Community-led Flood and Coastal Management Projects Supporting Adaptation and Localism in Suffolk and Essex

Transcription

1 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 1 Community-led Flood and Coastal Management Projects Supporting Adaptation and Localism in Suffolk and Essex Trazar Astley-Reid, Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Suffolk, UK Jane Burch, Suffolk County Council, Suffolk, UK Karen Thomas, Environment Agency, Suffolk, UK Introduction In recent years the development of Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) 1 /Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) Strategies has been the initial driver for dialogue about flooding and erosion between communities and the Environment Agency (EA) and Local Authorities(LAs). These plans require decisions to be taken about long term flood and erosion risk management. Continuing to keep defences in their current position where natural processes are impacting on areas of coast and rivers may not be sustainable longer term. In addition, the economics of maintaining defences in these locations may become prohibitive. In some locations the cost of maintaining a defence outweighs the value of what is protected. Finally in areas that are currently undefended building new defences may not be appropriate. In all these scenarios alternative approaches to managing flood and coastal risk are required. In more vulnerable locations where natural processes are the issue alternative solutions to holding the line will be needed. However, where the issue is about economics and availability of funding, communities and the main beneficiaries of the defences may well need or wish to contribute to their upkeep in future. Nationally, through flood and coastal management plans, reduction of maintenance and 'no active intervention' policies are being discussed with communities and landowners. The reduction or cessation of maintenance activity by the EA or LAs has been an unpopular move in many communities who risk losing assets without compensation. In other cases the stimulus for local activity has been a lack of any organisational responsibility for the situation. This was certainly the case in many instances of surface water flooding at least until the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA), came into force. This has resulted in a number of landowners and community groups requesting the opportunity to undertake their own maintenance and, in some cases upgrading, of defences. On the coast these discussions have resulted in the EA, under its Coastal Strategic Overview 3, developing a National Protocol for the Maintenance of Sea Defences 4, 2010 which has been supported by the National Farmers Union, Country Land and Business Association and Natural England (NE). This national protocol has led to the EA producing a new information pack 5 (Supporting Change - Involving landowners in flood and coastal risk management) as

2 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 2 well as a more streamlined approach to managing flood defences with the landowning community which is being trialled in the Anglian region and is due to be rolled out nationally. The budgets for FCRM have been steadily increasing but the challenges of managing flood and coastal risk are also increasing, in particular with increased surface water flood events following periods of heavy rainfall. The emphasis for flood and coastal risk funding must be to protect the most people and property but this leads to rural areas being less of a priority for national funds. However, this lack of national funding has been the impetus for a number of local, community-driven, flood and coastal erosion projects. The well-documented example of coast protection at East Lane 6, (Bawdsey, Suffolk), funded by enabling local housing development, is one of the best examples of Localism in action and demonstrates how funding can be raised for defence work outside of traditional routes. The Coalition Government's Big Society/Localism 7 approach will undoubtedly increase the trend of community-led actions in relation to a wide range of issues, including flood and coastal management. Cuts in national funding are likely to increase the need for local contributions to flood and coastal projects, and thus local input into their design and delivery. However, locally-led projects need to be set in the context of broader strategic objectives in order to ensure that coastal and river environments and natural processes are not negatively affected, at the expense of communities and habitats in adjacent areas. In particular environmental designations are often one of the most challenging issues that need to be addressed by any plan or project. We need to make it easier for local communities to take forward projects whilst balancing wider socio-economic and environmental outcomes within the Localism agenda. This paper aims to demonstrate, through some local case study examples, some of the challenges communities face in taking forward their own projects. It also aims to highlight some of the opportunities that have arisen for partnership working with key organisations and lessons that have been learnt to make similar projects easier to undertake at other locations. Case Studies Shotley Gate, Suffolk is a currently undefended eroding cliff in a unique estuarine location which falls outside the Coast Protection Act 8 (Schedule 4) boundary, where neither the EA nor the LA has legal responsibility or access to normal coast protection funds to undertake the work needed. The community approached the AONB s Suffolk Estuaries Officer (SEO) to OS Licence Shotley Gate Stour Estuary, Suffolk ask for assistance in brokering a way forward, through the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) partnership, with statutory partners. However the community group had already undertaken some inappropriate works, due to the lack of help from previous discussions. This was followed by a realisation from both the community and statutory organisations that the only way forward was one of

3 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 3 to an erosion control project acceptable to all parties. The partnership was able to find funding together. However the majority of the project was funded by statutory bodies e.g. Suffolk County Council (SCC), AONB, EA, Haven Gateway Partnership, Port of Felixstowe as well as a from local fundraising. Phase 1 of the project has been completed with a further phase planned for 2011, subject to further funding being raised. Beyton, Suffolk is a surface water and ordinary water course issue where no individual or organisation is responsible for the problem. The initial impetus came from a frustrated Community invoking the help of their local MP who insisted on all organisations, councils and local landowners getting together to discuss the issue. With SCC taking the leadership role (following the introduction of the FWMA), all parties worked together to develop, fund and deliver a flood alleviation scheme. OS Licence Beyton, Suffolk Deben Estuary, Suffolk - The Deben estuary has 40% of Suffolk s saltmarsh. The local community recognised that large areas of saltmarsh were eroding and wanted to get involved in managing the remaining marshes. They recognised the importance of the marsh for wildlife and landscape but also its value in acting as a natural buffer to the estuary flood defences reducing maintenance costs on defences. The Deben Estuary Partnership (DEP) a community initiative supported and facilitated by the AONB s SEO set up a working group with statutory partners to explore management options that would help areas adapt to change. Through this group a number of OS Licence potential saltmarsh restoration Sutton Marsh Deben Estuary, Suffolk projects are in development and projects are in development and the approach has created a basis for future partnership approaches with the community on the upcoming Deben Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy. Potton, Essex - An example of a land manager who has taken forward small-scale maintenance works to a defence currently owned by the Ministry of Defence. The land manager is a tenant on Potton Island in the Roach Estuary, South Essex. He raised concerns about the need for maintenance works at locations around the island but was also keen to

4 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 4 demonstrate to other landowners that self-help is an important element in managing flood risk, particularly in very isolated rural locations. In addition to under-taking small-scale repairs he also invited landowners and agencies to see the repairs, demonstrated how local landowners could manage breaches in defences in the event of a North Sea tidal surge at his own expense. In order to facilitate his proposals the EA provided support through new coastal roles to work with the land manager, Defence Estates and NE to progress a project that could be OS Licence easily consented through Flood Defence maintenance consent 9. Potton Island Roach Estuary, Essex It was clear that Food and Environment Protection Act 10 (FEPA) licensing could have been required for more complicated or extensive work, so partners worked to ensure the project could be delivered through the simplest possible route, to ensure a satisfactory outcome for the land manager and the partners involved. As more of these community projects are undertaken, lessons can be shared and the background support streamlined. The case studies in this paper were largely ground breaking and as such were a learning process for all involved. What does a community-led approach mean? The critical factor for successful projects is a driving force from within the community and a vision that can be supported by organisational partners. Strong community leadership is a common theme from all our case studies but this needs to be coupled with strong support and technical advice from other partners. Community frustration with lack of help, lack of a holistic approach or unexplained delays, in spite of seeking help from all available sources (Beyton and Shotley Gate) can be the initial driver that gets a project started. A more desirable approach is where a consultation process, such as the development of the SMP, (Potton) or a flood risk management strategy (Deben) leads to a realisation that something needs to be done at a local level, but that funding or other constraints mean that it can't be done without input from private individuals and communities. In the Shotley Gate case, the community leadership was strong, but needed assistance to help them get a technical solution that was acceptable. The community contacted the AONB s SEO who initiated a working group immediately. However due to feeling isolated for some time, the group had already undertaken works that constituted fly-tipping in order to put in place some means of erosion control. The statutory bodies seeing that the community had acted in good faith, came together to deliver an acceptable solution to the erosion issue within the timescale. In the Deben saltmarsh project the collective aim was agreed at the outset. Support and advice was needed from the AONB estuaries officer and the community to drive forward the impetus

5 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 5 to deliver any activity as none of the usual funding sources were available in spite of the project delivering a key national target. This carefully planned approach with dedicated support has limited the number of unexpected negative issues other projects have faced. Who can help and support? A key lesson arising out of these case studies is that all organisations need to be much more alert to community desires and be prepared to work with them at a much earlier stage. In these case studies SCC, EA and the AONB unit have all invested in new roles to focus on these challenging issues. The Suffolk coast and estuaries are fortunate to have an AONB estuaries officer co-funded by private voluntary and statutory partners who works with local community groups acting as an honest-broker bringing about partnership approaches. SCC identified a need for additional specialist personnel to work on emerging coastal issues and have now expanded this to cover issues arising from the Flood and Water Management Act The EA has additional coastal resource under its Coastal Strategic Overview role (2008) but in Anglian region additional personnel are in post to specifically work with coastal communities and partners. Having established the necessary partnership which is likely to include relevant partners such as EA, LAs (County, District and Parish), NE, Marine Management Organisation (MMO), AONB and local community, there is an important stage whereby all partners need to understand and accept the desires and constraints of all the other partners and agree a common understanding of the situation. How to support communities? Organisations need to establish what are genuine constraints and those which arise from inflexible interpretation of policies. If community projects are to work successfully, inflexible working practices and policies need to be streamlined or removed. In the Beyton case, a solution was found by using existing rules for agricultural and highways work to avoid flood risk management consents and waste licensing. Any genuine constraints need to be accepted by all, and a position of what is and what is not negotiable needs to be outlined to the community and the project designed around this. Commonly this involves environmental designations, which dictated the timing and design of practical work at Shotley Gate and the Deben thus ultimately dictating the timescale for consents from other partners. Understanding, empathy and moral support from relevant partners is an important element to the smooth running of the projects. The community needs to know who to turn to for support, especially when things don't go according to plan like the unexpected need to obtain and pay for a Temporary Right of Way Closure at Shotley Gate. In all our case studies the leader or 'honest-broker' was trusted by the community and became the catalyst to iron out differences and misunderstandings and negotiate the inevitable compromises between partners. Another key role for relevant partners is to provide data and information. Having one coordinator can ensure timely provision of the necessary information and prevent unnecessary duplication of effort. However, this role is time-consuming and thus a costly input into the

6 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 6 project. These hidden costs (see appendix) generally do not get considered in initial discussions. The figures outlined in our case studies ably illustrate that this 'hidden' support for community projects often comes at considerable cost to supporting organisations. How does a community group start a flood or coastal management project? Having established the community group and wider partners, agreed a common vision and obtained all the necessary data, the time comes to decide what to do and how to do it. In all the case studies cited, whilst it was often seen as a key driver in the first instance, funding is not the top consideration for such projects. For all case studies the starting point was 'no funding available', yet practical solutions were found and ultimately funding acquired, albeit after much hard work. The projects all involved technical and design work in order to establish the scheme details. This work often needs to be undertaken by professional partners (EA or LA) or consultants appointed by the community. In all the cases studied, the issue of the consents and permissions, needed to be finalised before any work could begin, was a frustrating and tricky one and involved the community in costs, delays and seemingly unnecessary hurdles. It is important to manage expectations on timescales at this stage and to explain that the outcome will be improved if all partners considerations and licences are in place i.e. funding and PR opportunities. Even establishing which consents are needed is a task in itself and in the case of the FEPA licence can only be answered by completing a pre-application form. As several of these projects are novel in approach, it took some time to establish whether planning consent was needed or not. The list below illustrates just some of the consents and related issues that have had to be overcome in local FCERM projects:- Coastal Protection Act (1949) for works on coastal erosion frontages (LA) Water Resources Act 11 (1991) for works on flood defence frontages (EA) Land Drainage Act 12 (1991) may require Flood defence consent from the EA Planning permission for new or improved structures (Local planning Authority) FEPA licence for works that impact on environment, navigation and fisheries (MMO) Habitats and Birds Directives 13 - environmental designations and consents (NE) Water Framework Directive 14 - EA Environmental Permitting Regulations for waste permitting (EA) Archaeological surveys often a requirement of the planning consent Rights of Way temporary closures/diversions from the County Council Highways closures from the Highway Authority or County Highways Health and Safety issues during construction and subsequently planning consent. Most consents involve completion of complex forms and submission of fees. There is much duplication between the consent processes and the statutory consultees involved, which in the cases studied seemed unnecessary as most of the statutory partners were involved in the development of the projects anyway. The costs and bureaucracy was disproportionate with the scale of the projects the processes obviously being designed for much larger scale works usually undertaken by the relevant partners. The schemes at Beyton and Potton were designed to minimise the need for consents by being imaginative within the existing licensing and consents process. What sort of timescales and resource are needed?

7 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 7 Although not the first concern, funding is always a considerable concern for any community project. Capital funding is much harder to come by, but many organisations can more easily input 'in kind' contributions. The main lesson is that the right solution, which satisfies the community and relevant partners, is much more likely to attract funding. In all the case studies, funds were acquired from a number of sources as well as raised by the communities themselves (Parish Council contributions, private donations or fund raising activities). The key to success is convincing people and organisations who can help that the project will meet their own objectives. Multiple benefits from a project clearly improve the range of potential funders. Sometimes a creative approach is needed to demonstrate the benefit of a project to a funder. In the case of Shotley Gate the project was clearly designed to control erosion, but in addition it helped to protect amenity woodland and public access, allowing funds to be obtained from a Green Infrastructure fund. In Beyton the local landowner was persuaded that his standing in the community would be enhanced by contributing to the solution (a small strip of land was donated for the watercourse to be widened). At Potton the tenant s willingness to pay for the work led to a contribution of materials from the landowner (Ministry of Defence). What can prove difficult is to establish realistic costs and timescales. This is an issue for many 'professional' projects and even more difficult for community projects where lack of experience and novel approaches result in many unexpected issues arising along the way. Communities often fail to realise costs involved and the time it takes to get consents, which can be alleviated by managing expectations. There are a number of practical considerations that may take community groups by surprise establishing land ownership, deciding who is going to be the applicant for consents, deciding who handles funds and ongoing responsibility for maintenance and monitoring. In addition community volunteers need to input significant amount of personal time. Shotley Parish Council offered to underwrite the project, handle any funding and take ongoing responsibility for the new erosion control measures. However, at a late stage in the project the Parish Council found out that it did not have the necessary 'Power of Well-Being' 16 to undertake this role. With legal advice from SCC it was able to overcome this by use of other (Highways related) powers. This was another critical set-back that dented the confidence and enthusiasm of all concerned and nearly caused the collapse of the project. The issue of managing expectations and handling media interest is also one that many community groups are poorly equipped to undertake. Here again, relevant partners skills and expertise are essential. Delivering the project monitoring, ongoing management costs The case studies illustrate a range of practical works undertaken, all of which required proper supervision and consideration of public safety during construction, as well as the use of specialist contractors. The community group needs to carefully consider the appointment of a suitable supervisor/contractor and factor in the time to get the necessary contracts signed. Ongoing maintenance and monitoring are a critical requirement for most projects to go forward. Some of the consent forms (e.g. flood defence consent) request a named person/organisation to take ongoing responsibility for the new structure. In the haste to get the project designed and contractors appointed this important issue can easily be forgotten. In Beyton this was a vital consideration as the watercourse will undoubtedly silt up again without ongoing maintenance. An agreement was brokered with the landowner taking on part of the watercourse and Suffolk County Highways taking on the remainder that lay outside the

8 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 8 landowner's boundary. In the Deben saltmarsh project ongoing monitoring by National Trust volunteers will be vital in order to assess the effectiveness of the project and thus the suitability of the methodology for use elsewhere. Key Lessons learnt 1. For local projects to succeed community groups and individuals face a bureaucratic and administrative process that is often disproportionate to the scale of the work they are likely to be carrying out. Current systems are not designed for Localism. 2. There is duplication in the planning and consenting process creating inefficiencies and increased effort for relevant partners and community project groups. In particular planning permission, flood defence consent and FEPA licensing involve broadly the same consultees and require very similar information. This is not efficient use of partner resource and the costs are largely borne by the community group. 3. All the case studies demonstrate that a strong community lead is key to a successful project but in addition a strong and knowledgeable partner lead or honest broker in a relevant organisation is also critical to supporting the community and helping them to resolve issues and overcome hurdles. This is in addition to a range of other partners providing time and resource to facilitate all stages of the approach. 4. Localism requires partner support for the community group to be successful this may have hidden costs on both sides. Government departments and relevant partners need to recognise the support communities need to deliver Localism. 5. Financial management and funding requires a formal framework e.g. parish council/trust need to have ability to raise funds and pay contractors and take ongoing responsibility for the works undertaken. Recommendations (taking the points above) Based on the lessons learnt a series of recommendations are made aimed at the key organisations involved in FCRM decision making and community involvement. Revision of the existing consent processes namely FEPA, Flood Defence consent, planning permission and waste licensing is needed to streamline the approach, or design a new approach that is specifically for small-scale projects within the context of wider environmental social issues. This work is already underway through Suffolk County s Total Environment bid and Central Dredging Association as pilots. We need to develop specific guidance for community-led projects which will help summarise the process with examples of how to progress and who to involve, how to raise funds and how to formally manage the project as a group, partnership or trust. We need to establish a definition of small-scale through consultation between relevant partners and organisations, to support the SMP s which have used this term to denote community-led approaches where there is a change in policy or funding issues. Consideration should be given as to whether a single consenting body is more appropriate for small scale projects as currently several are currently involved.

9 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 9 There should be a review of the consultees for the above processes to ensure that there is an appropriate level of involvement that is proportionate to the scale of likely impacts. Relevant organisations need to ensure that they are engaging with communities facing flood and coastal management changes and ensure adequate resource to facilitate the adaptation process with the relevant community or group. The success of dedicated or co-funded posts is evident and is recommended. There should be a more holistic approach allowing greater flexibility and pooling of local authority, EA and other funding streams. References 1. Shoreline management plan guidance Volume 1: Aims and requirements March Flood and Water Management Act Environment Agency Strategic Overview for Sea Flooding and coastal erosion Asset Maintenance policy protocol for sea defences (for England only), Environment Agency January Supporting Change - Involving landowners in flood and coastal risk management-an information pack for landowners, Environment Agency, July 2010 (contact authors) 6. East Lane (FCRM@2010 paper) (contact authors) 7. Decentralisation and Localism Bill (Draft-Nov 2010) 8. Coastal Protection Act, Maintenance consent Food and Environment Protection Act Water Resources Act Land Drainage Act (1991) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations Water framework Directive October 2010http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water - framework/index_en.html 15. Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) April The Well Being Power, Local Government Act Appendices Costs and Hidden costs Shotley Gate Licences Materials and works Contributions & Hidden costs FEPA 1,500 Design and project supervision 3,250 Contributions by SCC, AONB, Hutchinson Ports, EA, Haven Gateway Partnership, and LA totalled 34,300 Planning 170 Contractor 24,000 Community funds, the Parish Council and fundraising 6,200

10 Trazar Astley-Reid, Jane Burch and Karen Thomas 10 Land Drainage consent RoW closure 50 Materials 8,500 Hidden Costs Staff time circa 300 hours at 18 per hour (a conservative estimate) = 5, Waste disposal 5,000 Total 42,470 Hidden Costs The community estimated their time at 700 hours Beyton Contributions Activity Funding & Hidden costs SCC 2500 SCC 500 Minimum 150 hours of staff time for project management & practical works planning and management Environmental investigations & road closure Contributions by: Highways Agency: 10,000, SCC : 35,000, Mid Suffolk DC: 3000, locality budget: 1000 Community funds Beyton PC: 1000, MSDC 6000 Surveying, technical drawings, planning advice (work undertaken by their contractor, NPS) Landowner ongoin g loss of rent Loss of land where watercourse widened and saving on waste removal and disposal costs by allowing 400t spoil to be spread on land Hidden costs The full cost of the project, taking into account inkind and staff time costs would have been another 50% higher. Estimated in-kind contributions 26,000 Total cost of practical works: 50,000. Deben Estuary Licences Materials and works Funding & Hidden costs FEPA 1,800 Design and 4,000 SCC, AONB, LSP, EA totalling 23,000 project supervision Planning 170 Monitoring 2,000 Community fund raising totalling 1,000 Land 50 Materials & 15,000 Hidden costs The community has Drainage consent Construction estimated their time at 400 hours. Staff time 220 hours at 18 per hour as a conservative estimate = 3,960. Potton Island Licences Materials and works Total Land Drainage consent tonnes of granite rock material Approx 1,000 EA Staff time 1,850 Helicopter hire (landowner) 10,000 12,900