Contacts: Mike Long, ext 6773 email: [email protected]

Nick Gibbins, ext 7544 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That concern be raised about the lack of local accountability under proposals for single tier flood defence committees in the Thames and Southern Regions and the Environment Agency be asked to consider the case for having two committees in each region as set out in (ii).

(ii) That the existing Hampshire and Isle of White Local Flood Defence Committee be amalgamated with the present Avon and Dorset Local Flood Defence Committee to form a Single Tier Flood Defence Committee (possibly termed "Central Southern") and that the Thames Region be split into two Single Tier Flood Defence Committees representing tidal and non-tidal interests.

(iii) That in the event that a Single Tier Flood Defence Committee is decided upon for the Southern Region, it is recommended that representation would be more equitable if limited to one seat per attending authority (or a representation based on length of coastline).

(iv) That if the amalgamation proposed in (ii) above, is not accepted, then support is given to the Environment Agency's proposal to seek two separate committees for the South West Region, based on current regional committee boundaries.

(iii) That the County Council's response be forwarded to inform the Local Government Association and the next meeting of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Flood Defence Committee.

2. Reason

2.1 To ensure that the introduction of Single Tier Flood Defence Committees does not create a serious loss of representation and accountability and overlook the financial implications for local authorities. The closing date for responses is 31 December 2003.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To decline to respond to the consultation or else accept the proposed introduction of Single Tier Flood Defence Committees based on current Environment Agency regional boundaries.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: ................................... Date: .................................

Councillor T K Thornber

Contacts: Mike Long, ext 6773 email: [email protected]

Nick Gibbins, ext 7544 email: [email protected]

1. Background

1.1 In March this year the Government announced the outcomes of the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review. The main changes were to:

(i) move to a single annual block flood defence grant to the Environment Agency (EA) via the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA);

(ii) give the EA responsibility for all rivers creating the greatest flood risk;

(iii) create a single tier of regional flood defence committees in England by winding up local flood defence committees where they exist but ensuring local accountability in some big regions by creating additional committees; and

(iv) streamline approval processes for flood defence schemes.

1.2 In response to a joint officer report in April 2002 about the Government's intentions, the County Council's Cabinet supported the principle of attempting to simplify the current complex arrangements but was concerned about the possible loss of funds being transferred away from local government. It was also concerned that the (then) proposed regional customer bodies could be more remote and therefore less democratically accountable than the current local flood defence committees, which would have to disappear. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Flood Defence Committee asked to have the opportunity to comment when the proposals were in a more developed form.

1.3 DEFRA has now required the EA to submit proposals for Single Tier Flood Defence Committees (STFDCs) by 31 March 2004. In order to do this, the EA is informally consulting key stakeholder local authorities on proposals and has set a response deadline of 31 December 2003. Hampshire's area falls into three different EA regions and proposals for STFDCs have been received from two of these (South and South West). EA Thames Region is proposing no change from its present single Regional FDC and therefore is not consulting. In the new year each region will respond with finalised plans alongside a summary of comments and EA responses. The indication of support/objections then presented to DEFRA will help inform the approach to further consultation adopted by the Secretary of State. Once decided, the eventual arrangements will come into effect from April 2005, subject to the enactment of the Water Bill currently going through Parliament.

1.4 Each proposal contains standard information about current regional and local flood defence committees, boundary issues, key principles and criteria for establishing STFDCs, together with their role, membership and proposed committee structure. Individual proposals for each region are given in separate appendices. Attached to this report is the standard information as Appendix 1, with the two individual proposals for STFDCs for EA South West and Southern as Appendix 2. Current Hampshire County Council representation on Regional and Local FDCs is shown in Appendix 3.

2. Current Regional and Local Flood Defence Committee Boundaries

2.1 This is set out on page 4 of Appendix 1 of the consultation document, and should be read with the Hampshire position shown on the attached reduced scale map. It should be noted that, as the EA's boundaries are all based on river catchments, these do not always align with local authority administrative boundaries.

3. Consultation Proposals

3.1 EA Southern proposes the removal of all Local FDCs, and to retain the one Regional FDC (membership 21) as the proposed STFDC, stretching across most of Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, and the greater part of West and East Sussex and Kent. EA South West similarly proposes to remove all Local FDCs but justifies retaining the two Regional FDCs (known as South West and Wessex with 17 members each) as appropriate STFDCs. EA Thames simply intends to keep the same member representation (23) on its re-named STFDC as at present. This appears a very limited representation bearing in mind all the flood risk management and development issues to be dealt with in the Thames catchment.

3.2 The advantages of these changes are seen as streamlining the process of flood risk management and reducing the operating costs of a two-tier system. The national average annual costs of each EA Regional Committee is estimated at £30,000. This additional cost has to be borne in mind each time more than one STFDC is proposed in any one EA region. From a Hampshire perspective, there could be a potential capital investment advantage in having a proper place as part of two single tier bodies (Southern and Thames) if, given the extent of our problems, funding is allocated on a needs basis. However, this will require a change in the way DEFRA approaches the assessment of need and Hampshire's position may not improve. In terms of the proposed Wessex Regional FDC (where Hampshire only has a small part of the River Avon catchment), it is unlikely that Hampshire will have any representation at all.

4. Key Issues of Concern

Loss of Representation and Accountability

4.1 In particular:

(i) Moving to EA Southern's proposed STFDC (with 21 members) will obviously allow much less representation than with the present three Local FDCs (totalling 41 members) and the proposed reduction in representation on the Wessex STFDC (21 down to 17) will threaten Hampshire's single voice there.

(ii) Currently, Hampshire only has a shared (once in four years') presence on the Thames Regional FDC - yet here there are substantial parts of north Hampshire (containing extensive countryside, several important river catchments and the major expanding urban areas of Basingstoke, Fleet, Farnborough and Aldershot). At present these areas are under-represented.

(iii) Liaison with neighbouring authorities and the views at the SCOPAC meeting on 30 October 2003 have shown strong support for pursuing other legitimate options to justify additional STFDCs, thereby allowing greater sensitivity to local circumstances and enhanced stakeholder representation.

EA Proposals: Opportunities for Additional STFDCs

4.2 Even though the conclusions to the EA's own assessment work and criteria (set out as two tables on pages 7 and 8 of Appendix 1 of the Consultation Document) recognises the need to consider more than one STFDC within the Thames and Southern Regions, this has not been taken up, and no case is presented for a two committee option for comparative purposes.

EA Southern : Particular Circumstances

4.3 Even though Hampshire is split between different regions of the EA, it is important that Agency liaison is effective and properly connected up with adjoining interests. In the EA Southern Region (looking across Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, West and East Sussex and Kent) climate change predictions place the heavily populated south-east coastal areas and river catchments at the highest levels of risk in the UK. As a county, Hampshire suffers particularly from groundwater flooding. Other neighbouring authorities have their own special characteristics and development pressures influencing the approaches required to the management of and adaptation to flood risk.

4.4 Therefore, one consultation option would be for the particular circumstances being faced by Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, West and East Sussex and Kent all being recognised to justify an additional STFDC (or even three STFDCs overall, based on current Local FDC boundaries). Such an outcome would still reduce the number of present Executive Committees (4) and so assist in streamlining the process, address more local circumstances and yet provide the wider overview with attendant efficiencies. Having more than one STFDC would also encourage a more appropriate level of local representation to be maintained.

Financial Considerations

4.5 There are still unresolved funding matters arising from the Water Bill. Whilst future flood defence programmes will be funded largely by direct Government grant, STFDCs are likely to retain powers to raise supplementary levies from local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that a sum of £271 million will be removed from local authority Formula Spending shares (FSS) to form the basis of the direct funding of the EA's flood defence programme, but that £10 million will be retained within FSS. As flood defence levies exceeded FSS by £20 million in 2003/04, with the excess cost being met by County Council taxpayers, it has been suggested that a cap on supplementary levies at three times FSS might be imposed on STFDCs to limit the council tax contribution to its current level nationally.

4.6 The County Council will have the opportunity to comment on the revised financial arrangements for flood defence, if they are implemented in 2004/05, in response to the grant consultation. However, the significance for this consultation paper is that it seems likely that STFDCs will be able to set supplementary levies which will fall largely on local council taxpayers, but that the accountability will be very remote if the majority of the County Council's area is covered by two large regional Flood Defence committees, with very limited, if any, Hampshire representation.. This will limit the degree to which the County Council can influence the level of any supplementary levy or ensure that it reflects local flood defence priorities.

Recommendations

1. That concern be raised about the lack of local accountability under proposals for single tier flood defence committees in the Thames and Southern Regions and asks the Environment Agency to consider the case for having two committees in each region.

2. That support be given to the Environment Agency's proposal to seek two separate committees for the South West Region, based on current regional committee boundaries.

3. That the County Council's response be forwarded to inform the Local Government Association and the next meeting of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Flood Defence Committee.

8434/ML