Written evidence submitted by Essex County Council (FCC0028)
Essex has one of the longest coastlines in the country. It has had the misfortune to have experienced significant loss of life from coastal flooding during the coastal surge of 1953. This has resulted in Essex County Council making significant historic investments and placing a high priority on this agenda. Sea levels are rising and other impacts of Climate Change are also being experienced and impacting on the Essex coast as in other areas of the country. In Essex these issues are compounded by the isostatic recovery following the last period of glaciation. The majority of the county’s coastline is low lying and at increasing risk of coastal flooding over time, as well as some areas also being affected by coastal erosion.
Responses to questions posed by the Committee for Environment, Flooding and Rural Affairs
RISKS
1.1. Risks include loss and/or damage to property, infrastructure, the environment, community cohesion and public service delivery.
1.2. Disruption to ECC service delivery including but not limited to;
1.2.1. Delays associated with staff relocation or inability for staff to access workplace or systems
1.2.2. Delivery of public health services especially to vulnerable individuals
1.2.3. Disruption to transport networks including public transport services affecting individuals’ ability to access work, healthcare etc.
1.3. A number of roads in Essex are highlighted below which have been identified as being of relevance in terms of coastal flood risk concern. These are
1.3.1. The Walls at Mistley
1.3.2. Brightlingsea – Copperas Road
1.3.3. Point Clear St Osyth – Extension of Colne Way which is a private road serving seasonal holiday homes but quite well established without being adopted.
1.3.4. Jaywick – Brooklands and surrounding streets
1.4. From an emergency planning perspective, the risk / consequence information is completed and reviewed under the Essex Resilience Forum (which is marked as official-sensitive). It starts with a national risk summary, and then moves on to Essex-specific detail.
CONSEQUENCES
1.5. Consequences include the costs to restore and / or re-locate existing assets / features and public service provision.
1.6. Social impacts of coastal flooding can be significant to affected individuals / communities.
2.1. Together with partners, ECC was involved with the development of the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) and continues to review progress towards SMP Action Plan delivery.
2.2. ECC made a significant funding contribution to the Clacton to Holland on Sea Coastal Defence scheme to protect over 3000 residential homes, and other infrastructure from coastal erosion. This capital scheme also attracted significant investment from Flood Defence Grant in Aid. It is important that sufficient funding is made available to Tendring District Council as the relevant Coast Protection Authority (CPA) to ensure the long term maintenance of the structures, to ensure that the anticipated levels of protection are realised.
2.3. ECC, as Lead Local Flood Authority, has funded significant numbers of property level protection schemes.
2.4. There needs to be greater coordination with external partners e.g. network rail to ensure adaptation measures are delivered to protect rail services which are so essential to local communities.
2.5. The council has produced an action plan which highlights the potential disruption severe climatic events could have on our services, including flooding and coastal flooding. All documents are available in the following link - https://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Strategic-Environment/Pages/Adapting-to-climate-change.aspx
2.6. The adaptation action plan was reviewed annually, 2017 being the last time, and the latest progress report can be accessed here - https://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Strategic-Environment/Documents/Annual_Adaptation_progress_report_Year5.pdf. Table one Headline Action Progress, summarises the risks we face from flooding and coastal flooding and how our services are preparing for them, including progress.
2.7. Headline priority risks and actions are available in table 1 in the Adaptation Action Plan Appendix 1 - https://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Strategic-Environment/Documents/2016_ECC_Adaptation_Action_Plan_Appendix_1.pdf
2.8. Whilst the attention of the committee on Climate Change Adaptation is welcomed, it is important that significant consideration is given to ensuring adequate funding is made available for the implementation of appropriate adaptation measures. Local authority budgets are currently under significant pressure with alternative methods of delivery and the potential cessation of some existing service delivery needing to be considered.
3.1. As Lead Local Flood Authority we have a requirement to consider planning applications fulfilling certain criteria (including proposals for 10 dwellings or more) with regards to the potential installation of sustainable urban drainage systems. To assist developers ECC has produced a number of guidance documents which are available on our website and via this link https://flood.essex.gov.uk/new-development-advice/.
4.1. Current funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management is largely focused on the protection of residential properties without wider economic and social factors being taken into consideration in the existing Outcome Measures which determine the allocation of Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA).
4.2. Wider consideration of community needs should be considered when allocating FDGiA to enable infrastructure and regeneration initiatives to be progressed to enable more sustainable and viable communities into the future. A number of protected housing developments will also need to have roads, utilities, shops and other services to secure their viability.
4.3. Whilst it might be possible to access FDGiA for large capital schemes protecting numerous residential properties e.g. the Clacton to Holland on Sea Coastal Defence Scheme, securing funding for their ongoing maintenance can be extremely difficult especially given the pressures on Local Coast Protection Authority (CPA) budgets and the proposed changes to the way CPAs receive their funding.
4.4. In Essex there are a number of waste landfill sites located in areas at risk of coastal erosion which are managed by ECC. These sites were established when there was a much lower understanding of the risks of coastal erosion and in a number of cases were undertaken as a joint initiative with the Environment Agency.
4.5. The management of these coastal landfill sites (and the defences which protect them) is likely to become increasingly challenging in the future with increased sea level and storminess from climate change.
4.6. Coastal waste sites are not unique to Essex but part of a wider national problem and a nationally funded solution should be sought and provided to address the issues which will be presented over the longer term.
4.7. ECC has supported previous research undertaken by Queen Mary University London allowing access to its sites, and investigative works to be undertaken. Further proposals have also more recently been supported for academic institutions applying for National Environment Research Council (NERC) funding under the highlight topic “The impact of legacy waste in the coastal zone”.
4.8. The costs of moving the waste to new disposal locations would be prohibitive for ECC and other local authorities with waste management responsibilities to consider.
5.1. The Shoreline Management Plans were produced in 2009/10 to provide a long term approach to be taken to shoreline management. Considerable consultation and public engagement were undertaken during the preparation of the SMP.
5.2. The decision taken at the time of SMP development was that landowners and businesses should be given time to adapt to any changes in policy and no new managed realignment policies were therefore proposed for Epoch 1 where landowner consent wasn’t already agreed.
5.3. A process exists locally for undertaking SMP policy changes, which need to be formally agreed by the Essex Coastal Forum.
5.4. In many locations a preferred policy of hold the line was adopted and although public funding was never confirmed in the SMP as being available to deliver these policies, the expectation from certain sectors could be that this will be forthcoming.
5.5. A light touch review of the SMP is currently underway and a communications and public awareness raising exercise should be undertaken as part of this or as a separate workstream. This would ensure that the public become aware of the risks being faced and the changing approaches and funding available to managing these.
6.1. Raising public awareness about Climate Change and adaptation measures to help communities to develop ways to become more resilient.
6.2. Providing a national solution and adequate funding to address the coastal waste issue.
6.3. A communications plan should be developed to ensure active engagement of county-wide spatial and emergency planning officer groups.