Agenda Item No.
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING CABINET PANEL
TUESDAY 8 MARCH 2011 AT 10.00 A.M.
4
TRANSITION OF REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES TO
REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEES UNDER THE FLOOD
AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2010
Report of the Director of Environment and Commercial Services
Author: Andy Hardstaff
Tel: 01992 556470
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley
1.
Purpose of report
To inform the Panel about recent developments under the Flood and
Water Management Act 2010 relating to Regional Flood Defence
Committees, the transition of these to Regional Flood and Coastal
Committees and their significance to the County Council’s role as Lead
Local Flood Authority, in the light of a consultation on national flood
defence funding.
2.
Summary
2.1.
There are 11 Environment Agency (EA) Regional Flood Defence
Committees (RFDCs) across England helping to deliver the EA’s
Flood Risk Management functions through giving consent to raise a
levy from local authorities and by approval of associated work
programmes. They are made up of local authority representatives and
members appointed by the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Defra) and the EA.
2.2.
Hertfordshire is represented on 2 RFDCs. The County Council has a
place on the Thames committee and shares, in a 3 year rotation, a
place on the Anglian Central committee with Buckinghamshire and
Northamptonshire.
2.3.
Subject to ministerial regulations being in place RFDCs will be
superseded by Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs)
from 1 April 2011. Broadly the new committees will assume the roles
of the RFDCs with the addition of a remit for coastal erosion
(mirroring EA responsibilities). It is intended that they will also have a
wider role in assisting the scrutiny of local authority flood risk
assessments, maps and plans required by the European Floods
Directive.
533548728
1
2.4.
The Environment Agency and Defra are currently considering the
responses to a recent consultation on implementation of the
regulations which will establish RFCCs. This covered terms of
reference and procedure as well as outlining membership
arrangements. Hertfordshire County Council, in its response to the
consultation confirmed the suitability of the current membership
arrangements, until it may be appropriate to review them in the light of
experience. A significant point arising from the discussion about the
scheme of membership was the expectation that local authorities
sharing a place would be more involved with committee business than
might have been the case in the past.
2.5.
The changes outlined above and a related consultation on proposed
changes to the way Flood Defence Grant in Aid is allocated (reported
to this Panel on 01 02 11) suggests that there will be a significant link
between the work of the RFCCs and Hertfordshire County Council’s
management of surface water flood risk as a Lead Local Flood
Authority.
3.
Recommendation
a) the Panel notes the report;
b) That the Panel supports work to secure the effectiveness of the
committees by helping to develop appropriate local authority
involvement, including arrangements for shared representation on the
Anglian Central RFCC.
4.
Background
4.1.
To date, in Hertfordshire, the majority of work to manage flood risk
has been carried out either by the Environment Agency or district
councils in their capacity as Land Drainage Authorities. Internal
Drainage Boards1 (IDBs) are a third type of organisation that carries
out flood risk related work (an area2 in the north of the county is
covered by the Bedfordshire and Ivel IDB). In the future the County
Council as Lead Local Flood Authority will have a new and significant
role in this area of work.
4.2.
The Environment Agency is required by Section 106 of the Water
Resources Act 1991 to arrange for most of its flood risk management
functions to be carried out by Regional Flood Defence Committees.
1
An internal drainage board (IDB) is a type of operating authority which is established in areas of
special drainage need in England and Wales with permissive powers to undertake work to secure clean
water drainage and water level management within drainage districts. The area of an IDB is not
determined by county or metropolitan council boundaries, but by water catchment areas within a given
region.
2
An area which is north of a line drawn just below Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock – which coincides
with the Anglian Region of the Environment Agency.
533548728
2
The RFDCs have executive powers to act in the name of the EA, but
these do not include the issuing of levies, making drainage charges or
borrowing money which are specifically reserved to the Environment
Agency Board by the Act. A decision or action of an RFDC is a
decision or action of the Agency.
4.3.
The RFDC deals with all flood matters in the area but, in particular,
they take decisions about the programme of improvement and
maintenance works to be carried out by the EA each year. Councils
within the region provide some funding for this work through levies,
usually to allow local projects in the area to go ahead when they do
not meet national funding priorities. The committee also decides on
matters such as the making and operation of land drainage byelaws
and issues affecting any internal drainage boards.
4.4.
The EA has the power to raise levies through the RFDCs. Before
April 2004 local authorities provided most of the Agency’s flood
funding in this way. However, Defra now funds most of the Agency’s
flood risk management activity through central grant in aid. The local
levies have in recent years generally been used to carry out locally
important works which, for example, do not meet the required priority
score to qualify for funding from Defra grant in aid but which are still
technically, economically and environmentally sound and sustainable.
4.5.
Currently RFDCs:-

Determine Environment Agency flood defence policy within their area
of jurisdiction.

Are required to approve medium and long-term business needs plans
for their area.

Determine each year the Environment Agency's local three-year
business plan and approve a programme of work for the following year.

Determine the local levy on council tax for work that cannot be funded
from the environment agency's central government grant in aid.
Monitor the Agency’s performance.

4.6.
Legislation relating to formation and operation of RFDCs will be
amended by regulations made under the Flood and Water
Management Act 2010 and will lead to their transformation into
Regional Flood and Coastal Committees.
4.7.
The proposed changes to the committees’ operations reflect new
roles brought about by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
This is principally by amendment of the Coast Protection Act 1949 to
give the Environment Agency powers in relation to coastal erosion
risk management to add to their current powers on coastal flooding
and the creation of the role of Lead Local Flood Authority for unitary
and county councils. The core work and operation of the new
533548728
3
committees will be broadly the same as at the moment albeit with an
extended remit and a new relationship to local authority Members.
Hertfordshire and RFDCs
4.8.
There are 11 committees across England and they vary in size of
membership, scale of funding and practical programmes that they
oversee. In general they have around 20 members (some more
some less). Membership is made up of a mixture of local authority
nominees and DEFRA / EA appointees. The local authority members
are drawn from the unitary and county councils in the RFDC’s area.
4.9.
Defra sets out which local authorities appoint members to the RFDC,
allocating seats roughly in proportion to the council tax base of the
area of the council within the RFDC boundary. Those local authorities
with the highest council tax base will have greater representation (2 or
3 seats) while other councils may have to share a seat or not be
represented at all (but these will have relatively few properties in the
RFDC area). Local authority members make up a bare majority on
the committee (half plus one) and are the only members eligible to
vote on the setting of the EA levy for local authorities.
4.10.
The table below compares Thames and Anglian Central RFDCs.
Thames spans the catchment of the River Thames from the east of
Gloucestershire to the west of Essex taking in Greater London.
Anglian Central covers an area between Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire,
Northamptonshire and Norfolk.
4.11.
Thames RFDC is the largest in the country in terms of number of
authorities covered, levy raised and amount of Flood Defence Grant
in Aid received by the EA. As can be seen there are more LLFAs
than seats available so sharing arrangements exist for the London
boroughs and the smaller areas of unitary and county authorities Hertfordshire and Surrey County Councils are individually
represented. There are no Internal Drainage Boards
533548728
4
Number of LLFAs in RFDC
area
Local Authority Places
Thames
49
Anglian Central
11
13
8
Hertfordshire representation One place
Total Levy 2011/12
£10,000,000
One place shared with
Bucks and Northants
£1.020, 556
Hertfordshire Levy 2011/12
£810, 320
£64,453
Internal Drainage Boards
0
57
IDB Precept
N/A
£1,394,356
Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid
(capital and revenue)
£99.1M
(estimated 2010/11)
£19.1M
(estimated 2010/11)
4.12.
The Environment Agency Anglian Region is covered by three RFDCs
(North, Eastern and Central) – all are about the same size and are
different to Thames in that a greater proportion of the local income is
a precept from Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs). The drainage
boards operate to control drainage and water levels, primarily for
agricultural benefit, in particular areas of the country such as the Fens
and Somerset Levels.
4.13.
It is assumed (subject to the RFCC consultation outcomes) that the
shared arrangements for representation on Anglian central will
continue. Applying the current rota it will be Hertfordshire County
Council’s turn to sit on the committee from 1 April 2011 - followed by
Northamptonshire in 2012 and Buckinghamshire in 2013.
New roles of RFCCs
4.14.
As was stated above the major differences in remit between RFDCs
and RFCCs will be the inclusion of coastal erosion and work related
to the new Lead Local Flood Authorities. Coastal erosion will not be a
major consideration for either Thames or Anglian Central RFCC so
the focus of the committees will remain on inland flood risk
management.
4.15.
The RFDCs are aware of the need to support and develop the work of
the new Lead Local Flood Authorities, particularly where this links to
the work of the committees. The RFDCs have made funding
available to support this work. The EA carried out an analysis of local
authority needs in December and a meeting was held between
officers of the Environment Agency and Hertfordshire County Council
to discuss the results. Broadly it was felt that there was a need for
specialist support to help specify and develop technical areas of work
such as asset recording. There was agreement about the benefits of
533548728
5
developing a better mutual understanding and a robust partnership
through closer working. This may be achieved through secondments
or similar exchanges of staff between organisations.
4.16.
The proposed changes to the Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid regime and
subsequent RFCC role in prioritising and allocating funding were
reported to the Panel at the meeting on 8 February 2011. The key
considerations are the eligibility of surface water management
projects for funding and the potential to use local contributions to
unlock regional/national funding.
4.17.
A number of points were highlighted by the Consultation on the
Scheme of Membership, Terms of reference and Standing Orders for
Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (The full response is
appended as appendix A). These related to the perceived democratic
accountability of the committee and representation through shared
places. In the draft terms of reference for RFCCs the principle
objective for the committees was to provide a local democratic role.
Because of the limitations of the committee sizes and places
available (not every LLFA can be individually represented on every
committee) the role would be better described as one of scrutiny
rather than accountability.
4.18.
The consultation and some associated work identified an aspiration to
develop representation of local authorities which have allocated
shared places. At the moment authorities, each year rotate
responsibility for nominating a Member to sit on the committee. There
tends to be no formal process supporting ongoing representation of
the “group” with each authority simply being able to contribute a local
authority viewpoint from its own perspective.
4.19.
One suggestion is that the shared authority groups themselves
determine how they are represented on the committee. It is proposed
that they nominate a representative and deputy and hold joint
briefings. An advantage would be the maintenance and development
of the link between more LLFAs and the work of the committee. It
would help to develop the effectiveness of the committee members as
there could be greater continuity of representation from a local
authority group. There would also be a better understanding of
priorities and issues within the group. However there are potential
difficulties with this group approach particularly if the authorities were
not able to agree on items such as levy setting which might result in
an abstention from the group when voting. There needs to be further
discussion and work to explore and develop benefits or otherwise
from this approach and in the meantime there is sufficient flexibility in
the draft terms of reference to allow a range of local approaches to be
developed.
4.20.
Subject to the outcome of the consultation and using the present
arrangements as a guide it would be helpful to nominate a
533548728
6
representative for the Anglian Central committee who would attend
the committee when it was the authorities “turn”, between times acting
as a point of contact and liaison between this authority and the
Member representing the group. This is only likely to involve
occasional email contact about topics where it would be useful to
have input from all authorities, an obvious example would be levy
setting. A further benefit would be that the County Council Member
joining the committee would have some familiarity with its business.
The additional demands on officer time to support such an
arrangement would be minimal as it would build on the ongoing
support to the County Council Member on the Thames RFCC and
benefit from the consequent understanding of the generic RFCC
processes.
4.21.
Linking the new Lead Local Flood Authority role to the work of RFCCs
and developing the proposals for greater collaboration are desirable
areas of work but will need more input from officers to support
members than has been required in the past.
5.
Financial Implications
No direct financial implications above existing commitments, although there
will be resource implications related to officer support.
6.
Background Papers
Agenda and papers for Anglian Central Regional Flood Defence Committee
(RFDC) Thursday 27 January 2011
Agenda and papers for Thames Regional Flood Defence Committee (RFDC)
Thursday 13 January 2011
Environment Agency Consultation on Scheme of Membership, Terms of
reference and Standing Orders for Regional Flood +Coastal Committees
December 2010
Appendices
Appendix A – response to consultation on Scheme of Membership, Terms of
reference and Standing Orders for Regional Flood +Coastal Committees
533548728
7
Appendix A
TRANSITION OF REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES TO
REGIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL COMMITTEES UNDER THE FLOOD
AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2010
RFCC Membership Scheme – Comments Hertfordshire County Council
21 January 2011
Hertfordshire County Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on
proposals for the transition of Thames Region Flood Defence Committee to
become a Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC).
Overall Observation
The Thames Region Flood and Coastal Committee will be particularly
significant when compared to other RFCCs, in terms of scale, local authority
areas (including two tier), numbers of Lead Local Flood Authorities, the
amount of local levy raised, and the presence and influence of London. In
addition, whilst there is a range of joint working across the area, with the
exception of London, there are few existing and relevant natural alliances
between most of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). This is a particular
challenge in respect of membership of the RFCC and the ability (or not) for
one authority to represent another or group of authorities. As this is the
current context within which the RFCC will be formed and operate, and
therefore has a direct influence on Hertfordshire County Council’s response to
this consultation.
Q1. Do the principal objectives capture the new role of the Regional
Flood and Coastal Committees?
Paragraph 1: There should be more clarity in respect of the ‘local democratic
role’, not least because the RFCC membership is made up of and an almost
equivalent number of Defra appointees as there are nominated local authority
members. There is also variability in the options proposed for how the local
authorities are represented, in that some will have no direct representation at
all – this would appear unsatisfactory. The proposed role of the local
authority members on the committee might be better described by the term
‘local scrutiny’ rather than ‘local democratic role’.
Identification of flood risk is something that will be widely done and /or owned
by LLFAs and the EA and not done directly by the RFCC. The key role of the
committee will be in respect of prioritisation and leadership, including
communication (links to paragraph 3).
Paragraph 2: There is likely to be a developing role for the committee in
respect of ‘working towards’ securing wider partnership working, especially to
maximise the impact of Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA), including the
Local Levy, and possibly other sources of funding. This should be made
explicit.
533548728
8
Paragraph 3: This paragraph should be qualified with ‘in respect to its overall
role’. In addition, it is not clear how the RFCC could actually and legitimately
be a ‘voice for local communities’. This is perhaps a role that should not be
vested in the RFCC, and certainly should not be included in its principle
objectives.
Q2. Are the responsibilities of the committee right?
The current consultation from DEFRA on future funding for Flood Risk
Management, describes a more significant role for the RFCC in relation to the
allocation of funding and the responsibilities set out need to embrace this
developing role. In other words, the RFCC has to be fit for the future and/or
be able to adapt easily to meet this/these. A streamlined mechanism to
achieve approval for these kinds of changes should be developed (with
Defra?).
Responsibility F: Oversight of a strategic programme for raising awareness
and engaging with local communities should be centred on stronger
promotion and celebration of schemes, openness about cost benefit
assessment, and community resilience (self help measures).
Q 3. Do you agree with the suggested upper-limit of 25?
We see that it is desirable to have an upper limit, though would reference the
comments made in our Overall Observation at the beginning of this response.
The suggested upper-limit essentially means, that 13 local authority members
would somehow have to represent 51 LLFA’s some of whom will in effect
never have a seat. Given the increasing importance of flood risk
management, the changing funding mechanisms, our new LLFA role, and the
significant levy, Hertfordshire County Council would consider a scenario
where it does not have a seat on the RFCC as highly unsatisfactory. In the
meantime we believe that further work needs to be done to come up with a
workable solution, and are happy to offer to assist where we can.
Q 4. Do you agree that remaining members of the Committee should be
appointed by the Environment Agency?
We consider that all RFCC members should have a role in the approval of
appointment of other members, though recognise that in practice many such
members will have been identified by the Environment Agency.
Q 5. Are there any specific issues relating to lead local flood authority
members which should be included in the Scheme of Membership?
Not withstanding our reservations in that we cannot agree with the proposed
sharing/voting arrangements, for any arrangements to work, any grouped /
shared seats would need an agreed framework for the resolution of issues
within those groupings.
533548728
9
Q 6. Should there be a national methodology included in the Scheme of
Membership to help lead local flood authorities decide which Authority
should represent the views and vote on behalf of other lead local flood
authorities in their grouping? If so, please can you state how this could
be done?
There is need for guidance rather than a methodology. The latter would be
unlikely to allow for the differences that exist between RFCC areas, for
example some authorities have individual (or multiple) representation, some
authorities share representation and some currently have no formal (individual
or shared) representation.
The exception to this may be around project funding and assessment,
particularly in anticipation of RFCCs developing their role in this area.
Q 7. Are there any specific issues associated with Environment Agency
appointees which have not been highlighted in the document?
The inference is that once appointed for an initial 4 year term, appointees,
subject to satisfactory performance, would be automatically appointed for a
further 4 years and perhaps even a further 2 years after this second term.
For some of the smaller RFCCs this could be a potential block to refreshing
the skills available to the committee – and so it should be required that the
committee periodically reviews the profile of skills and experience they require
of the membership and use the results of this to inform the appointment /
reappointment process. This will be especially important in the establishment
phase. It might be awkward for members to decide their own fate so perhaps
could be carried out by the chair and local authority representatives.
The wording of section 3.1 should be linked to the requirements outlined in
section 1.2 which requires representation of nature conservation interests and
coastal expertise where the RFCC has coastline.
Q.8 Are there any specific skills missing from the list above which
should be included? If so, please explain why?
Consideration needs to be given to how the RFCCs will link to the emerging
Local Enterprise Partnerships, particularly given the new emphasis on
potential funding from local areas. In addition, representation from
farming/land management business would help ‘ground’ the RFCCs,
particularly where influencing land use in an area might help deliver flood risk
management outcomes that are sought.
Q 9. Are there any issues regarding delegation which cannot be
resolved through an appropriate Scheme of Delegation?
Section 4.1 – it is not clear if this also applies to LLFA members, and an
additional section to accommodate LLFA members and grouping deputy
arrangements may be required (but only if satisfactory representation
arrangements can be agreed).
533548728
10
Q 10. Are there further safeguards which should be attached to
delegations?
No comment to make.
Q 11. Are there other any issues relating to eligibility and appointments
which need to be set out in the Scheme of Membership
No comment to make.
Q 12. Are there other specific transitional issues that need to be
reflected in this section?
Support to LLFA’s in the area, to enable, facilitate and service joint
liaison/working if/ where joint partnership or membership arrangements for the
RFCC are to be adopted
Q 13. Do you agree that the quorum is right?
For a general quorum this is probably appropriate. However for voting on the
Levy it should be increased to circa 1/2 or 2/3 of the LLFA members as, using
the Thames RFCC proposals as an example, the levy for 51 LLFAs would be
determined by 13 or so voting local authority members on the RFCC.
Grouping arrangements may mean an increased likelihood of abstentions if
no consensus can be reached. A scenario where a 1/3 quorum of 5, when
potential abstentions are factored in, could mean the levy decision, which will
affect 51 authorities, being endorsed by as few as 3 local authorities. This
would not be satisfactory
533548728
11