041 0 220,041 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-19

London South West CDA 22 - Worcester Park Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Sutton 323,000 0 50,000 273,000 26,619 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

Jan-20

London South West SuDS in Sutton's Schools LB Sutton 558,661 137,000 190,000 231,661 327,000 80,190 111,212 135,598 20 0 GW2

London West East Ruislip Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 150,000 0 150,000 0 220,167 0 220,167 0 0 0 GW2

Apr-20

London West Tokyngton Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 23,616 23,616 0 0 0 0 GW2

Apr-20

London West Lower Pinn Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 344,000 10,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-21

London West Pinner and Hatch End Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 10,000 10,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-21

London West Folly Brook, Friern Barnet, and Hadley trash screens Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Barnet 187,500 0 127,500 60,000 187,500 127,500 60,000 35 35 GW1

Nov 2019

London West Muswell Hill Catchment Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Barnet 40,000 0 20,000 20,000 40,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 GW1

Apr 20

London West Woodcock Park Flood Alleviation scheme LB Brent 15,000 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 GW4

May-26

London West Critical Drainage Area 041 - Beech Avenue, East Acton LB Ealing 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 GW2

Jun-19

London West Critical Drainage Area 003 - Carr Road, Northolt LB Ealing 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 GW2

Nov-19

London West Critical Drainage Area 008 - Northfield Avenue Surface Water Study LB Ealing 92,000 0 92,000 0 92,000 0 92,000 0 0 0 GW3

Jun-20

London West Critical Drainage Area 005 - Yeading Lane, Southall LB Ealing 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GW2

Jun-19

London West Greenford Flood Management Scheme LB Ealing 100,000 100,000 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 GW2

Jun-19

London West Wealdstone Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Harrow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Jun-19

London West London Road to Whitchurch Lane (CDA074) Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Harrow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Dec-19

London West Headstone Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Harrow 535,898 217,898 50,000 268,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

May-19

London West Roxbourne Stream and Yeading Brook East Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Harrow 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-20

London West Regent Avenue and Elephant Park LB Hillingdon 0 0 0 0 217,000 0 136,000 81,000 0 0 GW1

London West Cannon Brook and Mad Bess Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Hillingdon 30,000 0 25,000 5,000 30,000 0 25,000 5,000 0 GW1

Sept - 19

London West London Strategic SuDS Pilot - Hillingdon LB Hillingdon 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 GW1

London West Brentford North Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Hounslow 300,000 0 300,000 0 32,466 0 32,466 0 0 0 GW1

Mar-19

London West Hounslow Town Centre Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Hounslow 300,000 0 300,000 0 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 GW1

Mar-20

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

7,140,000 5,000,000 2,140,000 0 3,781,542 2,648,139 1,133,403 0 0 0 GW3 Aug-20

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Abingdon River Ock Flood Storage Area Environment Agency

1,488,000 0 300,000 1,188,000 174,983 0 74,145 100,838 0 0 GW3 Nov-

19

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Sutton Courtenay Flood Risk Management Scheme Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 730 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Benson Flood Risk Management Scheme Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 12,759 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

39

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Chalgrove Flood Risk Management Scheme Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 28,824 0 0 0 0 0 GW2 Mar-

21

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires East Hagbourne Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 May-

25

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Henley-on-Thames Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Apr-26

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Steventon and Milton Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 2,866 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Apr-20

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Boundary Brook Catchment (Florence Park) Flood Alleviation Environment Agency

50,000 0 50,000 0 4,552 0 4,552 0 0 0 GW2

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires NFM - The Evenlode NFM/WFD Project Environment Agency

177,000 25,000 50,000 55,000 110,000 17,188 34,375 37,813 0 0 GW4 Mar-

21

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Witney Environment Agency

20,000 0 20,000 0 27,787 0 27,787 0 0 0 GW1 Aug-19

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Bourton on the Water Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 21,804 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Bicester Town Brook Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Haydon Wick FAS Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 20,689 20,689 0 0 0 0 GW6

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Abingdon St Helens Wharf Mill Wall Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 -6,174 0 0 0 0 0 GW6

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Banbury FAS Environment Agency

0 0 0 0 -22,477 0 0 0 0 0 GW5 Apr-20

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme Northamptonshire CC

30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Jun-16

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Kings Sutton, Wales Street Flood Alleviation Scheme - Construction Northamptonshire CC

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 GW6

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires Didcot Flood Alleviation Project Oxfordshire CC

20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires West Hagbourne FAS Oxfordshire CC

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 GW6

Oxfordshire, Swindon & 4 Shires

Covingham & Nythe Flood Alleviation Strategy, Swindon, River Cole, Series of Flood Defence Measures Swindon BC

0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 GW1 Mar-

19

Surrey River Thames Scheme - Capacity Improvements and Flood Channel Environment Agency 3,600,000 1,000,000 1,600,000 1,000,000 5,470,856 1,180,542 1,848,166 2,442,148 0 0 GW2

Apr-20

Surrey Guildford Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 1,476,000 0 770,000 0 340,050 0 340,050 0 0 0 GW2

Apr-20

Surrey River Thames Scheme - Programme Delivery Environment Agency 700,000 0 700,000 0 783,554 169,081 264,700 349,772 0 0 GW2

Apr-20

Surrey Godalming Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 695,000 0 695,000 0 1,791,333 1,113,490 403,726 274,117 63 63 GW4

Sep-19

Surrey Byfleet and Weybridge Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 484,000 0 484,000 0 300,063 0 300,063 0 0 0 GW2

Apr-20

Surrey Leatherhead and Fetcham Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 700,000 350,000 350,000 0 313,787 156,893 156,893 0 25 0 GW2

Aug-19

Surrey Bagshot Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 90,000 0 90,000 0 90,874 0 90,874 0 0 0 GW2

May-20

Surrey Addlestone Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 61,000 0 61,000 0 30,757 0 30,757 0 0 0 GW1

May-20

Surrey Chobham South Flood Attenuation Scheme Environment Agency 60,000 0 60,000 0 33,519 0 33,519 0 0 0 GW1

May-20

Surrey Windlesham Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 60,000 0 60,000 0 40,007 0 40,007 0 0 0 GW1

May-20

Surrey Stoke d'Abernon Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Oct-17

40

19/20 Consented Programme 19/20 Forecasts OM2s Homes Better

Protected Gateway Dates

Partnership Project Name RMA Total Budget FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Total Forecast

FDGiA Local Levy Public/ Private Cont's

Target Forecast Next

Gateway

Date (mont

h)

Surrey NFM - NFM Dorking FAS Environment Agency 280,000 0 0 0 282,418 0 0 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-20

Surrey River Wey Weir Refurbishment Environment Agency 3,043,206 2,963,206 0 80,000 2,811,056 2,737,159 0 73,897 168 167 GW1

Feb-13

Surrey Crawley Villages Options Investigations Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 3,018 3,018 0 0 0 0 GW1

Mar-18

Surrey Redhill FAS Environment Agency 254,000 254,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

Various Thames RFCC Levy Posts 16/17 to 20/21 Environment Agency 660,000 660,000 660,000 0 660,000 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-21

Surrey West Thames Packaged Projects Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 9,380 0 0 0 0 0 GW5

May-20

Surrey Paddle Rymer Package 2 Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 3,379 0 0 0 0 0 GW6

Surrey Flexford Flood Relief Scheme Guildford DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 GW6

Surrey Chobham Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey Heath Borough Council

99,000 0 71,000 28,000 95,000 0 68,131 26,869 34 35 GW4 Mar-

21

Surrey North Holmwood Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Apr-17

Surrey Smallfield Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Nov-17

Surrey Camberley (SW) Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Dec-18

Surrey Cranleigh Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

Mar-19

Surrey Lower Thames Corridor Surface Water Study Surrey CC 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW3

Apr-23

Surrey Merryacres FAS Surrey CC 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

May-18

Surrey Middle Bourne Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 5,000 0 5,000 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 GW2 Jul-19

Surrey Vale Farm Road, Woking Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 GW3

Oct-19

Surrey Wellesley Close FAS Surrey CC 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW1

May-18

Surrey Reigate Town Centre FAS Surrey CC 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 GW2

Dec-19

Surrey Alfold Crossways Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 GW6

Surrey Hoe Valley flood alleviation and WFD Scheme Woking BC 3,580,000 0 0 3,580,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW4

Mar-22

Surrey Sutton Green Flood Alleviation Scheme Woking BC 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 23 GW4

Mar-19

Various Thames Catchment Flood Storage Environment Agency 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GW5

Apr-20

Various TE 2100 Plan – 2020 Review Environment Agency 300,000 300,000 0 0 426,115 426,115 0 0 0 0 GW2

Jun-20

Various HNL MEICA Strategically Important Assets Environment Agency 1,367 1,367 0 0 0 0 GW1

Various Thames Weirs Capital Investment Plan Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 53,528 53,528 0 0 0 0 GW1

Various Thames Weirs Gates Replacement Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 44,494 0 0 0 0 0 GW4

Nov-20

41

Annexe 2b – 2019/20 Programme Performance – Finance Main Forecast Variances

Partnership Project Name RMA 19/20 Budget

Previous forecast

Latest forecast

Reason for change

Surrey River Thames Scheme - Programme Delivery

Environment Agency 700,000 0 783,554

Forecasts have been re-profiled over various different sub-project lines to better reflect the work being undertaken this year, but the total funding has not changed

Surrey Godalming Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency 695,000 1,477,323 1,791,333

The construction costs for the scheme have been higher than anticipated leading to an increase in forecast expenditure for this financial year

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex

River Lambourn SAC - Shaw Gauging station removal and river restoration

Environment Agency 0 0 255,500 Work has been re-prioritised for this catchment with forecast expenditure for other projects passed to this one

Berkshire 5, Hampshire & West Sussex

River Thames Scheme - Community Resilience Measures

Environment Agency 0 0 251,909

Forecasts have been re-profiled over various different sub-project lines to better reflect the work being undertaken this year, but the total funding has not changed

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds

Dunstable Catchment Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS)

Central Bedfordshire Council 0 800,000 0 Incorrectly forecasting expenditure this year, forecast has now been removed.

Buckinghamshire, Luton, Slough & C. Beds

Marlow Surface Water Drainage Pre-Feasibility Study

Buckinghamshire CC 0 0 50,000

Funding that was originally due to be claimed last financial year has been moved to be claimed within this one, in agreement with Buckinghamshire CC and the Environment Agency

Essex and Thurrock Stanstead Mountfitchet Flood Alleviation Scheme

Environment Agency 0 306,000 0 Project transferred to Essex CC and budget now sits against 'West Essex PLR' project.

London South East Team 2100 Programme - Thames Delivery

Environment Agency 26,001,596 25,920,111 24,015,858

Significant efficiency savings identified through construction at Duke Shore Wharf, which will require some re-profiling into 2020/21. However there is not the ability to bring in new opportunities into 2019/20 to reinvest savings as there is not sufficient budget 2020/21 to continue schemes.

London West London Road to Whitchurch Lane (CDA074) Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Harrow 0 350,000 0 Incorrectly forecasting expenditure this year, forecast has now been removed.

London West Headstone Flood Alleviation Scheme LB Harrow 535,898 960,000 0 Construction phase delayed, now completes in 20/21.

42

Thames RFCC Committee Meeting Meeting date: October 2019

Item no. 4c

Appendix A: Draft allocation principles

Appendix B: Indicative capital allocation for schemes Appendix C: Revenue maintenance indicative allocations for 2020/21 and 2021/22

Appendix D: Annual allocation funding cycles for RFCC’s – a simple guide

Paper by: Director of FCRM Allocation and Asset Management Subject: 2020/21 Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM)

Grant in Aid (GiA) indicative allocation for capital and revenue funding

Headline messages:

This paper requires Committees to discuss their capital and revenue indicative allocations, and where appropriate, identify any required changes to the programme (undertake Local Choices).

Local choices decisions must meet the required criteria, as set out in section 3.

To ensure we meet our 300,000 homes better protected target by March 2021 the capital programme has been based around the indicative allocations from last year to help create stability.

We are on track to deliver our collective 300,000 homes better protected target but challenges remain. We require RFCC programmes to deliver the homes set out in the indicative allocations to make sure we meet this target.

On 10 September the government announced an additional £62.4m funding uplift for schemes, mainly benefiting the Northern Powerhouse. This will help relieve some of our funding pressures during 2020/21.

We are still seeking to secure a long term funding settlement. If successful, this may be announced in late October or November, as part of the Autumn Statement. We will keep the RFCC Committees updated on progress and announcements.

Please refer to the April 2019 National Allocation paper for a simple overview of the capital and revenue allocation process.

Recommendations: The RFCC Committees are asked to:

1. Note the draft indicative allocations for FCRM capital and revenue GiA funding (Appendix B and C).

2. Undertake local choices on their capital and programme and approve the transfer of £2.5m of GiA to the Thames RFCC from the Southern RFCC.

3. Support the capital programme prioritisation criteria (Section 2.4).

43

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This paper is the first stage in allocating FCRM GiA for financial year 2020/21. This is

the final year of the current 6 year capital programme.

1.2 The detail of this allocation for the Thames Committee can be found in Paper 4d which sets out in detail the Thames RFCC local choices for GiA and Levy.

1.3 The Committees are asked to discuss and identify any required changes to their programme as appropriate (to make their Local Choices), and to endorse the draft indicative capital and revenue allocations.

1.4 A simple guide to the annual allocation process is set out in the appendix of the April 2019 National Allocation paper and should be referred to throughout the year as required. The capital and revenue funding allocation cycles have been included in Appendix D as a reminder.

1.5 In building the indicative allocations, the draft allocation principles and Defra’s Partnership Funding Policy have been applied. They are the allocation principles approved by the EA Board on 7 February 2019 (Appendix A), and remain unchanged from last year.

2.0 FCRM Grant in Aid capital allocation 2.1 This year’s annual refresh of the capital programme is our final opportunity to make

sure we can deliver the most outcomes from this 6 year investment programme and reach our collective 300,000 homes better protected target by March 2021.

2.2 Table 1 shows the capital profile for the final year of the programme, and 2019/20 for

reference. On 10 September the government announced an additional £62.4m funding uplift for schemes in 5 Environment Agency Areas, see link below. Table 2 shows this funding split by RFCC. The funding profile of £531.4m for 2020/21 is our highest ever annual amount.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-62m-flood-funding-for-communities-in-england

Table 1: FCRM GiA capital funding profile, £m

Year 5 2019/20

Year 6 2020/21

Pre-Autumn Budget 2017 463 451

Additional funding to accelerate schemes 18 8

Additional funding for deprived communities 20 10

Additional funding uplift September 2019 62.4

Revised profile 501 531.4

Forecast ‘most likely’ homes better protected 251,000 315,000 to 320,000

44

Table 2: Additional funding uplift by RFCC

RFCC 2020/21

post 2020/21

Total

£m £m

Anglian Northern 1.2 0 1.2 North West 8.5 14.3 22.8 Northumbria 3.7 0 3.7 Thames 4.9 0.2 5.1 Yorkshire 3.5 26.1 29.6 Total 21.8 40.6 62.4

2.3 Following the July RFCC Committee round, the national Portfolio Management Office

(PMO) in the FCRM Directorate, reviewed all Area returns. The initial analysis of the data identified a funding pressure of over £100m. Through discussions between the PMO, National and Area Teams this has reduced to a net pressure of £61m. The additional £62.4m announced on 10 September ensures we off-set this pressure. We will continue to work with Areas to achieve an affordable programme that maximises homes better protected. We will need to return to a full national refresh next year to allocate funding for the start of the next programme on 1 April 2021.

2.4 The programme is being prioritised by homes better protected, as in previous years,

to ensure we meet our 300,000 homes target by 31 March 2021. The draft indicative capital allocation has been prioritised using the following approach:

Projects in construction by 1 October 2019 and statutory and legal ‘must do’s’ Projects better protecting homes by 2021, then Projects better protecting homes beyond 2021, prioritised by Partnership

Funding score

Our forecast for total homes better protected is now 315,000 - 320,000 homes. 2.5 The PMO undertook a national prioritisation that showed that the homes target would

best be achieved through managing close to the existing indicative allocations for 2020/21. These were provided as part of the 2019/20 refresh (shared with RFCC Committees in January) and agreed at the EA Board on 7 February 2019.

2.6 Previous annual allocations have ensured that money has been fairly distributed

across the RFCCs in the best way to achieve at least 300,000 homes, and therefore enables us to base this year’s indicative allocations on last year’s figures. This is good news as it allows Area teams greater freedom to manage their capital programmes and 2019/20 and 2020/21 budgets to achieve the targets. It also helps to provide a more stable programme, and should limit any political concerns caused by any major funding changes between the Committees.

2.7 A table showing the indicative allocation by RFCC for 2020/21 for schemes can be

found in Appendix B. The table also shows each RFCC’s contribution to the homes better protected target. The figures show the net change – incorporating indicative funding handed back for redistribution from the consented programme, additional funding announced on 10 September and accommodating increases for scheme cost pressures in the programme. The additional £62.4m funding in the recent

45

government announcement will be allocated to the announced schemes over the next few years as they require it. The full amounts are not wholly within 2020/21.

2.8 Our focus remains on achieving our fixed 300,000 homes better protected target by

end of March 2021. This focus on a shorter term goal means that the programme is in essence now an 18 month programme. Ideally it would consist of a blend of projects at different stages of development to manage FCRM into the future. However, with the current pressure on budgets, we are funding less projects that will feed the programme beyond March 2021.

2.9 In line with our settlement condition for the 6 year programme we would expect to see

10% efficiency savings on the £466m allocation for 2020/21. If half of this £46m were cash releasing, this would free up £23m to reinvest in schemes to help manage any in-year financial pressures.

2.10 The partnership funding contributions required to achieve the homes better protected

target for the 6 year programme is in the range of £590m to £650m, of which £550m has already been secured. Achievement of 30,000 homes of the 340,000 maximum possible homes are dependent on contributions which still remain to be secured. We are actively managing this and it is likely that some schemes which cannot secure the required partnership funding will achieve their homes early in the next programme. We welcome the RFCC Committees continued support in securing partnership funding.

3.0 Local Choices 3.1 At the October Committee meetings, RFCCs are asked to review their indicative

capital allocations and identify any required changes to the programme. We refer to this as the ‘local choices’ process. Local choices are important to ensure local issues can be taken into consideration and we get the best possible outcomes from the programme both locally and nationally.

3.2 Any changes must ensure that the Committee’s programme:

Remains within budget and on target to spend its indicative allocated budget for the final year of the programme

Secures, or improves the number of homes better protected 3.3 If additional contributions are identified, from third parties or local levy, RFCCs may

be able to increase their programme and deliver more projects and more homes better protected.

3.4 Following the Committee’s returns, the PMO will review these, and as long as they

meet the required criteria and are within budget they will be included in the production of the draft final allocation. RFCC Committees will see the draft final allocation again in January for their review and consent.

3.5 For the Thames RFCC the allocation and the local choices impacted the three Areas

that make up the committee in different ways. All Areas submitted a bid to bring back into the programme elements of work such as design, appraisal and construction. These elements hadn’t been funded in the last refresh and we needed to bring them back into the programme. At an RFCC level we were allocated £19.1m below our funding request. As part of the refresh bid Thames Area received roughly the amount of GiA they require. HNL in the refresh were significantly short of GiA but managed to secure GiA as part of the additional £62.4m outlined in Table 2 above. KSL were allocated only 50% of the area’s bid.

46

Table 3: Comparison of GiA bid vs allocation

3.6 This means we have some difficult decisions to make as a committee to come back

to an affordable allocation while protecting our houses at reduced risk from flooding. This strategy will be different for the three areas due to the different composition of their relative programmes. The information for local choices on GiA as well as a £2.5m transfer set out in Paper 4d, if approved by the committee supersedes the information set out in Appendix B. It should be noted that any transfer of money to the Thames RFCC would not constitute a baseline budgetary change should RFCC budgets in 2020/21 be mirrored in 2021/22. In that funding scenario the £2.5m would return to Southern RFCC for their prioritisation. These local choices have been reviewed at the Thames RFCC Subcommittee which has recommended their approval at full committee.

4.0 FCRM Grant in Aid revenue allocation 4.1 Table 4 shows the indicative revenue allocation for 2020/21 and 2019/20 for reference.

Table 4: Funding by service level, £m

Service Level SR19 EA baseline 2019/20 2020/21 ‘roll-over’

Asset Management 210.3 210.3

Incident Management (IM) 24.9 24.9

Partnership and Strategic Overview 7.7 7.7

Biodiversity 4.3 4.3

Retained Services 9.1 9.1

Autumn Budget 2018 - IM 6.6 4.5

Total 262.8 260.8

5.0 Asset management revenue maintenance programme 5.1 Our planning assumption is that we will get a “roll-forward” asset management budget

for 2020/21. On that basis we will invest £110m into our Field Operations teams and maintenance programme.

5.2 Over a number of years we have been moving towards a position where all RFCCs

are funded to the same level of asset risk as defined in our Asset Information Management System (AIMS). We are now close to achieving this. In previous years

GiA - £m

Consented Programme Allocation 37.2 Refresh Bid 56.3 Variance -19.1

47

we have capped decreases at 10% per year. The maximum decrease for any RFCC Committee is 9% for 2020/21.

5.3 The opening indicative allocation to RFCCs for Area Operations Services teams and

maintenance programmes are provided in Appendix C. Further detail on the breakdown of maintenance activities will be provided to RFCC Committees in January.

6.0 Recommendations

The RFCC Committees are asked to:

1. Note the draft indicative allocations for FCRM capital and revenue GiA funding

(Appendix B and C).

2. Undertake local choices on their capital and programme and approve the transfer of £2.5m of GiA to the Thames RFCC from Southern RFCC.

3. Support the capital programme prioritisation criteria (Section 2.4). Ken Allison Director FCRM Allocation and Asset Management 16 September 2019

48

Appendix A: FCRM allocation principles Protect people and homes Deliver the £2.6bn six year capital programme Increased protection for at least 300,000 homes between 2015/16 and 2020/21 Protect maintenance funding in real terms through this Parliament and re-invest 10%

efficiency savings by 2019/20 Take a risk-based approach to securing the condition of existing assets including

channel conveyance Maintain our ability to warn people and respond to incidents so as to save lives and

property Support the provision of property scale resistance and resilience measures Working in partnership Provide positive contributions to the recently announced Government-led reviews into

flood risk management Achieve third party, including private, investment in line with the Defra partnership

funding and contributions policy Support community-based solutions that are innovative, cost-effective and affordable Achieve balanced programmes in collaboration with RFCCs Promoting an integrating approach to managing flood risk working with other Risk

Management Authorities We will take a catchment based approach Improve our understanding with partners of all flood and coastal erosion risk data and

support the government’s ‘Open Data’ commitment making our data and information easily accessible to all who want it

Way we work Maintain skills and a pipeline of studies for medium and long-term investment needs Maximise efficiency savings and value for money Continue to promote schemes that meet statutory environmental requirements Promote sustainable development that reduces flood risk Provide appropriate funding toward the essential support services that enable delivery of

flood and coastal risk outcomes We will work collaboratively across the Environment Agency and with external partners

to realise multiple benefits.

49

Appendix B: FCRM GiA indicative capital allocation – schemes only

RFCC

2019/20 Opening Allocation1

2020/21 Current published

programme indicative allocation2

2020/21 Refresh indicative

allocation September 20194

Difference refresh vs indicative allocation for

2020/214

Programme forecast 2020/21

£m Max homes £m Max homes £m Max homes £m Max homes Most likely homes3

Anglian Eastern 35.5 4,620 16.1 2,858 32.0 2,282 15.9 -576 1,826

Anglian Great Ouse 13.1 394 18.7 1,557 26.1 2,184 7.4 627 1,747

Anglian Northern 57.6 16,871 19.3 5,133 46.6 18,449 27.3 13,316 14,759

English Severn and Wye 3.4 969 1.5 396 1.6 700 0.1 304 560

North West 56.9 5,624 73.1 6,194 65.1 5,120 -8.0 -1,074 4,096

Northumbria 10.1 1,167 5.5 1,118 11.7 1,353 6.2 235 1,082

South West 22.5 2,088 20.6 1,050 19.9 2,326 -0.7 1,276 1,861

Southern 42.1 12,914 62.0 13,940 61.8 12,449 -0.2 -1,491 9,959

Thames 48.7 6,267 29.9 5,860 37.2 3,507 7.3 -2,353 2,806

Trent 50 2,481 37.2 10,318 40.6 9,976 3.4 -342 7,981

Wessex 9.1 1,125 13.1 1,286 12.2 1,769 -0.9 483 1,415

Yorkshire 95.3 23,572 104.4 18,205 103.0 22,327 -1.4 4,122 17,862

Total 444.3 78,092 401.4 67,915 457.93 82,442 56.5 14,527 65,954

1. Budget for 2019/20 was amended in Q1 2019/20 to ensure programme remained affordable. 2. Indicative allocation for 2020/21 given as part of the 2019/20 allocation agreed at EA Board on 7 February 2019. Does not align to 2020/21 in Table 1 as this includes the additional

funding. 3. £3.8m is yet to be allocated 4. The figures show the net change – incorporating indicative funding handed back for redistribution from the consented programme, additional funding announced on 10 September and

accommodating increases for scheme cost pressures in the programme.

50

Appendix C: FCRM GiA indicative revenue maintenance allocations for 2020/21 and 2021/22

RFCC 2019/20

Allocation, £k

2020/21 Indicative Allocation

£k

2021/22 Indicative Allocation

£k

Anglian Great Ouse 4,770 4,542 4,087

Anglian Eastern 8,698 8,450 7,955

Anglian Northern 10,287 10,755 10,426

North West 10,645 10,950 11,700

Northumbria 2,475 2,549 2,500

Severn & Wye 4,833 4,411 4,043

South West 5,119 5,004 4,630

Southern 11,276 10,964 10,405

Thames 19,399 20,027 21,021

Trent 12,335 12,730 14,164

Wessex 7,729 7,420 6,870

Yorkshire 12,434 12,198 12,198

Total 110,000 110,000 110,000

51

Appendix D: Annual allocation funding cycles for RFCCs – a simple guide

52

Agenda Item No: 4d

Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee

Appendix 1: Capital Programme allocation cycle Appendix 2: Levy Funding Allocation Principles

Appendix 3: Thames RFCC 2020/21 Capital Programme Local Choices Date: 17 October 2019 Paper by: Programme Managers Subject: FCRM Capital Programme Refresh Allocations and Local Choices

1.0 Background 1.1 This paper sets out the indicative allocations for FCRM Grant in Aid (GiA) capital funding for

2020/21, the final year of the six year capital programme. It provides an explanation of the national context, a comparison between the GiA refresh bid and the indicative allocations, and the impacts on the Thames RFCC capital programme. It also sets out some options for levy use to help optimise the programme.

1.2 At the October Thames RFCC subcommittee, members were asked to discuss and identify any changes to the programme in light of the GiA indicative allocations (to make Local Choices) and to discuss and agree on the use of levy for 2020/21. These recommendations are outlined below for approval.

2.0 Progress to Date 2.1 This year’s refresh is the final of the current approved 6 year programme and will be critical in

achieving our collective National 300,000 homes better protected target and the Thames RFCC target of 33,320 homes better protected by the end March 2021, as set out in our original consented programme in March 2015.

2.2 At a National level, by the end of 2018/19 we had achieved 193,604 homes better protected. The forecast by the end of 2019/20 is a cumulative total of just over 250,000 homes better protected, with a predicted out-turn for the six year programme of 319,000 homes better protected.

Recommendations: The Thames RFCC Committee are asked to: Note the indicative allocations for the Thames RFCC flood and coastal risk

management capital grant in aid (GiA) funding Support the proposed local choices for GiA Including a £2.5m transfer from Southern

RFCC to Thames RFCC. Approve the use of levy on the programme as set out in the options in this paper

53

2.3 At Thames RFCC level, by the end of 2018/19 we had achieved 19,337 homes better protected. The forecast by the end of 2019/20 is a cumulative total of 26,097 homes better protected

3.0 National Context 3.1 The main focus for the 2020/21 programme refresh is to achieve the 300,000 homes better

protected target within the available budget, meaning that GiA allocation is protected to those schemes that deliver towards the homes protected target by 31 March 2021. Any remaining allocation is then prioritised to those projects that are urgent/exceptional, for example Legal, Health and Safety or with time limited contributions; schemes in construction; and schemes in order of homes protected. As this is a continuation of the previous allocation round principle the theory is this will enable a light touch refresh process and promote stability where possible to RFCC allocations.

3.2 Using the RFCC level refresh programme bids submitted in July, a number of scenarios were

run at a National level in order to provide our indicative allocations. However, due to the scale of the programme in construction and existing commitments, all these scenarios showed minimal impact on the overall outcome and showed a similar most likely homes protected outcome of around 320,000 when the programme is made affordable.

3.3 Therefore, in order to promote stability and be consistent with the light touch approach, no

updated nationally prioritised programme has been issued. Instead, we are being asked to use our current indicative allocations for 2020/21 (from the 19/20 Consented Programme) to prioritise our programme and make Local Choices to develop an affordable programme. There have been a few adjustments made to RFCC GiA allocations and homes better protected targets to update these with the latest best available information.

3.4 There is likely to be continued GiA pressure across RFCC programmes in 2020/21 if projects in

construction increase in costs. This is currently being managed at a national level through a number of mechanisms such as re-profiling higher risk investment to 2021/22 onwards and accelerating any spend opportunities to 2019/20. If an affordable balance cannot be achieved then it may be necessary for indicative allocations to be reduced accordingly or for a full national prioritisation to take place.

4.0 Thames RFCC GiA and Homes Better Protected Indicative Allocations for 2020/21 4.1 Table 1 below shows a comparison of the 2020/21 GiA indicative allocations from the 2019/20

consented programme against the 2020/21 refresh bid, along with the number of homes better protected that Thames RFCC are being asked to deliver.

Table 1 – Thames RFCC GiA and Homes Protected refresh bid comparison 4.2 The Thames RFCC programme unconstrained GiA refresh bid shows that we requested

£19.1m more GiA to the programme to achieve 2,372 more homes protected than our consented programme indicative allocation targets. The increased GiA request covered a number of factors such as:

Re-profiling schemes back to their optimum delivery profiles after having artificial gaps introduced to their funding through last year’s allocation process.

GiA - £m Homes Better Protected

Consented Programme Allocation 37.2 3,507

Refresh Bid 56.3 5,879

Variance -19.1 -2,372

54

Re-profiling of levy associated with this, especially where levy was used to underwrite GiA on some approved schemes.

Some project slippage and acceleration opportunities impacting their funding need. Some new scheme opportunities.

5.0 The impact of the GiA indicative allocation for 2020/21

5.1 The £37.2m GiA allocation for 2020/21 includes an additional £7m due to success in bidding for

funds from the additional £62m GiA funding pot announced in September 2019 for the Roding project (£4.9m) and success in removing the levy underwrite for Bramingham (£1.458m) and bringing forward GiA for Roding into 2020/2021 (£0.6m).

5.2 However, our GiA allocation is still £19.1m less than we bid for and sees our homes protected

target also reducing by 2,372. The main impact of the programme refresh was on Thames Estuary Phase 1 programme for tidal works in the Thames estuary. We bid for £28m of GiA but have only received £12m of GiA funding.

5.3 In addition to not being able to deliver as many homes better protected, less GiA means we will

be limited in the scheme development work we can do to plan and prepare for the delivery of the next programme. The main impact of this is twofold: There will be less certainty on scheme preferred options, costs and confidence in delivering,

meaning the next programme will be much more liable to change Without knowing scheme preferred options and costs it will be harder to identify and start

talking to partners to secure contributions, leading to scheme delays.

5.4 Because the Thames Estuary Phase 1 programme’s bid was funded below its need, currently 100% of its allocation in the latest refresh goes to projects that are currently in construction or committed expenditure. This means that there will be no funding to undertake maintenance activities on the Thames Barrier, no ability to undertake investigations for future projects on the Thames Estuary and no continuation of the projects we have undertaken appraisal and design on.

5.5 As such we are proposing to optimise the programme by moving GiA from a number of

schemes into the Thames Estuary programme. This includes schemes that aren’t now in a position to deliver their homes better protected by March 2021, such as the Lower Mole Major refurbishment project. In addition we are proposing pausing or slowing down projects such as the Barnes Flood Alleviation Scheme that do have an allocation, will deliver houses better protected by March 2021 but benefit less properties than those in the tidal estuary. We are doing this where a project can be paused without either increasing flood risk or project costs, these projects would then resume should further funding become available or restart in the next spending review. The result of this programme optimisation means pooling £5m of GiA allocated to projects and putting this into the works on the Thames Estuary.

5.6 Due to the importance of the tidal estuary programme, we have reviewed the programme

across the wider Kent and South London Area programme, which also falls into Southern RFCC. We are proposing to move £2.5m of GiA funding from Southern to Thames RFCC to fund tidal estuary work. This has been supported by the Southern RFCC subcommittee and will be formalised on October the 15th at the Southern RFCC main Committee. By optimising the Thames programme as described above, and transferring £2.5m funding from Southern and undertaking local choices we can increase GiA for the Thames Estuary by £7.5m securing works to protect 2,146 properties and continue to develop a future programme of work.

6.0 Thames RFCC Levy position for 2020/21

55

6.1 Table 2 below shows a comparison of the 2020/21 Local Levy indicative allocations from the 2019/20 consented programme against the 2020/21 refresh bid.

Table 2 – Thames RFCC Levy refresh bid comparison 6.2 The reduction in the levy refresh bid was primarily due to a lowering in need from several large

schemes such as Oxford FAS, Reading - Caversham FAS and the Graveney FAS where there has been some scheme re-profiling. This is where programme managers work with project managers to understand the financial forecast of projects which obviously vary as the project moves through its lifecycle and can have impacts across financial years. We then move around the different funding streams on projects, such as levy, to allow schemes to progress to their optimum pathway while maximising the impact of the funding in the relevant financial year. There has also been significant successes where schemes have reduced their GiA underwrite need such as Bramingham Flood Alleviation Scheme (£1.458m), where the Levy need has reduced as the scheme successfully secured GiA in its place.

7.0 Local Choices 7.1 At October committee meetings, RFCC are asked to review their GiA indicative capital

allocations and identify any changes required to the programme – this is the ‘local choices’ process. Local choices are important to ensure local issues can be taken into consideration and we get the best possible outcomes from the programme both locally and nationally.

7.2 Any changes must ensure that the Committee’s programme:

Remains within budget and on target to spend its indicative allocated budget for the final year of the programme; and

Meets the National GiA allocation principles outlined in paragraph 3.1

7.3 Due to the scale and nature of the Thames RFCC programme and the lack of GiA available in 2020/21 there are limited opportunities for GiA programme changes. However we propose the following choices outlined in Table 3 Below which have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the subcommittee.

Levy - £m

Consented Programme Indicative Allocation 28.2

Refresh Bid 21.3

Variance 6.9

56

Table 3 – Proposed Kent and South London GiA Local choices

Scheme Allocated GiA Proposal Reduction OM impact

Barnes Flood Alleviation Scheme 500,000 - 500,000 -31 Marsh Dykes sluice repairs and permanent access works 320,000 - 320,000 -200

Graveney FAS 200,000 - 200,000 -

Assessing Risk from Bridges and Culverts 200,000 - 200,000 - Lower Mole FAS Major Refurbishment Works

2,815,800 50,000 2,765,800 -

SuDS in Sutton's Schools 185,000 - 185,000 - Leatherhead and Fetcham Flood Alleviation Scheme

350,000 - 350,000 -13

Graveney Siphon De-Silting 350,000 5,000 345,000 - Ravensbourne (East Branch) at Southborough flood alleviation study 100,000 - 100,000 -

Total 5,020,800 55,000 4,965,800 -270

Scheme Allocated GiA Proposal Increase OM

impact

Lower Mole Resilience Works 0 500,000 500,000 100 Thames Estuary Phase 1 Programme (TTD) 12,134,964

18,620,764 6,485,800 2,030

TE2100 Implementation Planning - 480,000 480,000 0

Total 12,134,964 19,600,764 7,465,800 2,130 7.4 With the transfer of £2.5m of GiA from Southern RFCC into Thames RFCC and the £5m GiA

reduction in schemes, the £7.5m additional increase would be affordable. 7.5 Programme Managers will continue to work within GiA budgets to optimise the programme and

would look to support some of the above schemes as part of a GiA overprogramme. 8.0 Thames RFCC Local Levy Options and Scenarios 8.1 It is within the gift of the committee to use its levy investment as it sees fit. Programme

Managers profile the use of levy to support the delivery of the programme in line with the steer given by committee.

8.2 The Thames RFCC Levy has been very successful in securing GiA at the front end of the

programme, both by topping up projects to allow them to secure GiA and also by having a flexible approach in its use of levy, allowing the movement of levy funds between financial years to maximise the use of GiA when it has been available. This successful approach has meant that the RFCC has not used as much levy as originally forecast in the first four years of the programme which now allows the levy to be invested in schemes to keep them progressing when GiA is not available to continue the programme. The strategy for levy over 2019/20-2020/21 was to draw down on the remaining levy balances by the end of the programme, maximising the schemes that were delivered through levy funding.

57

8.3 At the end of 2018/19 there was £27.3m in levy balances, with a further £11.6m raised in 2019/20, and the same again expected for 2020/21 (or 1.99% more if the annual levy increase is approved). This totals a levy budget of £50.5m to the end of the programme. The current 2019/20 levy forecast is £17.9m and the 2020/21 refresh levy bid is £21.3m, totalling a levy request of £39.2m to the end of the programme. This leaves a balance of £11.3m of unallocated levy funds not assigned to projects using the funds by the end of the current approved programme by March 31st 2021. However this amount will vary when we take account of the slippage in the levy programme that we traditionally see due to the complex nature of the work the programme is trying to deliver. Some of our projects such as Oxford, RTS or Graveney will have a levy commitment beyond March 2021 to be able to secure GiA in the future and members may wish to consider how we fund our future need.

8.4 At the last refresh Local Choices review (October 2018), in addition to the overarching levy

principles outlined in Appendix 2, the main RFCC committee endorsed three main themes for levy investment: Supporting the existing 6 year GiA programme and continuing to invest in projects that

meet the levy criteria, helping RFCC secure its GiA allocation and homes better protected target

Underwrite projects in place of GiA allocation – this allowed schemes to progress that would have otherwise stopped or been pushed back in the programme due to the lack of GiA investment, thus helping to secure contributions and protect people and property earlier than possible through GiA alone

Supporting non-traditional investment opportunities that could unlock contributions, pilot different approaches, or provide protection to properties that are outside of normal GiA investment yet still provide worthwhile investment opportunities – either ‘seed funding’ the future programme or getting schemes into construction in this programme.

8.5 Following on from the advice last year the October 2019 subcommittee were asked to review

and discuss the following two main choices for the refresh programme, providing a steer to Programme Managers and asking them to build a detailed Local Choice programme on that basis to present to October main committee for approval:

1. Agree the amount of levy spend in 2020/21 2. Agree how the levy should be used.

8.6 Agreeing the amount of levy spend in 2020/21

As outlined in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3, the strategy for levy use to the end of the programme is to draw down the remaining levy balances but the refreshed programme is forecasting to leave an £11.3m levy balance by the end of 2020/21. There are three main financial options for spend in 2020/21 that were presented to the sub-committee for discussion:

1. Do nothing – accept the indicative allocations and reduced homes better protected target shown in Table 1, and move the forecast £11.3m unallocated levy balance to the next programme.

2. Increase levy spend by £11.3m - Build a Local Choices programme to increase the levy commitment by £11.3m in order to draw down the remaining levy balance to the end of the programme. Depending on the recommendations from the subcommittee on the use of levy as outlined in paragraph 8.7, this option could be used to increase the number of homes protected in the current programme, allow for continued scheme development for pipeline projects and help fund non-traditional projects that could unlock future opportunities. There are plenty of existing schemes on the programme that could benefit from this approach,

3. Increase levy spend by up to £19.1m - Build a larger over-programme Local Choices programme to increase the levy commitment up to £19.1m, supplementing the GiA that we did not receive in the indicative allocations. This approach would enable delivery of the whole refresh programme agreed by committee at the July meeting (and at Annex C) and would increase the homes better protected by 2,372, as shown in Table 1. A larger levy over-

58

programme would allow for anticipated programme slippage but could mean levy is over-committed if projects deliver to current financial forecasts and no further GiA becomes available.

After in depth discussion at subcommittee the members proposed increasing the use of levy on the programme to support the continuation of schemes with options being taken to main committee for approval.

8.7 Levy use on the Programme After discussions the subcommittee recommend financial option 3 above, allowing up to £19.1m of spend, ensuring there were controls in place not to spend more than budgets. It was noted by members that levy should be used to create a blended programme, that continuing to invest in pipeline projects gives greater confidence in the future programme and given the successful movement of Levy earlier in the programme creating a natural over programme was something that the committee could benefit from. Programme managers were tasked with bringing back options for the main committee to approve.

8.8 Before looking at the levy themes programme managers have reviewed and optimised the

existing levy commitment to the programme to ensure it is deliverable and optimised to progress projects. This has resulted in the following changes in Table 4 below.

Table 4 – Levy re-profiles

Scheme Consented levy

Local choices levy request

Levy Variance

Graveney FAS 50,000 152,000 102,000

Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme 2,000,000 1,500,000 -500,000

Reading - Caversham FAS 1,000,000 600,000 -400,000

The River Roding Project 2,595,000 3,172,501 577,501 Pednormead End, Chesham Surface

Water and Ground Water Management Scheme

862,000 928,443 66,443

Total 6,507,000 6,352,944 -154,056

Underwrite projects in place of GiA allocation Use levy in place of GiA for projects that were eligible for GiA but have no allocation due to limited funds available. This would create a larger over-programme, allowing more projects to continue with their planned progress and spend with the expectation that should GiA become available through slippage, efficiencies, further contributions or additional funds then GiA would take over again and levy would be released. Table 5 below outlines 19 schemes that could be progressed with levy funding in the place of GiA to the value of £3.7m supporting £3.7m of existing levy commitment, this would help support schemes that would reduce the risk of flooding to 512 properties by March 2021.

Table 5 – Proposed GiA to Levy underwrites

Scheme

Local Levy -

2020/21

Local choices levy

request

Levy Variance

Barnes Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 700,000 700,000Marsh Dykes sluice repairs and permanent access works

0 320,000 320,000

Assessing Risk from Bridges and Culverts 0 200,000 200,000

SuDS in Sutton's Schools 198,000 383,000 185,000

Leatherhead and Fetcham Flood Alleviation Scheme 125,000 206,000 81,000

59

Scheme

Local Levy -

2020/21

Local choices levy

request

Levy Variance

Future Thames Barrier sites 0 120,000 120,000

Houghton Brook Flood Storage Area 3,000,000 3,106,539 106,539 Hounslow Town Centre Flood Alleviation Scheme 160,451 260,311 99,860 Queens Wood, N6, Natural Flood Management 126,200 168,845 42,645 Hertfordshire County-Wide Property Level Resilience Pilot Programme 94,000

128,000 34,000

Caddington - Flood risk study and scheme 20,000 60,000 40,000 Bullsmoor Lane Flood Alleviation Scheme 9,372 57,902 48,530 Chapel Lane, Long Marston Local Drainage Flood Alleviation 7,045

61,500 54,455

Brentford North Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000 Critical Drainage Area 008 - Northfield Avenue Surface Water Study 0

172,000 172,000

Greenford Flood Management Scheme 0 596,623 596,623 Headstone Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 717,755 717,755 Regent Avenue and Elephant Park 0 50,000 50,000 Westminster North West Strategy 0 134,756 134,756

Total

3,740,068

7,493,231

3,753,163

Support schemes to design stage to build the pipeline Use levy to progress the development of projects to create a ‘spade ready’ programme of projects that will rebid for funding in the next programme refresh or be ready to begin their construction profiles in the next programme. 21 schemes can be progressed under this theme for £1.5m of levy. This allows schemes to have the security to set up or continue this financial year and potentially draw in any accelerated GiA from the next spending review that is being requested by the national programme management office to support the pipeline programme.

Table 6 – Proposed Levy funding to support the pipeline

Scheme

Local Levy -

2020/21

Local choices levy

request

Levy Variance

Peckham Rye Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 400,000 400,000

Lower Mole FAS Major Refurbishment Works 0 50,000 50,000 Wandle Hackbridge F1 & F3 Flood Alleviation Scheme

0 75,000 75,000

Wandle Hackbridge F2 Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000

Maryon Wilson Park Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000 The Beck (East Branch) at Langley Park flood alleviation study

0 50,000 50,000

CDA 16 - Old Malden Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000

CDA 18 Hook Kelvin Grove Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000

Caterham Bourne Flood alleviation scheme 0 50,000 50,000

Copthorne Stream FAS 0 25,000 25,000

Smallfield Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000

Burstow Stream at East Horley FAS 0 15,000 15,000

Dorking Pipp Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 15,000 15,000

60

Scheme

Local Levy -

2020/21

Local choices levy

request

Levy Variance

South Earlswood Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 25,000 25,000 Ravensbourne (East Branch) at Southborough flood alleviation study

0 200,000 200,000

Kyd Brook FAS 0 25,000 25,000

Reigate Town Centre FAS 0 50,000 50,000

Caterham Hill Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 50,000 50,000 A32 Farringdon & Chawton - Groundwater Flood

Alleviation 0 27000 27000

Upper Salt Hill Stream 0 65000 65000

Hardmead and Stanstead Radial Gate Replacement 0 74,490 74,490

Total - 1,446,490 1,446,490

‘Seed fund’ low PF scoring schemes

Use levy to continue to develop projects for our pipeline programme that are low PF scoring schemes. These don’t meet the usual levy criteria for investment. We can use this theme in the future to continue to fund schemes as they occur.

Fully fund select schemes up to a certain value Use levy in place of GiA or contributions to progress priority projects rather than see them delayed. This could either be used to help reduce costs of delivering schemes in the future, help keep secured partner contributions or ensure communities are protected from flooding rather than waiting until GiA becomes available. Should the Committee decide not to fund all the schemes in Table 5 above there is the option in this theme to take forward some options or combinations of projects. The two schemes in Table 7 below need £278,000 of levy to deliver 61 OM’s. Table 7 – Using levy to fully fund schemes

Scheme

Local Levy -

2020/21

Local choices levy

request

Levy Variance

Kingsway, Blackwater Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 148,000 148,000

Phoenix Green, Flood Alleviation Study 265,000 395,000 130,000

Total 265,000 543,000 278,000

Develop non-traditional projects Use levy to support the development of non-traditional projects that could create some really strong opportunities to unlock funding from developers in the future or identify large catchment scale flood risk reduction opportunities that would not be eligible for GiA under the current funding criteria. The Thames Valley Flood scheme represents this theme as outlined in Table 8.

Table 8 – Proposed Levy funding to support the pipeline

Scheme

Local Levy - 2020/21

Local choices levy request

Levy Variance

Thames Valley Flood Scheme 0 250,000 250,000

Total - 250,000 250,000

61

8.9 Appendix 3 shows the proposed Thames RFCC programme post local choices with the schemes requesting local levy support under the various themes highlighted according to the relevant header colour.

8.10 If all of the levy themes outlined above are accepted the impact on the levy would be £5.7m and

bring the levy back up to £1.2m below the investment we outlined with our consented programme from last year.

Table 9 – Proposed Levy local choice summary

9.0 Recommendations 9.1 The Thames RFCC main committee are asked to:

Note the indicative allocations for the Thames RFCC flood and coastal risk management capital grant in aid funding.

Support the proposed local choices for GiA Including a £2.5m transfer from Southern RFCC to Thames RFCC.

Approve the use of levy on the programme as set out in the options in this paper Name: Carol Ward, Rich Oakes and Sara Robinson

Title: Programme Managers

Email: carol.ward@environment-agency.gov.uk

Date: October 2019

Levy - £m

Consented Programme Indicative Allocation 28.2

Refresh Bid 21.3

Post local choices all themes 27

Variance from refresh bid 5.7

62

Appendix 1 – Capital allocation process

Jan/Feb – EA Board approves the final programme and allocation of 

capital FCRM Grant‐in‐Aid 

Annual process for allocating capital funding

April/May – timetable for annual refresh announced to RMAs and 

associated guidance issued 

May/June – EA Area teams and other RMAs review projects in the consented programme and advise 

on any changes required 

July – proposed project changes and the ‘refreshed’ programme 

is shared with RFCCs for endorsement 

August/Sept – EA National team collate all changes and bids for additional/ 

reduced funding and, working within the budget available, prioritise projects 

August/Sept – EA National team prepare an indicative programme for the whole country showing which projects are eligible for funding 

Sept/Oct – indicative programme is shared with RFCCs for ‘local choices’ to ensure local priorities are addressed as far as possible within the budgets available and national priorities. RFCCs may increase programmes with 

further contributions from third parties or local levy 

Nov/Dec – EA National team collate and review all ‘local choices’ returns 

and prepare final allocation programme 

Jan – RFCCs review and consent their final allocation 

programmes of work for the following year 

March – Approved/ consented programme published on gov.uk, final preparations made to deliver 

work in new financial year 

April – planning for next financial year begins, agreed programmes and associated outcome targets shared with 

RFCCs for reference

63

Appendix 2 – Levy Funding Allocation Principles Levy Principles used to fund projects in Thames RFCC

Thames RFCC has established a set of principles to guide its levy investment programme. These are refined each year to capture lessons learned from the previous year’s programme and to maximise the outcomes delivered. The overarching principles are summarised below

risk-led approach with focus on significant risk mix of schemes (major, smaller, community, innovation) value for money (cost: benefit and partnership funding score) deliver efficiencies by planning ahead and packaging work link to redevelopment and water company and transport investment adopt integrated approaches to all types of flood risk plan pipeline including major schemes and “spade ready” portfolio invest in existing assets as well as new integrated approach to outcomes including environmental good spread across RFCC area a surface water scheme in each LLFA an integrated scheme in each LLFA partnership

In April 2018, members discussed the lessons learned from the programme and agreed to make some changes to the principles for future projects. Previously, any surface water scheme entering the programme would be eligible to be ‘topped up’ with local levy regardless of its Partnership Funding score. Members agreed that schemes would still be eligible for top-up with levy but providing the following two conditions are also met:

Scheme Benefit Cost Ratio is over 1 Partnership Funding Score (raw or adjusted) of at least 50%

Any scheme with less than an adjusted 50% partnership funding score (with other partnership funding included) will be considered by the Committee on a case by case basis. Members also agreed to prioritise those projects which maximise the benefits brought into the programme, including any schemes which contribute to the homes better protected by March 2021 target.

In October 2018, during the refresh of the programme, the Committee tasked the programme managers to construct a refreshed programme. The following additional guidelines alongside the normal levy principles were used:

64

Underwrite projects with levy to increase GiA over-programme opportunity Support schemes to design stage to build pipeline; Fully fund select schemes up to a certain value Progress schemes to next gateway Continue to use levy amounts to schemes that have it allocated already as long as the overarching levy principles are met

In order to prioritise projects, the committee set two objectives. They were to:

maximise homes better protected, which could be for delivery post March 2021 and; secure partnership contributions.

Unspent In year levy on projects

Members have agreed that any unspent levy in one year will not automatically roll over and be added to the allocation in the following year. This is a change to previous arrangements. It is to ensure an affordable programme to maximise the number of schemes delivered. It also ensures that all Risk Management Authorities can access levy support for future schemes they put forward.

If Projects wish to roll over their Levy into a future year and it has not been accounted for in the consented programme for that year, they will be reviewed by Committee. Such projects will be highlighted and reviewed by RFCC on a project by project basis.

65

Appendix 3. Thames RFCC 2020/21 Capital Programme Local Choices Key Levy Re-profile GiA Underwrite Pipeline work Non Traditional scheme Fully levy funded

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

A32 Farringdon & Chawton - Groundwater Flood Alleviation

Hampshire County Council

107% 127,000 0 27000 100000 0 0 0

Abingdon River Ock Flood Storage Area Environment Agency

42% 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0

Alfold Crossways Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey County Council

25% 150,000 50,170 0 0 0 99,830 7

Assessing Risk from Bridges and Culverts Environment Agency

134% 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0

Bagshot Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

24% 90,000 0 90,000 0 0 0 0

Barnes Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

120% 700,000 0 700,000 0 0 0 0

Bear Brook Flood Storage Area Embankment Improvement Project

Environment Agency

0% 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0

Beckenham Place Park Small Scale Storage and Landscaping

London Borough of Lewisham

100% 90,000 0 90,000 0 0 0 0

Bramingham Flood Alleviation Scheme Luton Borough Council

64% 2,376,231 1,457,706 618,525 300,000 0 0 371

Brentford North Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Hounslow

100% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 25

Brooklands, Byfleet & Wey Road, Weybridge, Flood Alleviation Scheme

Environment Agency

14% 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 0

Buckskin Flood Alleviation Scheme, Basingstoke Hampshire County Council

101% 300,000 0 0 300000 0 0 0

Bullsmoor Lane Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Enfield

100% 57,902 0 57,902 0 0 0 20

Burstow Stream at East Horley FAS Environment Agency

31% 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 0

66

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

Caddington - Flood risk study and scheme Central Bedfordshire Council

108% 70,000 0 60,000 0 10,000 0 15

Cannon Brook and Mad Bess Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme

London Borough of Hillingdon

100% 180,000 76,052 23,948 5,000 75,000 0 72

Caterham Bourne Flood alleviation scheme London Borough of Croydon

158% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

Caterham Hill Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey County Council

22% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

CDA 16 - Old Malden Flood Alleviation Scheme Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

N/A 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

CDA 18 Hook Kelvin Grove Flood Alleviation Scheme

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

33% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

CDA 22 - Worcester Park Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme

London Borough of Sutton

100% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

CDA 31 South Beddington Flood Alleviation Scheme

London Borough of Sutton

22% 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0

Central Camberwell Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Southwark

100% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

Chapel Lane, Long Marston Local Drainage Flood Alleviation

Hertfordshire County Council

100% 61,500 0 61,500 0 0 0 14

Chestnuts Park Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Haringey

48% 70,000 0 0 20,000 50,000 0 0

Chobham Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey Heath Borough Council

100% 71,000 0 49,000 22,000 0 0 34

Churchill Gardens Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Westminster

23% 359,000 0 359,000 0 0 0 19

Clayhall Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Redbridge

74% 244,000 0 0 0 0 244,000 143

Colnbrook - County Ditch & Colne Brook Environment Agency

34% 205,000 0 0 0 0 205,000 0

Com NFM - Pang Valley NFM Environment Agency

N/A 24,000 24,000 0 0 0 0 0

Copthorne Stream FAS West Sussex County Council

101% 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0

67

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

Covingham & Nythe Flood Alleviation Strategy, Swindon, River Cole, Series of Flood Defence Measures

Swindon Borough Council

29% 175,000 125,000 0 50,000 0 0 0

Critical Drainage Area 005 - Yeading Lane, Southall London Borough of Ealing

100% 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 0

Critical Drainage Area 008 - Northfield Avenue Surface Water Study

London Borough of Ealing

183% 172,000 0 172,000 0 0 0 0

Critical Drainage Area 041 - Beech Avenue, East Acton

London Borough of Ealing

91% 34,500 0 0 0 0 34,500 0

Dallow, Bury Park and High Town Flood Alleviation Scheme

Luton Borough Council

100% 365,000 0 100,000 0 0 265,000 0

Dorking Pipp Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

27% 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 0

Enfield Town Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Enfield

103% 207,088 167,088 0 40,000 0 0 7

Flanders Road CDA029 Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Hounslow

31% 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0

Fleet Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

15% 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0

Frogs Ditch and Cranford Park Flood Alleviation Scheme

London Borough of Hillingdon

57% 782,000 0 0 182,000 200,000 400,000 0

Future Thames Barrier sites Environment Agency

781% 120,000 0 120,000 0 0 0 0

Godstow Weir B replacement Environment Agency

0% 2,200,000 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 0

Graveney FAS Environment Agency

100% 152,000 0 152,000 0 0 0 0

Graveney Siphon De-Silting Environment Agency

101% 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0

Great Shefford Flood Mitigation Environment Agency

22% 350,000 0 350,000 0 0 0 0

Green Lanes Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Enfield

100% 39,070 25,972 2,748 10,350 0 0 20

Greenford Flood Management Scheme London Borough of Ealing

84% 730,241 0 596,623 0 0 133,618 0

Guildford Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

99% 400,000 0 400,000 0 0 0 0

Hardmead and Stanstead Radial Gate Replacement Environment Agency

84% 74,490 0 74,490 0 0 0 0

68

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

Headstone Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Harrow

100% 2,342,668 0 717,755 1,624,913 0 0 36

Heathway Industrial Estate Surface Water Study London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

110% 90,000 0 0 0 0 90,000 0

Hertfordshire County-Wide Property Level Resilience Pilot Programme

Hertfordshire County Council

67% 180,000 0 128,000 52,000 0 0 30

Hertfordshire Natural Flood Management Hertfordshire County Council

105% 80,000 0 70,000 10,000 0 0 0

Hillingdon Smart Water Catchment Network London Borough of Hillingdon

13% 85,000 0 0 5,000 0 80,000 0

Hoe Valley flood alleviation and WFD Scheme Woking Borough Council

56% 1,520,000 0 0 1,520,000 0 0 0

Houghton Brook Flood Storage Area Environment Agency

100% 4,384,299 0 3,106,539 1,277,760 0 0 249

Hounslow Town Centre Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Hounslow

100% 260,311 0 260,311 0 0 0 16

Hughenden Valley surface and groundwater scheme

Buckinghamshire County Council

27% 200,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 0

Islington South Flood Risk Management Scheme London Borough of Islington

99% 65,000 0 65,000 0 0 0 0

Kingsway, Blackwater Flood Alleviation Scheme Hart District Council

52% 342,500 86,500 148,000 55,000 53,000 0 33

Kyd Brook FAS Environment Agency

100% 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0

Leatherhead and Fetcham Flood Alleviation Scheme

Environment Agency

120% 206,000 0 206,000 0 0 0 0

Little Hadham A120 Bypass flood storage area Environment Agency

100% 4,924,286 0 1,149,830 3,774,456 0 0 68

Lower Mole FAS Major Refurbishment Works Environment Agency

50% 100,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0

Lower Mole Resilience Works Environment Agency

106% 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 229

Lower Pinn Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

13% 414,490 0 0 0 0 414,490 0

Luton Airport Parkway and Vauxhall Way Flood Alleviation Scheme

Luton Borough Council

46% 265,000 0 160,000 0 0 105,000 0

Luton Town Centre Flood Alleviation Scheme Luton Borough Council

119% 265,000 0 250,000 0 0 15,000 0

69

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

Marlow FAS Environment Agency

77% 91,500 91,500 0 0 0 0 0

Marlow Newt Ditch Scheme Buckinghamshire County Council

70% 190,000 40,000 0 150,000 0 0 0

Marsh Dykes sluice repairs and permanent access works

Environment Agency

119% 320,000 0 320,000 0 0 0 0

Maryon Wilson Park Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Greenwich

274% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

Monks Risborough surface water and groundwater scheme

Buckinghamshire County Council

10% 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 3

NFM - FCRM - Dorking FAS Environment Agency

31% 52,500 0 50,000 0 0 2,500 0

NFM - The Evenlode NFM/WFD Project Environment Agency

386% 190,000 25,000 50,000 30,000 25,000 60,000 0

North Peckham Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Southwark

100% 47,000 0 47,000 0 0 0 0

Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

100% 2,700,000 1,200,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0

Parsloes Park Surface Water Project London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

100% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

Peckham Rye Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Southwark

39% 765,676 0 400,000 0 0 365,676 0

Pednormead End, Chesham Surface Water and Ground Water Management Scheme

Buckinghamshire County Council

102% 2,928,443 0 928,443 2,000,000 0 0 79

Phoenix Green, Flood Alleviation Study Hart District Council

105% 465,000 0 395,000 0 70,000 0 28

Pinner and Hatch End Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

14% 478,593 0 0 0 0 478,593 0

Queens Wood, N6, NFM London Borough of Haringey

100% 168,845 0 168,845 0 0 0 9

Ravensbourne (East Branch) at Southborough flood alleviation study

Environment Agency

100% 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0

Reading - Caversham FAS Environment Agency

40% 1,102,118 498,830 600,000 0 0 3,288 0

Rectory Road, Farnborough Flood Alleviation Scheme

Hampshire County Council

95% 130,000 65000 65000 0 0 0 0

Redbourn (Rose Acre, Ridgedown, Snatchup, Lybury Lane) Surface Water Management

Hertfordshire County Council

93% 24,000 0 24,000 0 0 0 0

70

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

Regent Avenue and Elephant Park London Borough of Hillingdon

152% 63,000 0 50,000 0 0 13,000 54

Reigate Town Centre FAS Surrey County Council

64% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

Rickmansworth Combined Flood Risk Study Hertfordshire County Council

8% 13,986 0 0 0 0 13,986 0

Riparian Ownership Pilot London Borough of Hillingdon

0% 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 0

River Rom Flood Alleviation scheme Environment Agency

27% 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0

River Thames Scheme - Capacity Improvements and Flood Channel

Environment Agency

40% 9,920,000 2,670,000 4,300,000 2,950,000 0 0 0

River Wey Weir Refurbishment & Fish Passes Environment Agency

22% 3,462,000 3,382,000 0 80,000 0 0 0

Ruislip Park Wood and Pinn Meadows Environment Agency

29% 440,000 0 0 0 0 440,000 0

Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

100% 68,000 68,000 0 0 0 0 0

Salmons Brook Natural Flood Management London Borough of Enfield

170% 62,000 0 52,000 10,000 0 0 20

Sandy Lane Ditch Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

15% 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0

Sanway Byfleet - Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

111% 400,000 0 400,000 0 0 0 0

Saunderton surface and groundwater Scheme Buckinghamshire County Council

21% 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 0

Seven Kings Water Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Redbridge

29% 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 0

Silk Stream, Colindale Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

14% 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0

Smallfield Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey County Council

63% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

South Earlswood Flood Alleviation Scheme Surrey County Council

96% 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0

Stoke Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, Aylesbury Environment Agency

33% 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0

Stone Street Flood Alleviation Scheme Reading Borough Council

143% 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 0 0

71

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

SuDS in Sutton's Schools London Borough of Sutton

100% 573,000 0 383,000 90,000 0 100,000 0

Sustainable Drainage Systems in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

132% 450,000 0 450,000 0 0 0 0

Taplow Sluice Gantry Improvement Project Environment Agency

0% 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0

Thames Barrier and Associated Gates (TBAG) Drive Equipment

Environment Agency

907% 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0

TBAG2 PLA Thames Barrier Act Navigation Reimbursements

Environment Agency

907% 511,000 511,000 0 0 0 0 0

Thames Estuary 2100 Implementation Planning Environment Agency

781% 480,000 480,000 0 0 0 0 0

Temple Pond Flood Defence Improvements London Borough of Harrow

124% 75,000 0 0 50,000 25,000 0 0

Thames Estuary Phase 1 Programme (Thames Tideway Defences)

Environment Agency

781% 19,673,845 18,273,845 0 0 1,400,000 0 3,835

Thames RFCC Levy Posts 16/17 to 20/21 Environment Agency

N/A 660,000 0 660,000 0 0 0 0

Thames Valley Flood Scheme Environment Agency

4% 500,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0

Thames Weirs Gate Replacement Environment Agency

N/A 370,000 270,000 0 0 0 100,000 0

The Beck (East Branch) at Langley Park flood alleviation study

Environment Agency

100% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

The River Roding Project Environment Agency

100% 8,622,690 600,000 3,172,501 4,850,189 0 0 225

Tokyngton Flood Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency

13% 224,462 0 0 0 0 224,462 0

Travellers Lane, Hatfield Flood Alleviation Scheme Hertfordshire County Council

71% 30,000 0 10,000 0 0 20,000 0

Upper Mole FAS Environment Agency

N/A 35,775 35,775 0 0 0 0 0

Upper Salt Hill Stream Slough Borough Council

65% 180,000 0 65000 65,000 50,000 0 0

Wandle East Sutton J2 & J3 Flood Alleviation Scheme

London Borough of Sutton

100% 270,041 0 270,041 0 0 0 0

Wandle Hackbridge F1 & F3 Flood Alleviation Scheme

London Borough of Sutton

100% 75,000 0 75,000 0 0 0 0

72

Project Name Lead Risk

Management Authority

Adjusted Partnership

Funding Score

Total Project Expenditure

GiA Proposed Local Levy

Public Funding

Private Funding

All other funding sources

Properties at reduced

risk

Wandle Hackbridge F2 Flood Alleviation Scheme London Borough of Sutton

100% 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0

West End (South) FAS Surrey County Council

47% 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0

Westminster North West Strategy London Borough of Westminster

105% 134,756 0 134,756 0 0 0 44

Westrow Drive Surface Water Flood Risk Project London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

36% 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 0

Witney Environment Agency

18% 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 0

73

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

THAMES REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 17 October 2019 SUBJECT: Thames RFCC Levy Proposal for the final year of the six year

investment programme PAPER BY: Sarah Smith, Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, London

Recommendation

RFCC Members are asked to; Note the successes achieved through the levy investment in the Thames

RFCC in previous years, and that the business case for levy investment, agreed in principle for six years, is still valid.

Vote on the recommendation to raise the levy contribution by 1.99% in 2020/21, an increase of £230,381 shared across 54 local authorities.

1. Introduction

1.1. At the January 2015 committee meeting, the Thames RFCC consented to the capital programme of work over the 6 year spending period 2015/16 to 2020/21 and agreed in principle to raise a total of £67.5m in Levy supporting £301.6m in Grant in Aid (GiA). This levy would be used in addition to the funds already held in balances from previous years (known as the major projects fund). The programme is ‘refreshed’ annually to take account of any changes to the programme (e.g. as a result of any project accelerations or delays, or where schemes are determined to be unviable) and to add new schemes into the programme. Paper 4d gives the latest information on the GiA allocation for the final year of the programme and the proposed local choices for both GiA and levy.

1.2. At the January 2015 meeting, members also voted to give ‘in principle’ support for an annual levy increase of 1.99% over the 6 year spending period, to be confirmed by an annual vote to support the longer term approach of a 6 year GiA allocation.

1.3. The Levy programme continues to be an integral factor in the development and support of schemes. This includes supporting large scale and longer term flood risk schemes such as the River Thames Scheme and the Oxford Scheme, topping up projects to allow them to secure GiA as well as supporting the early development work of projects including many Local Authority surface water schemes. The levy spend to date is £30.3m and the forecast for the remainder of the six year programme is £39.2m.

1.4. This paper includes the levy principles used to allocate levy to projects and a summary of the case for continued investment. It also recommends that members continue to support the annual levy increase of 1.99%. The levy raising vote is for the 13 elected members only and they will be asked to vote at the meeting.

2. Levy Principles

2.1. Thames RFCC has established a set of principles to guide its levy investment programme. These are refined periodically to capture lessons learned from the programme and to maximise the outcomes delivered.

Agenda item no. 4e

74

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

2.2. The overarching principles are summarised below

risk-led approach with focus on significant risk

mix of schemes (major, smaller, community, innovation)

value for money (cost: benefit and partnership funding score)

deliver efficiencies by planning ahead and packaging work

link to redevelopment and water company and transport investment

adopt integrated approaches to all types of flood risk

plan pipeline including major schemes and “spade ready” portfolio

invest in existing assets as well as new

integrated approach to outcomes including environmental

good spread across RFCC area

a surface water scheme in each LLFA

an integrated scheme in each LLFA partnership

2.3. In April 2018 members discussed the lessons learned from the programme and agreed to make some changes to the principles for future projects. Previously, any surface water scheme entering the programme would be eligible to be ‘topped up’ with local levy regardless of its Partnership Funding score. This was in order to support and encourage local authorities getting schemes on to the programme. In April 2018 members agreed that schemes would still be eligible for top-up with levy but providing the following two conditions are met.

Scheme Benefit Cost Ratio is over 1 Partnership Funding Score (raw or adjusted) of at least 50%

Any scheme with less than 50% partnership funding score will be considered by the Committee on a case by case basis. Members also agreed to prioritise those projects which maximise the benefits brought into the programme, including any schemes which contribute to the national 300,000 homes better protected by March 2021 target.

2.4. Members also agreed that any unspent levy would not be automatically rolled over if it was not claimed by schemes in the years it was allocated. These changes to previous arrangements help ensure a better value and affordable programme that maximises the amount of schemes delivered, while continuing to ensure that Risk Management Authorities can access levy support.

3. Levy spend

3.1. Levy investment enables our programme to be stable but flexible, and can be used to ‘smooth’ the profile of schemes when GiA may not be available. This means that schemes can continue to progress rather than stopping and then re-starting schemes if money becomes available, which would incur additional costs. As presented in the programme items (4b and 4d), there is pressure on GiA in the final year of the six year programme (2020/21). The Government is committed to reducing risk to at least 300,000 homes by March 2021 and this means the programme has been prioritised nationally to maximise the likelihood of meeting this target. Schemes that are already in construction and/or will be constructed by March 2021 (anywhere in the country) and delivering the most houses better protected have been given a higher priority for GiA

75

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

funding. Meeting the 300,000 target will increase the likelihood of securing another longer term settlement beyond 2021.

3.2. Through the latest ‘refresh’ process, we have seen an increase in our indicative GiA allocation in Thames of £7.3m. This also means an associated reduction in the indicative levy programme, where we had used local levy to underwrite GiA on important schemes that have now secured GiA as part of our additional GiA allocation. This is outlined in Paper 4c and 4d in more detail. Table 1 below, shows the current levy programme vs. the original 6 year programme consented by members in 15/16. Years 1-4 highlighted in green show the actual spend, year 5, highlighted in yellow, shows the current forecast, and year 6 in pink show the indicative allocation not including any additional local choice proposals.

3.3. In the first few years of the programme, we were able to use GiA in place of levy where there was underspend nationally, this pushed back the timing of when we needed to use levy in the programme: levy is still required on these projects to top up the PF scores of these schemes and allow the use of GiA. Programme managers have continued to optimise levy use, combined with efficiency savings on schemes, as well as projects dropping out of the programme or pushing out of the 6 year programme. We are currently forecasting to use £19.7m less than we originally consented, but understood that would happen when we consented the levy use strategy through over programming it. This has led to an increase in levy balances for the current programme and enables us to have the flexibility to make local choices about our levy spend for the final year of the programme. These choices are set out in the capital programme indicative allocation paper (Paper 4d).

Levy £m Yr1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Total15/16

Consented 8.8 8.7 21.3 20.6 14.3 15.5 89.2

Current Allocation 4.8 4.5 9.6 11.4 17.9 21.3 69.5

Programme to 15/16

consented -4 -4.2 -11.7 -9.2 3.6 5.8 -19.7

Table 1: Levy allocation

4. Case for continued Levy investment

4.1. The Thames RFCC recognises the value levy adds to the development and construction of schemes, as well as developing new projects through investigations and ways of working through pilot initiatives. Levy has also helped to unlock other funding sources, including GiA.

4.2. To ensure the best return on investment for the levy for the six-year programme, it was recognised that the levy should be increased annually. In January 2015, the Thames RFCC considered a number of different values for the annual increase of levy for the length of the six-year programmes, ranging from 0% up to 5%. It was agreed in principle to increase the levy amount by 1.99% per annum until the end of 2021, with an annual vote to be taken by the appointed members of the Thames RFCC to confirm this in principle decision. The reasons for the 1.99% annual increase include:

76

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

4.2.1. The need to retain the real value (i.e. adjusted for inflation) of the levy over the six years. Schemes in the six-year programme are based on present day values from when they were added to the programme, and retaining the real value is needed to account for cost inflation for all schemes.

4.2.2. The Thames RFCC has supported a number of project investigations, particularly local authority led schemes to manage surface water flood risk. Experience tells us that most schemes arising from these investigations are unlikely to be fully GiA funded and will therefore require further levy and partnership funding contributions in order to be completed and benefit local communities.

4.2.3. Given the scale and nature of flood risk we are faced with in Thames, some investigations will not result in a viable solution being found and will drop out of the programme. It is important that we are able to ‘over-programme’ in sufficient levels to compensate for this.

4.2.4. We need to continue to support further investigations to strengthen the current programme and develop a more robust ‘pipeline’ of projects beyond 2021.

4.3 These considerations from 2015 remain fully valid. Furthermore, there are a number of additional advantages of having a longer term agreement for levy. Notably, it improves the ability to plan, form partnerships and secure Partnership Funding contributions. The in principle levy agreement provides certainty of funding and can help to unlock funding contributions from others.

4.4 Finally, it is important to note that the Thames RFCC developed its six-year programme based on the in principle agreement, which has served its objectives to reduce flood risk well. If the levy is not increased there will be a deficit in the levy balances, which would result of the removal of approved projects currently in the programme. This will impact the amount of GiA that the RFCC has secured through the allocation mechanism, the number of properties that can be better protected from flooding and may result in an increased cost and damages if flooding occurs in the interim.

4.5 Annex 1 shows the levy raised in 2019/20 and the estimated amounts for 2020/21 with a 1.99% increase.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 RFCC Members are asked to;

Note the successes achieved through the levy investment in the Thames RFCC in previous years, and that the business case for levy investment, agreed in principle for six years, is still valid.

Vote on the recommendation to raise the levy contribution by 1.99% in 2019/20, an increase of £230,381 shared across 54 LLFA areas.

Name: Sarah Smith

Title: Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, London

Email: sarah.a.smith@environment-agency.gov.uk Date: October 2018

77

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

Annex 1 – Table showing levy paid in 18/19 and estimate for 19/20 with 1.99% increase

Local Authority  2019/20 Levy 

1.99% Increase applied on 19/20 

Estimate for 20/21 Levy with 1.99% 

Central Bedfordshire Council £10,129 £201.57 £10,331

Bracknell Forest Council £104,853 £2,086.57 £106,940

Buckinghamshire County Council £452,324 £9,001.25 £461,325

Essex County Council £229,612 £4,569.28 £234,181

Gloucestershire County Council £72,382 £1,440.40 £73,822

Hampshire County Council £360,704 £7,178.01 £367,882

Hertfordshire County Council £930,710 £18,521.13 £949,231

Luton Borough Council £116,805 £2,324.42 £119,129

Northamptonshire County Council £17,186 £342.00 £17,528

Oxfordshire County Council £566,023 £11,263.86 £577,287

Reading Borough Council £126,964 £2,526.58 £129,491

Slough Borough Council £96,579 £1,921.92 £98,501

Surrey County Council £1,105,810 £22,005.62 £1,127,816

Swindon Borough Council £168,742 £3,357.97 £172,100

Thurrock Council £1,817 £36.16 £1,853

Warwickshire County Council £4,713 £93.79 £4,807

West Berkshire Council £150,205 £2,989.08 £153,194

West Sussex County Council £95,719 £1,904.81 £97,624

Wiltshire Council £38,324 £762.65 £39,087

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead £156,518 £3,114.71 £159,633

Wokingham Borough Council £158,951 £3,163.12 £162,114

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham £112,919 £2,247.09 £115,166

London Borough of Barnet £328,504 £6,537.23 £335,041

London Borough of Bexley £79,380 £1,579.66 £80,960

London Borough of Brent £221,468 £4,407.21 £225,875

London Borough of Bromley £225,398 £4,485.42 £229,883

London Borough Of Camden £206,012 £4,099.64 £210,112

Westminster City Council £298,216 £5,934.50 £304,150

City of London £16,692 £332.17 £17,024

London Borough of Croydon £288,512 £5,741.39 £294,253

London Borough of Ealing £261,744 £5,208.71 £266,953

London Borough of Enfield £222,227 £4,422.32 £226,649

London Borough of Greenwich £173,355 £3,449.76 £176,805

London Borough of Hackney £164,683 £3,277.19 £167,960

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham £180,217 £3,586.32 £183,803

London Borough of Haringey £178,451 £3,551.17 £182,002

78

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

London Borough of Harrow £195,517 £3,890.79 £199,408

London Borough of Havering £187,825 £3,737.72 £191,563

London Borough of Hillingdon £229,322 £4,563.51 £233,886

London Borough of Hounslow £191,772 £3,816.26 £195,588

London Borough of Islington £180,957 £3,601.04 £184,558

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea £222,993 £4,437.56 £227,431

The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames £144,271 £2,870.99 £147,142

London Borough of Lambeth £249,326 £4,961.59 £254,288

London Borough of Lewisham £200,125 £3,982.49 £204,107

London Borough of Merton £171,578 £3,414.40 £174,992

London Borough of Newham £174,736 £3,477.25 £178,213

London Borough of Redbridge £202,503 £4,029.81 £206,533

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames £205,480 £4,089.05 £209,569

London Borough of Southwark £233,521 £4,647.07 £238,168

London Borough of Sutton £168,368 £3,350.52 £171,719

London Borough of Tower Hamlets £220,121 £4,380.41 £224,501

London Borough of Waltham Forest £173,180 £3,446.28 £176,626

London Borough of Wandsworth £302,498 £6,019.71 £308,518

Thames Total  £11,576,942 £230,381.15 £11,807,323

79

Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Main Committee meeting MEETING DATE: 17th October 2019 ITEM 5 : Update following Sub-Committee - Future priorities of Thames RFCC and levy principles PAPER BY: Alice Dinsdale-Young, Environment Agency

Members are asked to:

Volunteer to help plan the December and March workshops to review the 25 year approach and levy principles of the Thames RFCC.

Consider the options for setting the levy amounts in the future, now we are at the end of the 5-year rolling agreement ready for discussion at the workshop.

1. Review of 25 year approach and levy principles

1.1. The attached paper was discussed at the Sub-Committee meeting. There was overwhelming support by attendees to review and update the 25 year approach and levy principles.

1.2. While members found the figures in the paper useful, there was a request for more information to help make decisions. One suggestion was supply the figures of houses better protected under each theme for Grant-in-Aid and levy spend.

1.3. Following discussions with the Chair, after the Sub-Committee meeting, he has suggested hosting two workshops. This approach will allow suitable time and input from members and officers to develop the future vision of the Thames RFCC.

1.4. There is a desire to have a clear vision prior to discussing the programme beyond 2021. Therefore, we would like to have outputs from our workshops by Spring 2020. To achieve this, we will be holding the first workshop on the 10 December 2019. This will aim to bring together RFCC members, local authority officers and other partners, such as the Environment Agency and Thames Water.

1.5. There will be a second workshop in March, in place of the March RFCC Sub-Committee.

1.6. To plan these workshops we would like to create a small planning group, formed of a few elected and independent members and 2 LLFA officer representatives. They will be supported by the Environment Agency. The group will work together to set the agenda and attendees for the workshops. If you are able to volunteer to be part of the planning group, please let the Chair or Claire Bell know.

2. Future levy vote

2.1. The October 2019 RFCC meeting will include the annual levy setting vote. For the past 5 years, there has been an ‘in-principle’ agreement to raise the levy by 1.99% each year. This is the final year of that agreement.

80

2.2. The Committee are asked to start considering what they would like to do in terms of levy setting for the future. While there will always be a vote each year to set the levy, the amount raised is the decision of the committee.

2.3. The in-principle agreement in place for this 6-year programme has provided stability and allowed a certain amount of future planning on the basis of that agreement. There is further detail on the in-principle agreement in section 4 of the Levy Setting paper as part of Item 4.

2.4. There are several options available to the Committee, some of these include:

Agreeing to another in-principle agreement for a certain number of years, raising the levy approximately in line with inflation (2%).

Deciding not to agree to an in-principle agreement for the next year (or more) but agreeing to revisit it again in the future. This would account for the fact Government have set a one year Spending Round rather than a comprehensive spending review period.

Deciding to discuss and vote on the levy amounts for each year.

2.5. We would ask Members to consider these options prior to the workshops.

3. Members are asked to:

Volunteer to help plan the December and March workshops to review the 25 year approach and levy principles of the Thames RFCC.

Consider the options for setting the levy amounts in the future, now we are at the end of the 5-year rolling agreement ready for discussion at the workshop.

81

Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Programme Sub-committee meeting MEETING DATE: 1st October 2019 ITEM : Future priorities of Thames RFCC and levy principles PAPER BY: Alice Dinsdale-Young, Environment Agency The Programme Sub-Committee is asked to:

1. Consider whether the Thames RFCC 25 year approach and its 7

themes are still fit for purpose.

2. Start the discussion around Levy principles for the next 6 year programme and support the development of a small task and finish group or a workshop to update the 25 year approach and/or principles.

3. Consider whether the Themes and Levy principles should be more

aligned.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee  (RFCC) have two documents which help steer the direction for the Committee and levy spend; the 25 year approach, which includes the 7 themes, and the levy principles. These were created and updated separately, with the last updates in May 2017 and October 2018, respectively. With a new programme agreement starting from April 2021, it seems like a good opportunity to review both the Thames RFCC 25 year approach’s 7 themes and the levy principles. We would like the sub-Committee to start the conversation around what their priorities for delivery are and whether the current levy funding principles are sufficient for this. With the Committee’s support a task and finish group can be created to take this forward. Discussion from the sub-Committee will be summarised for the main RFCC meeting in October.

2. 7 Themes background

2.1. The Thames RFCC developed the 7 themes as part of a 25 year approach, capturing the needs and opportunities identified by professional partners and community groups for the Thames catchment. Although not published at the time, this approach was developed to sit alongside the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan. The Thames RFCC Approach reflects programme priorities identified by workshops for members and Risk Management Authority officers in 2016 and 2017, a workshop for community groups in 2016 and further RFCC member input.

2.2. The approach is intended to provide a framework for overseeing and shaping the Thames programme including identifying future priorities and establishing whether new mechanisms are needed to support an appropriate

82

range of measures. There are a number of themes, such as climate change, putting communities at the heart of what we do, taking a catchment wide approach, aligning with initiatives by others and early consideration of water in planning, that cut across all seven themes.

3. The 7 Themes 3.1. Taking a joined up, catchment-wide approach, we will work with and support

communities in managing their current and future flood risk by… 1. Slowing the flow of water in the upper catchment and upstream of settlements by encouraging land management that retains more water, including leaky dams and storage areas, to reduce peak flows. 2. Helping built up areas adapt to become more “rain ready” by encouraging urban redesign and approaches to new development that provide space for water, slow and reduce runoff into drains and sewers, and create more resilient buildings and infrastructure. 3. Empowering village communities to become more resilient to flooding and supporting water level management where appropriate. 4. Promoting the value of floodplains, which can store water away from properties, and the opening up of rivers that have been covered over or put in channels. 5. Delivering forward-looking, integrated schemes, including major projects where appropriate, making the most of redevelopment opportunities and any new development, partnerships, alignments and wider benefits. 6. Supporting plans for managing tidal flood risk in the Thames estuary ensuring timely actions to keep pace with climate change and rising sea levels, including acting now to safeguard strategic sites and enable the setting back of buildings over time. 7. Promoting maintenance, the roles of land and property owners, and the need for contingency plans recognising not all flooding can be prevented.

3.2. Since the 25 year approach was published there have been a number of developments, which the Committee may like to consider:

Around the world people are acknowledging the climate emergency, with the UK government declaring we are in an environment and climate emergency in May this year.

Systems thinking across a catchment has become higher on the agenda.

The Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management National Strategy has been drafted and released for consultation, with the hope of the final document being laid before Parliament in December.

There have been lessons learned from the first six-year programme.

4. 7 themes and levy spend

83

4.1. To help with discussions, we have done some analysis to show how much levy funding has been spent against each theme. As the themes were written to provide direction, rather than be measurable, some assumptions have been made to allow analysis. Therefore the results shown in table 1, should only be used as an indication of levy spend.

4.2. The assumptions followed were:

Most projects with storage areas are assumed to fit under Theme 1 as they are slowing the flow of water. The wording of this theme was interpreted not to exclusively mean natural flood management techniques.

Theme 2 was interpreted to include all solutions to surface water flooding, not just green sustainable drainage solutions.

Theme 3 is assumed to include projects that use property level protection as part or all of the solution.

Theme 4 is assumed to include restoration schemes and deculverting.

Theme 7 includes all forms of maintenance, regardless of property owner.

If projects were found to be unviable after an initial assessment, the relevant theme was chosen based on the preferred option at that time, if possible.

Projects are assumed to fit under a maximum of 2 themes. It is assumed that if a project fits under 2 themes, the levy has been spent evenly between the two themes.

4.3. The table below shows approximate levy spent per theme:

84

Theme Levy spend, £ No. of Projects

1 Slow the flow of water 3,879,537 33

2 Built up areas become “rain ready” 3,771,087 58

3 Communities resilient to flooding 1,855,724 15

4 Promoting value of floodplains 743,532 12

5 Delivering integrated schemes 15,584,152 32

6 Supporting tidal flood risk plans 0 0

7 Promoting maintenance 472,621 8

N/A – Project does not fit any theme 2,295,717 37

Total 28,602,371 174

Table 1. Levy spent split between each theme. Spend is taken from actuals recorded against each project from 2015/16 to 2017/18 and projected costs for 2018/19 (actuals had not been confirmed at time of writing).

4.4. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the table above shows that the majority of levy was spent on theme 5. This theme includes major projects, such as the Oxford Scheme and River Thames Scheme.

4.5. 58 projects, deemed to fit under Theme 2, were supported with £3,771,087 levy funding. This aligns with the Committee’s focus on using levy to start investigations for surface water projects.

4.6. A large number of fluvial schemes did not fit under any theme, for example projects looking to build defences or walls.

5. Levy principles used to fund projects in Thames RFCC

5.1. Before the 6 year programme started, the Thames RFCC established a set of principles to guide its levy investment programme. These are generally refined each year to capture lessons learned from the previous year’s programme and to maximise the outcomes delivered.

5.2. The overarching principles are summarised below risk-led approach with focus on significant risk mix of schemes (major, smaller, community, innovation) value for money (cost: benefit and partnership funding score) deliver efficiencies by planning ahead and packaging work

85

link to redevelopment and water company and transport investment adopt integrated approaches to all types of flood risk plan pipeline including major schemes and “spade ready” portfolio invest in existing assets as well as new integrated approach to outcomes including environmental good spread across RFCC area a surface water scheme in each LLFA an integrated scheme in each LLFA partnership

5.3. In April 2018, members discussed the lessons learned from the programme

and agreed to make some changes to the principles for future projects. Previously, any surface water scheme entering the programme would be eligible to be ‘topped up’ with local levy regardless of its Partnership Funding score. Members agreed that schemes would still be eligible for top-up with levy but providing the following two conditions are also met:

Scheme Benefit Cost Ratio is over 1 Partnership Funding Score (raw or adjusted) of at least 50%

5.4. Any scheme with less than an adjusted 50% partnership funding score (with

other partnership funding included) will be considered by the Committee on a case by case basis. Members also agreed to prioritise those projects which maximise the benefits brought into the programme, including any schemes which contribute to the homes better protected by March 2021 target.

5.5. In October 2018, during the refresh of the Programme, the Committee

tasked the programme Managers to construct a refreshed programme. The following additional guidelines alongside the normal levy principles were used:

Underwrite projects with levy to increase Grant in Aid over-programme

opportunity Support schemes to design stage to build pipeline; Fully fund select schemes up to a certain value Progress schemes to next gateway Continue to use levy amounts to schemes that have it allocated

already as long as the overarching levy principles are met

5.6. In order to prioritise projects, the committee set two objectives. They were to:

maximise homes better protected, which could be for delivery post

March 2021 and; secure partnership contributions.

5.7. These levy principles are used by Programme Managers to optimise the programme on behalf of the Thames RFCC.

6. Levy amounts

86

6.1. Local Levy is the Local Council contribution to Flood Risk Management, raised and consented through RFCC Local Council elected members. The Levy is calculated based on an amount (£) per nominal Band D property in each Local Council. RFCC’s are free to set the annual Local Levy rate, although the Thames RFCC currently have a 5 year rolling agreement for a Levy increase of 1.99%. This rolling agreement corresponds to the existing 6 year programme, with the Levy vote this October the last one under this agreement.

6.2. The table below, table 2, shows the amount of levy raised for each RFCC from April 2015 to March 2020.

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Anglian Central 2,753,000 2,890,700 3,035,200 1,110,300 1,165,800

Anglian Eastern 1,051,400 1,072,400 1,088,500 3,156,600 3,251,300

Anglian Northern 1,680,800 1,680,800 1,680,800 1,697,600 1,697,600

Midlands Severn 1,064,000 1,084,200 1,105,900 1,128,000 1,150,600

Midlands Trent 1,936,000 1,974,700 2,014,000 2,054,300 2,095,400

North West 2,171,600 2,215,000 2,259,300 3,937,900 4,016,600

Northumbria 2,100,000 2,250,000 2,407,400 2,304,500 2,350,600

South West 3,710,800 3,785,000 3,860,700 1,158,600 1,274,500

Southern 1,120,000 1,259,900 1,285,100 1,349,400 1,416,900

Thames 10,699,500 10,912,400 11,129,600 11,351,100 11,576,900

Wessex 870,500 957,500 1,053,300 3,599,500 3,671,500

Yorkshire 3,391,900 3,459,700 3,528,900 2,467,600 2,529,300

Table 2. Levy raised by RFCC’s in England from 2015 until 2020. Levy is in £ rounded to nearest 100.

6.3. The Thames RFCC has the largest levy of all the Committees. Having a buoyant levy has allowed us to seed fund investigations and major projects and lever partnership funding.

7. Options for the future

7.1. We would like the Committee to consider what they would like to achieve for flood risk in the long term and decide whether the current levy principles are able to help realise these goals.

7.2. There are many options the Committee may like to propose, but to start the conversation there are a few options set out below. This is not exhaustive.

No update

7.3. The Committee decide the current levy principles and 25 year approach and its 7 themes are still fit for purpose. The Committee agree to use the existing themes and principles without any change.

Update and align the 25 year approach and principles

87

7.4. The Committee decide to update the 25 year approach, taking into account the various developments that have occurred since originally written (paragraph 3.2). The Committee then update the levy principles to support the 7 themes.

Update and choose a focus

7.5. The Committee decide to update the 25 year approach but decide there should be a focus on one (or more) specific theme. The Committee update the levy principles to favour projects that support that priority theme, over other projects.

7.6. It is suggested that the Committee support the creation of a task and finish group to work through the different options and come back to the Committee with a recommended approach.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1. As the current 6 year programme draws to a close, we would like the Committee to look to the future and determine what the priorities of the Committee should be. Specifically we would like the Committee to:

Consider whether the Thames RFCC 25 year approach and its 7 themes are still fit for purpose.

Start the discussion around Levy principles for the next 6 year

programme and support the development of a small task and finish group or a workshop to update the 25 year approach and/or principles.

Consider whether the Themes and Levy principles should be more

aligned.

Name Alice Dinsdale-Young

Title Principal Officer for London, Flood Risk, Environment Agency

Email alice.dinsdale-young@environment-agency.gov.uk

Date 13 September 2019

Addendum following Sub-Committee meeting on 1 October 2019

A1. Review of 25 year approach and levy priniciples

4. This paper was discussed at the Sub-Committee meeting. There was overwhelming support by attendees to review and update the 25 year approach and levy principles.

5. While members found the figures in the paper useful, there was a request for more information to help make decisions. One suggestion was supply the figures of houses better protected under each theme, for Grant-in-Aid and levy spend.

88

6. Following discussions with the Chair, after the Sub-Committee meeting, he has suggested hosting two workshops. This will be the best way to provide adequate time to developing the future vision of the Thames RFCC.

7. There is a desire to have a clear vision prior to discussing the new programme which will start in 2021. Therefore, we would like to have outputs from our workshops by Spring 2020. To achieve this, we will be holding the first workshop on the 10 December. This will aim to bring together RFCC members, local authority officers and other partners, such as the Environment Agency and Thames Water.

8. There will be a second workshop in March, in place of the March RFCC Sub-Committee.

9. To plan these workshops we would like to create a small planning group, formed of a few elected and independent members. They will be supported by the Environment Agency. The group will work together to set the agenda and attendees for the workshops. If you are able to volunteer to be part of the planning group, please let the Chair or Claire Bell know.

A2. Future levy vote

10. October’s RFCC meeting will contain the annual levy setting vote. For the past 5 years, there has been an in-principle agreement to raise the levy by 1.99% each year. This is the last year of that agreement.

11. The Committee are asked to start considering what they would like to do in terms of levy setting for the future. While there will always be a vote each year to set the levy, the amount raised is the decision of the committee.

12. The in-principle agreement in place for this 6-year programme has provided stability and allowed a certain amount of future planning on the basis of that agreement.

13. There are several options available to the Committee, some of these include:

Agreeing to another in-principle agreement for a certain number of years, raising the levy approximately in line with inflation (1.99%).

Deciding not to agree to an in-principle agreement for the next year (or more) but agreeing to revisit it again in the future.

Deciding to discuss and vote on the levy amounts for each year, independent of the last years.

14. We would ask Members to consider these options prior to the Main meeting, as we will look to facilitate an initial discussion on this in October.

Members are asked to:

Volunteer to help plan the December and March workshops on the future vision of the Thames RFCC.

Consider the options for setting the levy amounts in the future, now we are at the end of the 5-year rolling agreement.

89

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

THAMES REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 17 October 2019 SUBJECT: Lead Local Flood Authority Annual Report PAPER BY: Thames Flood Advisors

1. Introduction

1.1. In October each year, the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) receive an update on Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) progress and discuss key concerns and supporting actions. Progress is measured through an annual questionnaire. At the April 2018 meeting, members agreed that the themes for the questionnaire would be Capital Projects and Bids (for Flood Defence Grant in Aid), LLFA Statutory Duties and Partnerships, and views of the Thames Flood Advisors (TFA) team. These have not changed for the 2019 questionnaire. A list of the questions can be found in Appendix 1.

1.2. This year’s questionnaire was circulated to the LLFAs in June with a closing date of 23 August. The response rate to the Thames RFCC Questionnaire this year is 85%. A

Agenda item no. 6

Recommendations: The Thames RFCC Committee members are asked to: 1. Note the findings from the 2019 Questionnaire

2. Members are asked to consider what would help them join their Strategic Partnership

Group meetings more regularly and what they would find helpful in order to prepare in advance.

Highlights:

85% response rate with an even spread across Thames RFCC. In 2018, 27 LLFAs had 64 projects on the FCERM programme. This year, there

are 27 LLFAs with 47 projects. LLFAs continue to face the same challenges in delivery of their projects as in

previous years. A large number of LLFAs have been satisfactorily supported by the Thames

Flood Advisors team, rating them on average 4.2 out 5, higher than in previous years.

83% of LLFAs feel engaged with the Strategic Partnership Groups. More LLFAs are meeting with their elected Thames RFCC member than in

previous years, and see the benefits of doing so. There is an average of 2.6 FTE staff at each LLFA, the range is from 0 to 14

FTE.

90

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 01. LLFA-led projects in the Thames RFCC catchment.

map of the Thames RFCC catchment showing which LLFAs responded can be found in Appendix 2. While the response rate has reduced compared to the last two years, it remains high and still provides a meaningful set of results.

1.3. The TFA team used results of the 2016 questionnaire to set a baseline. This baseline is used to demonstrate the changes in the LLFA confidence and ability in contributing to flood risk management in the Thames RFCC catchment. Feedback about the TFA was not included in the 2016 questionnaire, therefore the responses to the questions about the TFA team will be compared to the 2017 and 2018 results to measure the effectiveness of the team. Where new questions have been asked since 2016, results will also be compared to those from the last two years.

1.4. This paper presents an analysis of the responses to the questionnaire. The level of progress drawn from this information is compared to the baseline.

2. Capital Projects and Bids

2.1. As of the latest refresh, there are 26 individual Local Authorities (LAs) in the Thames RFCC catchment with projects in the current Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) programme. These 26 LAs lead on 46 individual projects. These projects contribute to the national target of 300,000 homes better protected from flood risk and account for approximately 1,895 of these. In 2018, there were 27 LAs with 64 projects, while in 2017 there were 69 LAs with 198 projects. Figure 1 below shows the spread of LA-led projects across the Thames RFCC catchment that will deliver before March 2021. For the purposes of the map, LA-led projects have been grouped under LLFAs.

2.2. This year LLFAs indicated they had 33 projects that they still wanted to add to the FCERM capital investment programme. Last year the number was 49 and in 2017 it was 41.

91

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 02. Reason why LLFAs are not applying for Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding to deliver their flood risk management capital projects.

2.3. This decrease could be due to the barriers preventing the LLFAs from identifying new projects and delivering existing ones. The barriers identified still include a shortage of time and capacity for LLFAs to carry out work on capital projects, a lack of confidence in the ability to secure Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) due to Partnership Funding Calculator scores being low, and a need for further investigation into flooding sources in a catchment. Another factor could be the approaching end of the current FCERM programme. This means that some projects are not due to deliver until after March 2021, while others that are slipping will move their delivery date beyond this time.

2.4. 46% of respondents indicated that they have a project they would like to deliver in the current FCERM programme using FDGiA. This is similar to the 44% of respondents in 2018 but much lower than the baseline figure of 70% of respondents. Due to limited FDGiA, projects have been pushed out of the FCERM programme. LLFAs now have a more realistic view of what can be delivered by the end of March 2021 than they did at the time of the baseline.

2.5. This year, 35% of respondents identified a need for further investigation into flooding sources in their catchment as a constraint to delivering projects on the FCERM programme, the highest proportion of responses to this question.

2.6. Insufficient time/capacity to manage a project was second, identified by 33% of the respondents. This has previously been the most chosen constraint in the last three versions of the Questionnaire and remains prominent this year. Figure 02 shows the top three most chosen constraints in the years 2016-2019. A positive trend is the reduction in the proportion of respondents identifying a lack of time/capacity as a reason for not applying for FDGiA, which has reduced each year since 2017.

2.7. Reasons identified by LLFAs in the ’other’ category over the last three years but not included in the chart above include:

Challenges in refining and developing projects and options.

Full funding achieved from other sources.

Currently managing projects that are already applied for.

92

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 03. Barriers to LLFAs delivering flood risk management capital projects (2018-2019).

Managing projects for which they had already applied for FDGiA or the projects that have been identified are not yet ready to apply for any funding.

Schemes not suitable for FDGiA funding.

In 2016, LLFAs cited political barriers and a lack of information as reasons in the ‘other’ category.

2.8. In response to question 4 (‘What are the two main challenges you face in delivering projects on the current FCERM Capital Investment Programme?’), 33 respondents said that a lack of time or capacity prohibited them from delivering their existing projects. This mirrors the results of the same question in 2018, as shown in Figure 03 below.

2.9. A ‘lack of a significant current projects to address’; issues with ‘stakeholder engagement’; technical project issues; and a lack of ‘continuity of knowledge about schemes due to staff turnover’ are also included in the ‘other’ category as barriers to delivering flood risk management capital projects in question four.

2.10. The LLFAs were asked what help is needed, or what they expect from the Thames RFCC to enable further bids for FDGiA funding. Half of those who answered indicated that they require support on the funding process for either FDGiA or Levy funding. The second most common theme was future funding and certainty around the requirements and opportunities for funding after March 2021.

2.11. Further responses to question 3 ‘To help inform the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, please can you elaborate on what help is needed, or what you expect, from the Committee to enable further bids for Flood Defence Grant in Aid.’ can be found in Appendix 3.

2.12. Some of the general comments the LLFAs provided in this section of the questionnaire have been summarised below. A full list of extra comments from LLFAs are available in Appendix 4:

The current funding system is not appropriate for small surface water schemes.

93

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 04. Map showing which LLFAs have received support from the TFA team, as indicated by the LLFAs.

Community engagement is a challenge.

The next funding arrangements should reward increased protection for infrastructure.

3. Thames Flood Advisors team

3.1. This section of the questionnaire sought to capture the impact the TFA team has had in supporting the LLFAs over the last 12 months. The team, funded by the Thames RFCC, was established in 2016 and has supported a range of LLFAs and their projects over this period. Figure 04 below shows the LLFAs who indicated they have had support from the TFA team.

3.2. Of the respondents, 94% indicated that they have received help or support from the Thames Flood Advisors in the last year. This support has ranged from attending workshops or webinars organised by the TFA team or 1-to-1 support on individual projects, to liaising with the Environment Agency and Thames Water. The LLFAs who have not accessed the support of the TFA team fall into one of the following categories:

Those who said they do not have any projects on the current Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management investment programme.

Those who feel they have sufficient capacity to deliver their projects without the support of the TFA team.

3.3. The type of support provided by the TFA team to LLFAs has varied. The top four areas where the LLFAs have received support from the Team are:

‘Support with completing Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management forms’,

‘Liaising with Thames Water or other relevant water companies’,

‘Support on using the Partnership Funding Calculator and Project Application and Funding Service systems’, and

‘Liaising with the Environment Agency’.

94

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 05. Top four areas of support provided to the LLFAs by the TFA team.

These top four areas of support remain the same this year as in 2018; although the order in which they appear is different. In addition, liaising with Thames Water and support on the FCERM process, which included FCERM forms and Partnership Funding (PF) Calculator, were the top two areas of support identified in 2017. This suggests that despite the continuing work in these areas, LLFAs are still approaching the team to support them in their engagement with other Risk Management Authorities. There has been a reduction in the proportion of respondents requiring the TFA team to assist them with using the PF Calculator, Project Application and Funding Service (PAFS) systems or Programme and Project Management Tool (PPMT). The TFA team have given training in this area earlier in the year. The training may contribute to an increase in confidence with these processes among the LLFAs. An outside influence is that there have been fewer new submissions to the programme by LLFAs during the refresh given the limited FDGiA towards the end of the programme.

3.4. Other areas LLFAs feel supported, but not in Figure 5 below, include; writing and reviewing business cases, project management support, identifying efficiencies and help with securing 3rd party funding. These are the same as those areas of support identified in the 2018 questionnaire. Areas of support also identified by LLFAs in the free text section included liaising with third parties, training events and general application support.

3.5. LLFAs were asked to rate the support they had received on a scale of 1 (very

dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). 76% of respondents scored the team a 4 (satisfied) or 5 (very satisfied), as can be seen in Figure 06 below. This has increased from 62% and 69% in 2018 and 2017 respectively. In addition, the average rating given by LLFAs for the support they have received from the TFA team has increased from 3.86 out of 5 in 2017 and 2018 to 4.02 this year. A positive result for the team, this shows an increased level of overall satisfaction with the support the advisors provide to LLFAs.

95

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 06. Ratings provided by the LLFAs on the support they have received from the TFA team, 2017-2019.

3.6. Despite having fewer responses to the questionnaire than in the last two years, more LLFAs chose to answer the question and rate the support of the TFA team than in previous years. This year, 100% of respondents provided a rating for the support they have received from the TFA team. In 2018, 71% of respondents provided a rating, while in 2017 the figure was 59%. This could indicate that LLFAs trust that their ratings will have an impact on the service the TFA team provide.

3.7. The results identify that there are some LLFAs who are not being reached in a satisfactory way. The comments provided do not elaborate on the reasons for these scores. However, the survey does indicate shortfalls and a potential to improve the service to LLFAs if the team can establish a cause.

3.8. LLFAs were also asked if they were completely satisfied with the way in which they have received support from the TFA team; 95% of those who answered said they were. This suggests that the feedback from previous years has been used to improve the way in which the TFA team provide their support to LLFAs.

3.9. Figure 07 below shows the ways in which the LLFAs accessed the support of the TFA team, comparing 2018 and 2019. The chart shows that the ways in which the LLFAs are accessing the support of the team remain largely the same this year as in 2018.

96

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 07. Ways in which LLFAs indicated they have received support from the TFA team, 2018-2019.

3.10. A conclusion from the 2017 Thames RFCC Questionnaire was that the TFA team should spend more time co-locating with LLFAs. The results of the 2018 questionnaire showed that there remained barriers to doing so, with just 38% of LLFAs identifying this as a way in which they have received support. This year, the proportion of LLFAs who said they have had co-location days has increased to 50% of respondents. While this suggests that there is still work to be done to increase this, only two LLFAs indicated they have not had, but would like, co-location days. Last year there were 11 LLFAs who wanted co-location days but had not had any. The TFA team records indicate that the advisors co-located with LLFAs on average 40 times per quarter. This indicates that those LLFAs who do co-locate with the TFA team do so frequently.

3.11. When asked if they would recommend the support of the TFA team to other LLFAs, 95% of respondents said they would. The following comments were also provided:

‘Yes, they provide an invaluable service.’

‘Yes. They have helped us move potential projects forward, even if they don't get a high score, it was useful to go through the process with them.’

‘Yes, we would recommend the support. The TFA team are a good point of contact and link to the Thames RFCC from LLFAs. They are a good source of information and offer good advice with the filling out of applications forms.’

3.12. In question 13a, LLFAs were asked to indicate their training needs on given topics. The answer options were:

‘I have not attended training on this and do not need any’,

‘I have not attended training on this but would like to’,

‘I have attended training on this but would like a refresh’,

‘I have attended training on this but would like further/more detailed training’,

‘I have attended training to this and do not need further training’.

97

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Based on these results, the TFA team have established a programme of training to be delivered to LLFAs over the next 9 months that focusses on the needs of the LLFAs. This began this autumn with a session on ‘Quantifying benefits other than residential properties (Outcome Measure 1)’ and the ‘Benefits Estimation Tool (B£ST)’, as these were the most requested topics. The aspiration is that LLFAs will see that there is a link between what they request and what the TFA team deliver, and it is therefore worthwhile requesting specific training topics. Combining this with the format that has drawn good feedback in the past means there can be a good level of confidence that future events will continue to be well received

3.13. LLFAs provided the following comments about the support they have received from the TFA team:

‘We are very grateful for the ongoing support that the Thames Flood Advisors provide.’

‘Their help has been very useful so far, it has enabled us to progress potential projects that we had no capacity or knowledge on how to progress internally.’

‘The support received from the Thames Flood Advisors has been excellent.’

4. LLFA Statutory Duties and Partnerships

4.1. 30 LLFAs have indicated that they have a dedicated flooding team or officer within their LLFA. It is difficult to establish whether this is an increase or a decrease on last year’s figures due to the change in overall response rate. The survey asked for the number of full time equivalent (FTE) staff at each LLFA. Across the Thames RFCC catchment, LLFAs reported an average of 2.6 FTE staff currently engaged on flood risk management. Inside London, the average is below the Thames RFCC-wide average at 1.6 FTE staff, while outside London the average is considerably higher at 4.2 FTE staff. These averages mask the range of responses, which reveal that seven LLFAs across the catchment have <1 FTE staff working on flood risk management. Four LLFAs have no FTE staff engaged on flood risk management, while the maximum number is 14. In 2018, the catchment average was 2.7 FTE with 1.1 inside London and 5.4 outside.

4.2. Figure 08 below illustrates that 83% of the 46 LLFAs who responded said that they were involved in the work of their Thames RFCC Strategic Partnership Group.

Figure 08. Proportion of LLFAs who are engaged in the work of their Strategic Partnership Group.

98

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4.3. 67% of those who responded indicated that the Thames RFCC Strategic Partnership influences how they manage their Flood Risk Management responsibilities. The most commonly cited examples of that influence were working with partners and sharing best practice, as shown in Figure 9 below.

4.4. Specifically, the LLFAs provided the following examples of the influence their Strategic Partnership Group has had on their work:

“The Partnership allows best practice and current issues to be discussed.”

“Joint working on production of our flood risk strategies.”

“Targeting opportunities for partner delivery.”

4.5. LLFA officers welcome the input of their Thames RFCC members at the strategic partnership meetings. The LLFAs were asked to identify the outcomes of working with their elected Thames RFCC members. The results are shown in Figure 10 below, with the ‘Feedback from the Thames RFCC meetings’ most commonly identified by LLFA officers.

Figure 09. Examples of how Strategic Partnership Groups influence LLFAs’ work.

4.6. Figure 10 shows that 18% of respondents indicated that they do not meet with their

elected Thames RFCC member. This number has reduced from 29% in 2018. Members are asked to consider what would help them join their Strategic Partnership Group meetings more regularly and what they would find helpful in order to prepare in advance.

4.7. The responses within the ‘other’ category in Figure 10 primarily focussed on benefits related to raising issues via, and/or receiving political backing from, their Thames RFCC members.

99

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4.8. 59% reported that a member has attended one or more of their meetings. This has reduced from last year, when 65% of responding LLFAs reported that their elected member attends the Strategic Partnership Group meetings.

5. Conclusions

5.1. The aim of this paper has been to provide an update on LLFA progress against the baseline set in 2016. The results of the 2019 Thames RFCC Questionnaire of LLFAs show that the same barriers continue to impact on the LLFAs’ ability to develop flood risk management capital projects. There is a continued shortage of time and capacity and there is still a need for further investigation into pathways of flooding.

5.2. A number of LLFAs have low confidence that they can access Flood Defence Grant in Aid to fund their projects. There is a general feeling among LLFAs that the next funding arrangements should better reflect the benefits of surface water projects.

5.3. Since its creation in 2016, the TFA team has continued to form close working relationships with LLFA officers. The TFA team continues to provide tailored support to the LLFAs within the Thames RFCC catchment, focussing their efforts on the LLFAs’ areas of greatest need. The areas in which the LLFAs need support remain unchanged on previous years.

5.4. The LLFA rating for the support they have received from the team has increased on the last two years. The team will continue to provide a programme of training events aimed at addressing the needs of the LLFAs.

5.5. The spread of FTE staff across the Thames RFCC catchment is inconsistent; the outside London LLFAs have an average of 4.2 FTE staff focussed on flood risk management, while the average for the inside London LLFAs is 1.6 FTE. This shows a reduced variation in the number of FTE staff against 2018 figures. However, it highlights that there is still a large range across the LLFAs.

Figure 10. Benefits of working with Thames RFCC elected members, as indicated by LLFAs.

100

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

5.6. There has been an increase in the number of LLFAs who meet with their elected Thames RFCC member and see the benefits of doing so. Feedback from RFCC meetings and a raised profile of flood risk within the Local Authority are the most common benefits that LLFA officers see. In addition, there is a high number of LLFAs who are engaged with the work of their Strategic Partnership Groups. However, there has been a reduction in the number of LLFAs reporting that their elected member attends their Strategic Partnership Group meetings.

Name: Thames Flood Advisors

Email: ThamesFloodAdvisors@environment-agency.gov.uk

Date: 09/10/2019

101

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Appendices

102

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Appendix 1. 2019 RFCC Questionnaire screenshots and questions.

103

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Questions Capital Projects and Bids 1a. How many flood projects have you not yet applied for FDGiA to deliver before March 2021, but would like to?

1b. For cases where your authority has not yet applied for Flood Defence Grant in Aid for projects, what are the reasons?

2a. How many flood projects have you not yet applied for FDGiA to deliver after March 2021, but would like to?

2b. When developing your pipeline of projects to be delivered after March 2021, what are the reasons that prevent your authority from applying for Flood Defence Grant in Aid?

3. What else do you need/expect from the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to enable further bids for Flood Defence Grant in Aid?

4. What are the two main challenges you face in delivering projects on the current Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Capital Investment Programme? 5. What are the two main challenges you face in developing projects that will deliver in the next Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Capital Investment Programme?

6. Please provide any other comments you would like fed back to the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.

Thames Flood Advisors Team 7. What type of support have you received from the Thames Flood Advisors Team? 8. How have you accessed the support you have received from the Thames Flood Advisors Team? 9. What additional support would you like the Thames Flood Advisors Team to provide?

10a. Are you completely satisfied with how you receive support from the Thames Flood Advisors Team?

10b. If no, in what format would you like to access future support from the Thames Flood Advisors Team?

11. On a scale of 1 to 5 how would you rate the level of support you have received from the Thames Flood Advisors Team?

12. Would you recommend the support of the Thames Flood Advisors Team to other LLFAs? Please help us by explaining the reason for your answer?

13a. From the list of training topics below, please select if you have had, would like or do not need training from the Thames Flood Advisors team on these subjects in column C.

Business casesQuantifying benefits other than residential properties (Outcome Measure 1)

Property counts for homes better protected (Outcome Measure 2)Benefit of SuDS Tool (B£ST)

Ecosystem ServicesStakeholder engagement

Identifying and securing partnership funding opportunitiesPartnership Funding Calculator

SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems)Modelling awareness for surface water schemesProject Application and Funding Service (PAFS)

Programme and Project Management Tool (PPMT)

13b. Please list any other topics you would the Thames Flood Advisors Team to run future training on.

14. Is there anything else you would like to comment on?

LLFA Statutory Duties and Partnerships

104

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

15a. Do you have a dedicated flooding team within your local authority?

15b. How many full time equivalent staff are currently engaged by the LLFA on local flood risk management?

16. What are the two main barriers in implementing your flood management statutory duties under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010? 17. Are you engaged in the work of your Strategic Partnership Group?

18. Does your Strategic Partnership Group influence how you manage your Flood Risk Management responsibilities?

19. If yes, please provide the most relevant example of this influence.

20. Does your elected Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee member attend the Strategic Partnership Group meetings?

21. What are the main benefits of working with your elected Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee member? 22. What are the main benefits of working with your elected portfolio holder, if different from your elected Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee member?

23. Do you see the papers that go to the Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee?

24. What, if anything, would you like to input into or receive from the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee or your elected member on the committee? 25. Do you get the information you need from your local Environment Agency Partnership & Strategic Overview (PSO) team?

26. What other support would you like from your local Environment Agency Partnership and Strategic Overview (PSO) team?

27. Do you get the information you need from Thames Water or other relevant water company?

28. What other support would you like from your local Thames Water team?

29. Please provide any other comments you would like fed back to the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.

105

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Appendix 2. Responses to the 2019 Thames RFCC Questionnaire.

Appendix 2. LLFAs who did or did not respond to the 2019 Thames RFCC Questionnaire.

106

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Appendix 3. LLFA projects and support required. 1a. How many flood projects have you not yet applied for FDGiA to deliver before March 2021, but would like to?

3. What else do you need/expect from the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to enable further bids for Flood Defence Grant in Aid?

1 We are generally a low risk borough so the number of properties affected is generally low.

1 More up-to-date information - there is often a disconnect between the information that we have discussed with the Thames Flood Advisors and PSO teams and the formal communication which comes in from Julia Simpson to our CEO and then the information presented at the Thames RFCC. This creates lots of confusion from Senior managers within the Council and for members. The certainty from the spring refresh only being "authorised" in the autumn means that it is difficult for Local Authorities to spend in the first six months of the year if they do not have the certainty around spending. This means that there is only 6 months to spend the money rather than a whole year.

0 Support from the Thames Flood Advisors for a wider range of funding sources e.g. Levy funding or TE2100 funding.

4 More clarity on the availability of Flood Defence Grant in Aid and Local Levy in the coming years, 2021 and beyond.

0 Application support when required.

0 Support to develop approaches that will help to address the flood risk in Hertfordshire.

0 Support from Thames Flood Advisors is valued, but further Flood Defence Grant in Aid bids are not currently on our horizon.

1 We need assistance with completing the FCERM Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding application forms and further support with project management once funding has been secured. This could be support such as helping to prepare tender documents, dealing with data requests, attending meetings etc.

0 Continued support for flood studies.

0 Support for producing Business Cases.

0 Changes to the partnership funding calculator as per the ongoing London Strategic SuDS Pilot Study project being delivered by London Drainage Engineers Group.

107

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

3 More transparency on the entire process for new LLFA as the turnover is high, as well as the decision making within the Thames RFCC programme on what will or won't be given Levy funding and when it will be allocated against what is being given to other LLFA. Will give LLFA a better indication on what will be successful and therefore encouragement to develop their own programme of delivery. A speedier decision making and obtaining of Thames RFCC funding in order to secure other partnership funding as and when it becomes available.

0 Continuous updates on how to apply funding projects and successful planned projects.

2 Assistance to get the project off-the-ground.

0 A clear guide on circumstances under which Levy could be employed to help advance surface water projects.

2 Confirmation as to how much funding will be available.

0 Maybe a short meeting to discuss funding mechanism/requirements.

1 Simplify the application process - criteria or tick box on what constitutes a good application? Better understanding of how the process works - time it takes.

0 Additional support as at present we have real capacity issues.

0 Simpler process for funding applications.

0 Clarity on priorities for the next spending review and where the Thames RFCC feels they want to see interventions/action.

0 Further clarity around the format of the next Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Capital Investment Programme.

1 Clarity of future Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding processes (i.e. whether funding will be available to protect infrastructure).

0 A clearer understanding of the format and application process for the next Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Capital Investment Programme.

1 Development of PSCA templates to access PDU during feasibility and viability phases. Lobbying DEFRA to reduce weighting of Property Level measures.

0 Only have a small section of watercourse in the Thames catchment.

0 Reviewing Business Cases.

108

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Appendix 4. General comments provided by LLFAs in section 1. 6. Please provide any other comments you would like fed back to the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. Engagement with communities continues to be a challenge. This is a vital part of the project process and LLFAs do not have the resources to fund this or the spare capacity in terms of people to deliver this. This should be begun prior to the business case but there is often no money available prior to business case to fund this. LLFAs are then left having to fund this themselves or not doing it which makes the project poorer or could cause delays during the project as it hasn't been done at the optimum time. EA programme does not align to internal investment processes. Difficult to have confidence when forecasting future spend that internal investment will be available. Especially when large scale projects take a lot of time/money to make the business case to EA based on modelling outputs etc. Surface water projects are tricky - need multiple retrofit solutions to manage 1 flood 'event', under current arrangements it is difficult to justify/draw down spend on relatively few households flooded - no capacity/experience/confidence that EA would approve taking projects forward based on other impacts to infrastructure/OM1s etc. We feel that funding should be made available to undertake feasibility studies in areas where severe flooding are experienced but not many properties are impacted. Accommodating the 1 in 100 + CC event is frequently not economically feasible against the benefits halting the ongoing funding process. Is there a way to recognise protection from smaller events as a benefit? We feel this is particularly relevant to surface water. A major barrier to not submitting bids is that the solution is not always clear at the outset to the project. It is therefore not possible to build up a partnership funding score. We appreciate the support of Thames Flood Advisors on general FRM matters. We work well with Wessex EA but sometimes don't have those contacts with Thames as they only cover a small part of Wiltshire. The decision not to ring-fence LLFA's funding entails that Local Authorities under financial strain (debts) have no incentive to facilitate LLFA's expenditure. Central government’s RSG annual allocation is first significantly cut as received by the council and what left allocated to LLFA if unspent is absorbed to council central budget at the end of the financial year - spending is made difficult (for a number of reasons) and lack of LLFA's resources and to degree budgetary control make spending even more difficult and so forth in negative feedback loops. The challenge will be to articulate and appropriately value the outcomes from multi-benefit projects. For example retro fit urban SuDS can manage wider climate change issues such as heat island effect as well as managing flood risk from increased / more intense rainfall. The question is will this be valued by DEFRA and be an intrinsic part of the grant offer or it something that LLFA have to do at a more local level?

109

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

There is a concern that more and more Levy funding is being used to fund revenue posts. This council are beginning to deliver a comprehensive programme of flood risk projects, however there are further projects we would like to deliver. LLFA have lacked investment but the new FCERM National strategy appears to place further burdens on LLFA which are ill equipped to be able to meet those requirements. A number of projects to reduce flood risk are for infrastructure for smaller scale projects and the volume of evidence required is too much so this prevents LLFA for applying. The RFCC should be lobbying DEFRA for these alterations in the process to encourage LLFA to utilise RFCC funding to deliver flood risk schemes. The funding cycle is quite inflexible in that you can only apply for new funding in the July of the calendar year, which means projects may be stalled unnecessarily. The next Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Capital Investment Programme should include protection of infrastructure from flooding as a major outcome measure to attract a high partnership score. We appreciate the knowledge and commitment of our TRFCC representative Rachael and consider that this relationship has already provided substantial benefit particularly in developing a pipeline of projects and prioritising them. Simplifying the application process and making the funding cycles succinct/clear for all applicants i.e. community engagement officers or others that do not have experience of funding applications. Current DEFRA funding rules are dependent on property flooding. We wish to bid for schemes to reduce risk of infrastructure flooding.

110

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

THAMES REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 17 October 2019 SUBJECT: Future of the Thames Flood Advisors team beyond 2021 PAPER BY: Sarah Smith, Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, London

Recommendation

Members are asked to provide their thoughts on the future of the Thames Flood Advisors team including the option of closer working and potential co-funding with Thames Water.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Thames Flood Advisors are a Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) resource funded through local levy until March 2021 when the current funding arrangement comes to an end.

1.2. The Advisors are hosted by the Environment Agency and co-located with Thames Water and local authorities in the Thames RFCC area. The current funding agreement includes 2 team leaders, 5 advisors in each team and 1 project support officer at an approximate cost of £660k per annum.

1.3. We are starting to explore the options for the team beyond 2021. A paper was presented and discussed at the Thames Flood Advisors Project Board on 1st October. The Project Board is a sub group of the main Thames RFCC. The paper is attached as appendix 1.

2. Thames Flood Advisor Project Board recommendations

2.1. The Project Board supported the recommendations in the paper to collect further feedback from the teams’ customers and partners in order to understand future potential options for the team. This includes Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) officers, Thames Water and the Environment Agency. We plan to issue a short survey to LLFAs in the next month.

2.2. The Project Board also supported further discussions with Thames Water about the potential for closer working and potential co-funding of the team in the future. We have since had an initial discussion with Thames Water about their priorities. As well as the suggestions set out in the paper discussed at the Project Board, Thames Water were also interested in exploring how the team might be able to support with engagement activities linked to the development of Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans.

3. RFCC recommendations

3.1. We are keen to understand RFCC members’ thoughts on the future of the team. Members are asked to discuss their initial thoughts, based on the options outlined in Appendix 1 and below for ease of reference.

There are a number of high level options to consider for the team beyond March 2021:

Agenda item no. 7

111

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

TFA team ceases to exist in March 2021 TFA continues with same structure/governance and funding for XX year(s) TFA continues in modified form (change to resources) with same funding model TFA continues in modified form (change to priorities/focus) with same funding

model TFA continues in modified form with different funding model

This will help refine the options to be considered in more detail.

3.2. Members are also asked to discuss the option of closer working with Thames Water and co-funding of the team. What is the appetite to seek a co-funded team beyond 2021? How should the team’s work be reshaped to incorporate Thames Water activities?

Name: Sarah Smith

Title: Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, London

sarah.a.smith@environment-agency.gov.uk

112

Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Thames Flood Advisors Project Board

MEETING DATE: 01 October 2019

SUBJECT: Future of Thames Flood Advisors team – exploring the options

PAPER BY: Sarah Smith, Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, Environment Agency

1. Introduction

The Thames Flood Advisors are a Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) resource funded through local levy.

The Advisors are hosted by the Environment Agency and co-located with Thames Water and local authorities in the Thames RFCC area. The current funding agreement includes 2 team leaders, 5 advisors in each team and 1 project support officer at an approximate cost of £660k per annum.

The Project Board has set 4 primary objectives for the team:

Delivery of the Programme (Flood Defence Grant in Aid investment secured, project outcomes achieved, contributions secured, efficiencies made)

Strong pipeline of projects including integrated schemes Building and establishing effective relationships, ways of working improved (over time

partnerships and LLFAs feel empowered and have benefited from the Thames Flood Advisors (TFA) team)

The TFA team adds value and does not substitute for mainstream or statutory work of either the LLFAs or Environment Agency

The team are funded for 5 years, with this funding agreement coming to an end in March 2021 when the current 6 year capital programme finishes. All current staff are permanent Environment Agency employees.

In order to provide stability for the team an early decision on their future is necessary, with a final decision for their future to be taken by April 2020. We have started to consider potential future options for the team and are seeking input from Project Board members.

2. High level options for the future of the team

There are a number of high level options to consider for the team beyond March 2021:

TFA team ceases to exist in March 2021 TFA continues with same structure/governance and funding for XX year(s)

113

TFA continues in modified form (change to resources) with same funding model

TFA continues in modified form (change to priorities/focus) with same funding model

TFA continues in modified form with different funding model

Project Board members are asked to discuss their initial thoughts on future options for the team.

In order to evaluate the success of the team in its current form and to understand the best option for the team beyond March 2021, it will be important to seek feedback from customers/users of the Advisors, and those who work alongside the teams. This includes the RFCC, Lead Local Flood Authorities, Thames Water and the Environment Agency. We will also need contributions from the Advisors teams.

The results from the recent LLFA annual progress questionnaire provide useful feedback on the TFA, but it would also be beneficial to ask LLFAs some additional questions about what they would like to see in the future.

Project Board members are asked to approve the collection of additional feedback on the team from LLFAs to help determine the best future option. Members are also asked to approve the collection of feedback from other partners.

This feedback would be used to develop a preferred option for the team for the main RFCC to consider and approve by April 2020. It is our intention to have an initial discussion at main RFCC in October, with further discussion and a vote at subsequent meetings in 2020.

3. Potential for Thames Water to co-fund the team in the future?

The TFA have worked closely with Thames Water over the last 3 years, and have facilitated better relationships with local authorities and progress on managing surface water flooding.

Thames Water are proposing funding for surface water management in their next AMP cycle (2020-2025). The draft business plan has 3 funding pots proposed to remove 65 hectares of surface water from the drainage system:

o 3 x formal partnerships with local authorities to tackle surface water flooding hotspots (around £6m per partnership)

o £150k per local authority to manage surface water o £5m (subject to change) for projects with NGOs, hospitals etc

[NB. These numbers are subject to approval and change]

Thames Water have not yet developed the funding criteria or application process, or the team structure to assess and allocate the money.

114

We would like to explore how the Thames Flood Advisors could support local authorities in applying for this funding, and Thames Water in administering the process, as well as supporting projects through from investigation to construction.

In order for Thames Water to use the Thames Flood Advisors resource in this way, we would like to discuss what contribution they could make to co-fund the team. Thames Water may also have some suggested areas of work for the team.

Given the current uncertainty over a future long term settlement for flood risk management, one option would be to align the future TFA funding to Water Company AMP funding cycles – committing levy and Thames Water funds to 2025.

Project Board members are asked to provide their thoughts on this option and support discussions with Thames Water to explore this further.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In order to provide greater certainty and stability for the Thames Flood Advisors, we would like to reach agreement on future team arrangements by April 2020. We have started considering the potential options for the team, and would like to seek feedback from customers and partners. We intend to discuss this at the Project Board and take a paper to the main RFCC meeting on 17th October 2019 for further discussion.

Project Board members are asked to:

a) Provide their initial thoughts on the future of the team b) Approve the collection of feedback from customers and partners

to inform future options c) Provide their thoughts on closer working and co-funding with

Thames Water d) Provide a steer on the paper and discussion questions to take to

full RFCC on October 17th.

Name: Sarah Smith

Title: Environment Agency Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, London

Email: sarah.a.smith@environment-agency.gov.uk

Date: 20 September 2019

115

RFCC Committee Correspondence Paper, Item 8

Paper by: Anne Dacey, Deputy Director, Integrated Water Planning, Environment and Business, Environment Agency Subject: River Basin Management Plans and Flood Risk Management Plans – aligned engagement

Recommendations RFCC Chairs and Committee members are influential in working with partners to reduce flood risk. As part of the aligned engagement for shaping the River Basin Management Plans and Flood Risk Management Plans (RBMP and FRMPs) we are asking you to respond to the forthcoming Challenges and Choices consultation, and help shape the future approach to the management of the water environment. The RFCC Committee is asked to: 1. Work with the Environment Agency and partners to promote discussions that identify where flood risk is reduced whilst concurrently improving the water environment. 2. Work with your organisations to complete a Challenges and Choices consultation response by 22 April 2020.

1.0 Background 1.1 River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) were first produced in 2009 and are

reviewed and updated every six years. As part of the review and update of the third cycle of the RBMPs, the Environment Agency are launching a consultation in October seeking everyone’s views on the challenges our waters face and the choices we all need to make to improve or maintain this precious resource.

1.2 Challenges and Choices is the second of 3 statutory RBMP consultations. The responses will help shape the future approach to the management of the water environment and will be used to update the existing river basin management plans in December 2021.

1.3 We are working closely with FCERM colleagues to align engagement with the second cycle of Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), which will also be published in December 2021.

2.0 Water environment challenges 2.1 Currently, only 16% of England’s waters are close to their natural state. At the

current rate of progress/investment it will take over 200 years to reach the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan ambition of 75% of waters close to their natural state.

2.2. The Challenges and Choices consultation will address the biggest challenges

facing the water environment. It is an online consultation and will present each challenge as a specific page. Each challenge page will have a video, a

116

Information

brief overview with infographics and links to more detailed information on each challenge:

climate and environment crisis changes to water levels and flows chemicals in the water environment invasive non-native species physical modifications plastics pollution pollution from abandoned mines pollution from agriculture and rural areas pollution from towns, cities and transport pollution from water industry wastewater

2.3 The Challenges and Choices consultation explains (or asks):

why water is such a vital resource the current and future challenges that threaten the water environment how we can work together to manage our waters who should pay

2.4 By considering both flood risk issues and improvements to the water

environment in our discussions, we increase opportunities to identify joint schemes, projects and ways of working which can bring overall time and cost efficiencies.

2.5 We would like you to encourage your networks to promote the Challenges

and Choices consultation and seek stakeholder feedback. We would be happy to present at future RFCC committee meetings to give more local detail.

3.0 FRMP and RBMP consultations 3.1 The RBMP Challenges and Choices consultation runs from 22 October 2019

to 22 April 2020. Next year, there will be a joint consultation on the draft FRMP and RBMP plans between October 2020 and April 2021.

4.0 Recommendations 4.1 The RFCC Chairs are / RFCC Committee are asked to:

Work with the Environment Agency and partners to promote discussions that identify where flood risk is reduced whilst concurrently improving the water environment.

Work with your organisations to complete a Challenges and Choices consultation response by 22 April 2020.

Author: Suzanne Bennett, Senior Engagement Advisor, Strategic Catchment Partnerships, E&B and Dan Bean, Senior Officer, Operations Catchment Services FRMP contact: Kylie Russell, Project Executive, Flood Risk Regulations and improving strategic planning Sponsor: Anne Dacey, Deputy Director, Integrated Water Planning Date: 06 September 2019

117

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

THAMES REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: Thursday 17th October 2019 SUBJECT: Update on Surface Water Management and Drainage and Wastewater

Management Plans (DWMPs) PAPER BY: Thames Water

Recommendation

TFRCC members continue to promote DWMP and its working together framework within their organisations.

Consideration of the future role of flood advisors in DWMP stakeholder engagement.

1. DWMP – ‘Working Together’ Document

We presented at the January meeting on Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans and received some criticism for being too water company-centric in our approach. This criticism has been widely felt across England and Wales and as a result an additional DWMP document was published in September, entitled: ‘Working Together to improve drainage and environmental water quality’. https://www.water.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Working-together-to-improve-drainage-and-environmental-water-quality-an-overview-of-Drainage-and-Wastewater-Management-Plans.pdf

The document is written from the perspective of a co-creator / stakeholder and is intended to highlight the benefits of engaging in DWMPs for other interested parties that may act as co-creators/co-funders. It supplements the original guidance documents which are more technical and water company focussed.

The drafting of the document was guided by the following organisations; Blueprint, EA, Adept, WaterUK and water companies. It is designed to answer the following questions:

What is a DWMP?

What's in it for me?

What opportunities does it present?

Why, how and when do I engage?

We hope that this document makes the potential benefits of engaging with the DWMP process more immediately apparent so that stakeholder engagement in the preliminary stages is encouraged. We request that TRFCC members review this document and promote it in their relevant organisations. Any co-creation opportunities should be explored through the relevant Strategic Flood Partnerships meetings.

Agenda item no. 9

118

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2. Key stages of DWMP – an update

Table 1 shows the key stages of DWMP. This quarter is focused on the strategic context and risk-based catchment screening stages which we are discussing in each of the Strategic Flood Partnership meetings. We are also piloting the next stage of DWMP (known as BRAVA - Baseline Risk and Vulnerability Assessment) in six catchments.

Table 1: Key stages in DWMP

Source: Extracted from Working together to improve drainage and environmental water quality. September 2019

Our focus this quarter in the Strategic Flooding Partnership session is to gather feedback on:

Scope of DWMP24 (first iteration)

Planning objectives for DWMP24

Key datasets which may enable opportunity mapping

Outputs from risk-based catchment screening (due December 2019)

3. Strategic focus - Scope of DWMP24 / Planning Objectives

DWMP is a long-term strategic plan which focuses on partnership solutions. In the Working Together Document, DWMP is defined as “a long-term strategic plan that will set out how wastewater systems, and the drainage networks that impact them, are to be extended, improved and maintained to ensure they are robust and resilient to future pressures. It’s an approach to ensure that plans recognise interdependencies…It’s an opportunity to plan together, to generate efficiencies and maximise outcomes arising from co-creation and delivery of solutions that address the risks we face between drainage systems.”

Aligned with this definition, for the first iteration of our DWMP (DWMP24), we will focus on drivers supported by long term national forecasts which are amenable to co-creation of solutions. The focus for DWMP24 will, therefore, be on mitigating the impact of growth (population increase and urban creep) and climate change on drainage and wastewater.

For the first iteration of the DWMP process, it is not intended that the DWMP will cover all aspects of waste planning. For example, sludge planning is not included. Asset deterioration is assumed to be held as stable with the investment plan to deliver this to be detailed in the subsequent PR24 submission. The majority of the AMP8 Quality programme will be undetermined at the time of DWMP initial consultation publication so again will be detailed in PR24 submission as part of the ‘business as usual’ planning cycle.

119

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

DWMP24 will however signpost how long-term growth and climate change plans integrate with near term AMP8 ‘business as usual’ plans for other aspects of wastewater and drainage.

WRMPs are plans that have matured over many cycles. The same is anticipated with DWMPs, with subsequent iterations every five years, become successively broader until we have a single, integrated Surface Water and Wastewater Management Plan.

Aligned to this definition and to industry guidance, our DWMP planning objectives will reflect relevant water company performance commitments. For example:

Pollution incidents

Resilience to 1 in 50-year storm

Sewage treatment works compliance

Internal flooding

Collapses

We will publish a strategic context paper in December 2019 which will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on DWMP scope and planning objectives for the Thames region. This will be a live document that is re-iterated in the run up to the initial consultation in Summer 2022. This recognises that DWMP in its first iteration is breaking new ground and until it has matured over subsequent cycles, scope and planning objectives will evolve. In the meantime, we will be seeking feedback at Strategic Flooding Partnership sessions on initial DWMP scope and planning objectives.

4. Stakeholder engagement – role of flood advisors

We are at the preliminary stages of DWMP with much of the communication at Strategic Flooding Partnerships inevitably being led by Thames Water staff explaining this new planning process. As we progress to optioneering we envisage this balance will change. Optioneering starts in spring next year (2020) when we expect discussions to move from strategic to more detailed as we work through technical data and explore potential for co-creation of solutions, including the possibility of co-funding.

This will require more resource from Thames Water and possibly other stakeholders. We are interested in exploring the potential role of the flood advisor in maximising opportunities for partnership solutions. We understand that the role of flooding advisors post-March 2021 is being explored. From our perspective, the flooding advisors would be ideally placed to be advocates for partnership solutions and best to advise on routes to co-funding. However, to maximise impact on DWMP24 we would value their input a year earlier when optioneering starts. We fully understand there are resource constraints to an early lead into this role, nevertheless we would like to flag the opportunity at this stage.

5. Surface Water Management Programme AMP7

As a successor to our AMP6 pilot of ‘Twenty for Twenty’, we have included in our AMP7 plan investment to undertake further retrofitting of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). We have set out a target of 65 ha to be completed by the end of AMP7, this target and associated funding is still subject to scrutiny as part of the regulatory business planning process and will not be concluded until early next year, at the earliest.

Retro-fitting SuDS provides a wide range of socio-economic benefits and is something that we see as being key to tackling growth, climate change and resilience within our drainage systems.

120

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Through our ‘Twenty for Twenty’ pilot we have learnt a lot about the opportunities and approach to retrofitting of SuDS and this helped shaped our approach in AMP7. Examples include how we apply SuDS to both separate and combined systems (AMP6 only allows for combined sewers), which has significantly broadened out the scope for where we can look for partnership opportunities.

Our learning has led to our approach being modified by the inclusion of 4 key workstreams for the implementation of SuDS:

1. Strategic Partnership schemes, a total of 3 schemes, one in each of the North, South and Western parts of our region.

2. Local authority specific pot; whereby the 93 local authorities (excludes the 3 strategic partners) each get the opportunity to implement SuDS schemes within their district.

3. Third Party funding pot; to provide a means whereby NGOs etc. would have an opportunity to partner with us on SuDS schemes.

4. Thames Water led schemes; this is where we would fund schemes that we have identified and would be delivered through our term delivery partner.

Over the summer we have engaged with potential strategic partners for (1) above and, whilst we cannot confirm funding with those partners before we have completed our regulatory price review, we are at a stage where we will shortly be able to let the successful partners know the outcome of the assessment process. What we can say is the standard of submission from those that we approached was excellent and far exceeded our expectations, we look forward to working with these partners in AMP7.

With respect to workstreams (2) to (4) we would look to align these with the DWMP process. You will note above that we are due to produce our risk-based catchment screening results and subsequently BRAVA, this information will provide a key insight into which parts of the system are currently at most stress or those to be impacted by future risks, such as growth and climate change. This work will be key to understanding where opportunities exist to collaborate on schemes which improve resilience through the retrofitting of SuDS.

121

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

THAMES REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 17 October 2019 SUBJECT: Key Issues PAPER BY: Karen Jouny and Jessica Rimington-Cross

Recommendation

Members are asked to note updates on the following topics:

Local Updates:

Thames Tideway Defences update for Thames Estuary Asset Management 2100 (TEAM2100)

Update on Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme

Update on Natural Flood Management (NFM) Opportunity Mapping – request for ground truthing

Thames Estuary 2100 Implementation Plan – Council Objectives

Thames Estuary 2100 Plan – 2020 Review

Thames Estuary 2100 – Riverside Strategies Approach

The River Roding Project

Thames Valley flood Scheme update

The London Strategic SuDS Pilot Study (LSSPS) Update

National Updates:

Government pledges £62m extra funding for flood defences

Draft FCERM strategy 2100 consultation – outcome and next steps

Spending review 2019

Autumn budget statement 2018 programme

Toddbrook Reservoir – Whaley Bridge

Environment Agency flood warnings are among the first to go live on Google’s Public Alerts in Europe

The Flood Forecasting Centre is 10 years old

Natural Flood Management (NFM) reverse auction tool update

New guidance to help councils prepare strategic flood risk assessments

New evidence for community engagement on climate adaptation

Agenda item no. 8

122

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

1. Introduction

1.1. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on key issues in the Thames RFCC area. This paper is a standing item on the agenda at every RFCC main committee meeting. We welcome contributions from members and officers, especially any project updates.

1.2. It is the intention that the committee note the progress of the key issues presented and also suggest items for inclusion on future Key Issues papers.

Local Updates:

2. Thames Tidal Defences update for Thames Estuary Asset Management (TEAM2100)

2.1 Fixed and Active Assets: Duke Shore Wharf (Poplar Flood Risk Management System) – Mobilisation has taken place and preparatory works are being undertaken prior to piling. There have been delays in setting up the site compound at Barleycorn Way due to objections from residents, but these issues are now being resolved. 2.2 Trinity Hospital (Greenwich Flood Risk Management System) – Construction has been completed and the footpath has been reopened to the public. The work was completed on programme, below target cost and delivered 237 houses better protected. The engagement efforts by the site team led to excellent feedback from various stakeholders. The photos below show the construction site during and after works.

Figure 1 - The construction site at Trinity Hospital before and after works

123

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2.3 Three appraisals are ongoing including at Carrera Wharf in Hammersmith and Grosvenor Road in Westminster. 2.4 39 flood defences have been investigated in 2018-2019 period, of which three flood defences will progress to appraisal with the remaining either not requiring immediate investment to maintain their flood risk function with any residual defects being progressed through engagement with the flood defence owners and site developers.

2.5 Thames Barrier: Principal gate inspections – works progressing to schedule in maintenance position.

Gate move to open planned. Proposal for scope decrease to match available funding near complete, but may no longer be required.

Shifter Track Replacement – Site works completed in August. H&S file under development to be submitted in September 2019.

LCR Refurbishment – Works completed. Fire Detection and Alarm – Task order proposal under review. Preferred option for

contractual split agreed. Project has been agreed to split in 2 phases for Design and Build.

Barking Mechanical – Project placed on hold. Lessons learned held. Ongoing activities to close out project.

Passive Fire Protection – Delivery approach changed to be design only. Design proposal in development submission is planned in October 2019.

Leak Sealing Phase 2 – Appraisal instruction received, appraisal is ongoing, with upcoming site surveys.

Hydrant Replacement Works – Funding has been received. Proposal for works in development.

2.6 Pump Stations • Great Breach and Lake 5 Pump Station Appraisals are ongoing, submission to

Programme and Delivery Board scheduled for November 2019. • Great Breach Urgent Works – Area team has made funding available. Proposal in

development to ensure completion in line with main pump station works.

3. Update on Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme

3.1. The main focus of the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme remains on gaining the necessary consents and authorisations in order to proceed to the delivery phase.

3.2. The planning application process is ongoing and we are preparing responses for the latest round of clarification questions. We are working to ensure Oxfordshire County Council have all the required information they need to determine the application.

3.3. We have received formal notification from Defra confirming the need for a Public

Inquiry for the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). The project team have been working over the last 6 months to collate the evidence needed to support the case. We are working to finalise Heads of Terms and legal agreements with key landowners to ensure that the majority of land is secured in advance of a Public Inquiry.

3.4. At present, the date of the CPO Public Inquiry cannot be set. Oxfordshire County

Council have recently identified that the bridge carrying the A423 Oxford ring road over the Kennington Railway Bridge will need replacing due to structural issues. The proposed design for the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme includes installing new culverts either side of this bridge and so our scheme is not able to proceed until further

124

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

details are known with regards to the council’s proposed work and we are able to demonstrate our scheme is deliverable.

3.5. Project partners are supportive of the approach to work closely with Oxfordshire County Council to understand the different delivery options we now have. Working collaboratively with the council will inform our culvert design, and assist their design work for the A423 Kennington Road Bridge. This work will also explore options as to whether there is an opportunity to deliver a joint solution at this location. Once the solution for this bridge is known, we will be in a position to update the programme and update target dates for construction work.

3.6. Current financial approvals for the project date from 2017 and had assumed that the Full Business Case would have been approved early in 2019. To fit the revised programme of work, a business case update report has been submitted to the Environment Agency’s Large Project Review Group to seek the financial approval to take the project through the remaining design phases, finalise the business case and take the project through Public Inquiry.

3.7. The Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership Board have agreed the proposed

£25.85m Local Growth Fund (LGF) capital swap for the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme. The LGF money will be spent on projects with the Oxfordshire County Council capital programme which have a strong strategic fit to the LGF priorities. Then at a later time this money will be recycled from Oxfordshire County Council towards OFAS. By retaining the LGF funding in this way OFAS will remain viable despite the delays to the programme.

3.8. We are currently tendering to secure an environmental partner to manage Environment

Agency owned land post scheme construction. The successful applicant will maintain and manage the habitat, build relationships with communities and create opportunities for education, environmental research and ecological enhancements. This approach should reduce our long term revenue costs of maintaining the scheme and open up wider funding opportunities. More details can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/oxford-flood-scheme/environmental-vision-partner-long-term-habitat-management

4. Update on Natural Flood Management (NFM) Opportunity Mapping – request for ground truthing

4.1. Gavin Haughton; Natural Flood Management (NFM) Officer funded by the Thames RFCC and hosted by the Environment Agency would like to ask for LLFA assistance in ground-truthing the recently completed NFM opportunity map.

4.2. Thames RFCC recognises the important contribution that NFM can make to managing flood risk, and agreed to use levy funding to create an opportunity map tailored for the Thames basin. The aim of creating a new NFM opportunity map for the Thames basin is to provide a basis to estimate quantity and variety of NFM strategies available in each river catchment. It is hoped the map will enable Risk Management Authorities to invest in NFM projects in the most beneficial locations.

4.3. The NFM opportunity map’s first phase has identified opportunity sites for gully blocking, catchment woodland, riparian woodland, attenuation ponds, earth bunds, and floodplain reconnection. Locations of completed and planned NFM projects are now needed for comparison. These NFM projects using site-specific knowledge are vital for ground-truthing the automated mapping method.

125

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4.4. If you have any NFM within your areas, please could you send Gavin Haughton (gavin.haughton@environment-agency.gov.uk) one of the following; Georeferenced maps or shapefiles outlining the NFM projects. Tables with longitude, latitude and NFM type. Reports on local NFM projects that enable us to find the site in GIS and manually

compare results.

4.5. There is no upper or lower limit to the size of the NFM site, and it does not matter how the scheme has been funded.

Figure 2 - An example of the NFM Opportunity Map

5. Thames Estuary 2100 Implementation Plan - Council Objectives

5.1. The Implementation Plan breaks down the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan into annual

objectives which clarify the actions partners (including councils) need to take to deliver the Plan's recommendations. 8 of the 17 London Boroughs on the Thames Estuary (with tidal Thames frontage) either completed or partially completed the reporting survey on their 2018/19 Implementation Plan objectives. This was sent to them in their Local Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority capacities. This survey is important as it enables us to track how much progress we are making in delivering Thames Estuary 2100 recommendations across the estuary and identifies any areas where councils need more support.

5.2. In the coming month we will be writing to the Chief Executives of all Thames-side

boroughs with the aim of raising their awareness and securing their support for their

126

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

staff delivering the recommendations of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan. Specifically, we are seeking agreement from them to nominate an officer-level single point of contact (SPoC). It is our proposal that this contact should be responsible for ensuring their Thames Estuary 2100 Plan objectives are shared with colleagues who need to see them, and they will hold oversight and overall responsibility for returning the completed reporting survey at the end of each year to capture their borough's progress in delivery.

5.3. We have now rolled out the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan objectives for 2019/20 to all

boroughs. Where possible, we would be grateful if RFCC members could follow up the rollout of these objectives by ensuring your Local Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority teams are aware of and have accessed their objectives (which are hosted on our KnowledgeHub group 'Thames Estuary 2100 Council Group', which all councils have been invited to access). This could perhaps be an item for discussion at LLFA Partnership Group Meetings. We cannot deliver the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan without councils and we are therefore committed to improving understanding within councils of their role in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, including helping them to improve their reporting on the Implementation Plan. 

6. Thames Estuary 2100 Plan - 2020 Review

6.1. Climate adaptation is at the core of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan. It is designed to be

adaptable to different rates of sea level rise, we need to monitor how the estuary is changing and review the Plan regularly to ensure the recommendations it makes are still suitable. To do this we monitor 10 indicators of change, reviewing these every 5 years, and completing a full review and update of the Plan every 10 years. The 2020 Review is our first full review and update to the Plan, 10 years after the original recommendations were developed.

6.2. The project started in early 2019 and is split into 3 overlapping phases:

Phase 1: Monitoring review – Jan 2019- June 2020: Collect data to review 10 indicators of change in the estuary and assess the first 10 years of delivery against the original recommendations 

Phase 2: Economic review - Sept 2019 - June 2021: Use monitoring data to update costs and benefits of the Plan and review the business case for an updated Thames Estuary 2100 Plan

Phase 3: Plan update- June 2020 – 2022: Update recommendations in the Plan based on outcomes of the monitoring and economic reviews, and produce an updated Plan

6.3. The monitoring review (phase 1) is underway, with members of the project team

working with other Environment Agency colleagues and external partners to collate and analyse data to assess how the estuary has changed since the Plan was developed. We are in the process of appointing a consultant to help us develop the scope for the economic review (phase 2). This work will include using outputs from the monitoring review and working closely with the project team to review the costs and benefits of the Plan.

6.4. We met with an RFCC sub-group in July, chaired by Cllr Scott-Macdonald from

Thames RFCC, to discuss how RFCC members wanted to be involved going forwards. We will be setting up further meetings over the next few months to which Anglian Eastern, Thames and Southern RFCC members with an interest in Thames Estuary 2100 will be invited.

127

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

7. The Riverside Strategy Approach

7.1. The riverside strategy approach was introduced in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan as a means to ensuring that future changes required to enable the riverside to cope with increasing sea levels and tidal flood risk, take place in a planned and integrated way. This will maximise the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits, and avoid the risks associated with raising the flood defences without considering the impact on the environment and communities which sit behind them. We envisage those involved in shaping the future of the riverside, including planning authorities, creating visions or strategies for the tidal riversides which outline how improvements to flood defences can be incorporated into the wider riverside environment.

7.2. A number of opportunities have arisen recently to develop such strategies, and we are

working with our relevant partners to support them to take these forward. This includes the City of London Corporation who we have supported in putting together a funding bid to the Thames RFCC to help them develop and implement a strategy for their stretch of the Thames. There are also discussions taking place to develop riverside strategies at a number of other locations in the estuary, however this is the only council-lead initiative currently underway for London.

 7.3. If successful, these projects would have the added benefit of forming a pilot study as

part of the 2020 Review, for other boroughs to learn from in developing their own strategies.

7.4. To support this work we have developed a riverside strategy approach guidance note,

aimed at those who will be planning for the future of the Thames riverside. It sets out our aspiration for the riverside strategy approach and what this means for our partners. Please contact thamesestuary2100@environment-agency.gov.uk if you would like more information on this, or on the case studies mentioned above.

8. The River Roding Project

8.1. The River Roding Project has successfully passed an internal review gateway with the

Outline Business Case being independently assured by the EA’s Large Projects Review Group. This allows the project to progress to detailed design and Full Business Case.

8.2. The project team is working with our new delivery partners (Jacobs and BAM Nuttall) to

deliver the project within the current 6 year programme.

8.3. The project has successfully secured £5.1m of GiA to realise a reduction in flood risk to deprived communities in East London.

8.4. The project will reduce flooding to over 600 homes in the Woodford and Ilford

communities of London Borough of Redbridge. We are holding engagement events in the community in October to increase awareness of the flood risk and what the project seeks to achieve. We welcome member support to help raise awareness of the project and local flood risk amongst communities and partners.

128

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 3 – Flooding due to the River Roding

Figure 4 – Benefits of the River Roding Project

9. Thames Valley Flood Scheme

9.1. Our Thames Valley Flood Scheme project is seeking opportunities to significantly reduce flood risk by delivering large scale floodwater storage at multiple locations throughout the Thames catchment. This is a core part of our wider strategy for the Thames catchment which aims to build climate resilience and support sustainable growth into the future.

9.2. Our ongoing technical work, supported by seed-funding from TRFCC, gives us increasing confidence that large scale upper catchment flood storage has the potential to benefit communities and businesses over a very large area. This includes many at risk for whom there isn’t a local technically or economically viable option, those who will benefit from our major schemes but who will have lower standards of protection which will reduce over time, and those who are not yet at risk of flooding but who will be at increasing flood risk as we see the impacts of climate change.

9.3. We’re developing a Strategic Outline Business Case by April 2020 to set out the future scenarios under which large scale flood storage could be delivered, with the intention

129

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

that this would be achieved as an integral part of wider growth and infrastructure delivery, for example the growth we expect to see as part of OxCam (Oxford to Cambridge Growth Arc).

9.4. We plan to provide a verbal update to TRFCC in January 2020 with our latest findings and progress on this project, which has the potential to make a major contribution to the capital programme pipeline.

9.5. For further information please contact Joe Cuthbertson at

joe.cuthbertson@environment-agency.gov.uk

Figure 5 – Flood Storage area example: Banbury Flood Storage Area, Oxfordshire, which provides better protection from flooding to approximately 500 properties in Banbury

10. The London Strategic SuDS Pilot Study (LSSPS) Update

10.1. The London Strategic SuDS Pilot Study (LSSPS) is progressing through its various work streams. Phase 1 of the modelling is complete and the report is being written by the consultants. The Phase 2 methodology is being agreed by the working group.

10.2. The Outline Business Case (OBC) for the LB Enfield project was approved earlier this year. The OBCs for LB Hillingdon and RB Kingston are under review and should be submitted to the Environment Agency for approval soon.

10.3. The Urban Partnership Funding Calculator has been produced by the consultants. This has fed into a discussion with Defra about the review of the current Partnership Funding Calculator used in applications for Flood Defence Grant in Aid.

10.4. The monitoring tender brief has been produced and is being finalised for publication. Thames Water Utilities Limited have allocated funding for the monitoring of the SuDS.

130

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 6 – Constructed traffic calming measures in LB Enfield

131

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

National Updates:

11. Government pledges £62m extra funding for flood defences

11.1. The new Environment Secretary Theresa Villiers has announced a new round of flood defence investment for communities across Yorkshire, Cumbria, the North East and the South East of England.

11.2. Thirteen projects across England will benefit from a share of over £62 million, many

of which are located in communities which suffered from flooding during winter 2015.

11.3. In total, more than 9,004 homes will be better protected against flooding through this round of funding. The extra funding is in addition to the £2.6 billion to better protect 300,000 homes across the country.

11.4. The River Roding successfully secured some of this funding, as described in section

8 of this paper. You can find more information here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-62m-flood-funding-for-communities-in-england

Figure 7 – Map showing the projects in England benefiting from the extra funding

12. Draft FCERM Strategy 2100 consultation – outcome and next steps

12.1. On 9 May 2019 we launched our consultation on the draft national flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) strategy for England. This marked the culmination of engagement with over 90 organisations.

12.2. We received significant interest in the consultation, including numerous press and trade articles. When it closed on 4 July, we had received 400 external and 88 internal responses. We also received 40 letters from organisations with further comments.

12.3. Overall findings show:

132

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

strong support for the vision and ambitions from a range of stakeholders and partners (78%)

a keen interest in the implementation of the strategy agreement that although the strategy is ambitious many stakeholders would like it

to go further

12.4. We are now using the consultation responses to strengthen the strategy further. We have identified priority recommendations which we plan to test with our key external partners and internal teams in September.

12.5. We plan to lay the strategy before parliament later this year and publish the final national strategy for England in spring 2020.

Contact: FCERMstrategy@environment-agency.gov.uk

13. Spending Review 2019

13.1. We are working with teams across the Environment Agency to develop funding scenarios for consideration in Spending Review 2019 (SR19). HM Treasury have now formally confirmed a one year spending round by the end of September to set departmental budgets for 2020/21, with the next multi-year spending review to be carried out in 2020. The announcement is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-fast-tracks-spending-round-to-free-up-departments-to-prepare-for-brexit. We are informally hearing of the possibility for a longer term settlement for some elements of capital related to infrastructure – flood and coastal risk could be a strong candidate for this. We continue to plan for a long term settlement and our one year submission for 2020/21 is the first stage of our longer term bid.

13.2. We are listening to feedback particularly related to changes to the partnership funding rules and key outcomes of a future investment programme. Discussions are ongoing with Defra colleagues.

Contact: thomasin.meadley@environment-agency.gov.uk 14. Autumn Budget Statement 2018 Programme

14.1. Following the announcement of funding last year, the Environment Agency has made significant progress in the delivery of the Autumn Statement 2018 programme. This includes 3 major projects with a total value of £12.5m that will allow us to:

14.2. Expand the provision of flood warnings to the 26,000 properties at high risk of

flooding from ordinary watercourses, rivers and the sea across England that currently don’t have access to flood warnings. The additional services will be delivered by March 2022 and will give people the information they need to prepare and take timely action to reduce the impacts of floods on their health, property and personal belongings. Environment Agency teams will be working with colleagues in Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) and Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) over the coming months to plan for the introduction of these services over the next 2-3 years.

133

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

14.3. The boosting action on surface water project will deliver a number of the actions identified in Defra’s Surface Water Management Action Plan. One of these is to produce updated/improved local surface water mapping information in key areas. We will shortly be inviting Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) to apply for grants so that they can increase the coverage of detailed local surface water mapping in priority areas, increasing their understanding of local flood risk. This will help LLFAs fulfil their statutory duties through improved local flood risk management in incidents, for long term planning and supporting improvements in understanding national risks.

14.4. The boosting action to make homes and buildings

more resilient to floods project has recently completed a competitive selection process to identify 3 regional property resilience Pathfinders. These were announced by Therese Coffey MP and the 3 projects have each been allocated funding up to £700,000. The projects aim to increase awareness and uptake of flood resilience measures and the successful bids were:

o Yorkshire Future Flood Resilience Pathfinder (led by City of York Council)

o Ox-Cam Pathfinder (led by Northamptonshire County Council)

o South West Pathfinder (led by Cornwall County Council).

Contact: Craig.Elliott@environment-agency.gov.uk 15. Toddbrook Reservoir – Whaley Bridge

15.1. Toddbrook Reservoir spillway partially collapsed on 1 August 2019. Derbyshire Police declared a major incident and led the response, evacuating over 300 homes and businesses from Whaley Bridge.

15.2. We supported the incident management and response by:

Providing flood risk forecasting following successive periods of heavy rainfall (200mm of rainfall fell over a 4 day period, much of it over two 6 hour periods)

issuing a severe flood warning to 171 properties for the River Goyt due to potential catastrophic failure of the reservoir

providing hydrological and flood modelling expertise to government, the LRF and the Canals and Rivers Trust (CRT), so they could develop a management plan

co-ordinating national support for the local incident including staff, providing pipework and pumps for the response

Supporting the local community and local resilience forum in the co-ordinated response.

15.3. Pumping brought down the water level of the reservoir, owned and operated by the

CRT and residents were allowed to return to their properties on 7 August 2019. Our contribution was recognised in a letter from the Prime Minister.

Figure 8 – The Draft National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

Strategy for England

134

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

15.4. We continue to assist the recovery operation by supporting Derbyshire Strategic Recovery Group and the CRT. We provided forecast reservoir levels throughout the operation and are helping CRT to develop their capabilities to make these themselves.

15.5. All 214 statutory reservoirs we oversee were inspected between 5 and 11 August

2019. We are tracking the observations to ensure they are all assessed and acted upon. In addition we are asking all reservoir undertakers (approximately 800) to confirm the action they’ve taken since the Toddbrook incident.

15.6. On 3 September Theresa Villiers MP commissioned an independent review which

will investigate what might have led to the damage, whether there was anything that could have prevent or predicted it and identify any lessons learned.

Contact: adrian.gosling@environment-agency.gov.uk or russell.turner@environment-agency.gov.uk 16. Environment Agency flood warnings are among the first to go live on

Google’s Public Alerts in Europe

16.1. All Flood Alerts, Flood Warnings and Severe Flood Warnings in England now appear on Google Public Alerts: https://google.org/publicalerts.

16.2. This exciting development means that more people will see vital flood warning

information. Our warnings will be more visible and will target those who need it most by using location information. Users of Google platforms will receive an alert if they pass through an affected area and warnings will appear as a top result when searching for an affected area.

16.3. Google Public Alerts have already been rolled out in the USA, South America and

parts of Asia to alert residents to environmental emergencies such as earthquakes, wildfires and extreme temperatures.

16.4. The Environment Agency and Defra have been working closely with Google to

design and implement this service. A joint press release with Google has been released and a Defra Digital blog is available here: https://defradigital.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/08/first-authority-in-uk-to-partner-with-google-public-flood-alerts/

16.5. We continue to work with Google to make continuous improvements to this service.

Contact: faye.burrows@environment-agency.gov.uk 17. The Flood Forecasting Centre is 10 years old

17.1. The Flood Forecasting Centre (FFC) is a successful working partnership between the Environment Agency and the Met Office, bringing together world-leading Meteorological and Hydrological science to create the best possible flood forecasting information used by government, local resilience communities and category 1 and 2 emergency responders to keep the public safe. In April 2019 the FFC marked 10 years of operational service and improvement work.

135

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

17.2. We are celebrating this milestone with a number of activities including an Anniversary Flood Forecasting User Group on 4 October 2019 at the Met Office HQ in Exeter, where the FFC is based. The event was attended by Sir James Bevan (CE Environment Agency) and Prof Penelope Endersby (CE Met Office) with the chairs of both organisations also attending.

17.3. This event provided the opportunity to look at how far the FFC has come in terms of

operational capability and scientific development. It showcased our key successes whilst looking to the future against a backdrop of climate change and economic development.

18. Natural Flood Management (NFM) reverse auction tool update

18.1. The Catchment Funding team have developed and undertaken 2 trials of their online reverse auction tool (‘NatureBid’) and are currently finalising a further programme of 6 trials to be completed in 2019/20. The purpose of the approach is to deliver multiple environmental outcomes (via nature-based solutions), whilst ensuring this is done in a cost effective way.

18.2. Both trials (summer 2018 and March 2019) ran successfully. The second trial built on

the first and saw more bids, which resulted in greater competitive pressure between sellers, thus bringing down the cost of environmental outcomes. For example, the NFM measure that received the most bids was maize management. In the first trial the average payment rate for this was 56% of the usual Countryside Stewardship rate and this dropped to around 29% in the second trial. These early results indicate that a reverse auction mechanism can be successful in achieving greater cost-effectiveness.

18.3. Looking ahead, we are planning to explore how the approach could work with a broader range of revenue streams (including water bills and private food and drink sector organisations). We are going to test it in a range of landscapes across the country, taking into consideration multiple environmental outcomes.

Table 1:  Comparison of auction payments with Countryside Stewardship (CS) payment rates for applicable measures

136

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Contact: claire.johnstone@environment-agency.gov.uk or guy.whiteley@environment-agency.gov.uk 19. New guidance to help councils prepare strategic flood risk assessments

19.1. We’ve updated our guidance on how to prepare a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-planning-authorities-strategic-flood-risk-assessment

19.2. SFRAs are a vital tool for understanding all sources of flood risk and how this risk will

change over time. They help Local Planning Authorities make informed decisions about future development. They can also identify opportunities for reducing the causes and impacts of flooding and for safeguarding the land needed for future flood risk management infrastructure.

19.3. The guidance is now more detailed and user-friendly, with advice on joint working

and consultation throughout SFRA preparation. Contact: sam.kipling@environment-agency.gov.uk

20. New evidence for community engagement on climate adaptation

20.1. We are carrying out research to develop new approaches to FCERM engagement on climate adaptation. The ‘working together to adapt to a changing climate: flood and coast’ project has recently published an evidence review, which is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-engagement-on-climate-adaptation-to-flood-risk

20.2. The recommendations are to:

o assess the readiness of communities, stakeholders and authorities to make adaptation decisions

o consider how people’s attachment to places affects decision-making on local change

o frame issues sensitively - using appropriate language can increase people’s comprehension of adaptation and reduce contention

o be attentive to local needs and conditions - set realistic engagement goals based on this

o adopt a co-production approach and include engagement practitioners, technical specialists, artists and local residents

o use participatory methods to build understanding and capacity. Suggested approaches include simulations, visualisation, storytelling and conflict analysis.

o create ways to better share learning within RMAs

137

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Figure 9 – An example of the risks of flood and coastal erosion

20.3. These findings are being used to inform a community engagement programme which is being piloted in two areas: Hemsby, Norfolk; and Caterham Hill and Old Coulsdon, Surrey/London. Over the next 18 months we will work with local stakeholders and communities to trial new engagement methods, aiming to build shared understanding of long-term risks and future options.

20.4. The project will produce guidance and resources for decision makers and

engagement practitioners. We have also set up a multi-agency practitioner community to exchange knowledge and share learning. For more information or to join the practitioner community, please get in touch.

Contact: kate.kipling1@environment-agency.gov.uk 21. Conclusions and Recommendations

21.1. Members are asked to consider and make suggestions for items to feature in future

key issues papers, via Karen Jouny. Name: Jessica Rimington-Cross Title: Flood and Coastal Risk Management Officer Email: Jessica.rimington-cross@environment-agency.gov.uk

138