Consultation environment report - non technical summary

Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Strategic Environmental Assessment Consultation Environmental Report

Non Technical Summary

Prepared by the Project Team, Place Services

April 2012

The information contained in this document can be made available in alternative formats: large print, braille, audio tape or on disc. We can also

translate this document into other languages.

CONTENTS

1 Introduction and Methodology ............................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies ............................................................... 1

1.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment ...................................................................... 2

1.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening ..................................................... 2

1.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance ..................................................... 2

2 Sustainability Context, Baseline and Objectives .................................................. 4

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Plans and Programmes ........................................................................................... 4

2.3 Baseline Information ................................................................................................ 6

2.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment Objectives .................................................... 6

3 Appraisal of the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy Objectives ............... 9

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Appraisal of Strategy Objectives ............................................................................. 9

4 Appraisal of the Actions to Improve Flood Risk in Essex ................................. 11

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11

4.2 County-Wide Strategic Actions .............................................................................. 11

4.3 Site Level, Specific Management Actions ............................................................. 18

5 Conclusions and Monitoring ................................................................................ 23

5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Recommendations: ............................................................................................... 26

5.3 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 26

6 Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 27

List of Tables

Table 1: Stages in the SEA Process and their purpose ..................................................... 3

Table 2: Key Documents .................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Key Environmental Issues and SEA Objectives ................................................... 7

Table 4: Impact on SEA objectives .................................................................................... 8

Table 5: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for County-Wide Strategic Actions ............................................................................................................................. 24

Table 6: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for Site Level, Specific Management Actions ....................................................................................................... 25

Annexes of the Environmental Report

Annex A: Plans and Programmes

Annex B: Baseline Information

Annex C: Strategic Environmental Assessment Framework

Glossary of Acronyms

CLG Communities and Local Government

EA Environment Agency

EC European Commission

EEC European Economic Community

EFRMS Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy

EU European Union

FWMA Flood and Water Management Act

LDF Local Development Framework

LFRMS Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

ONS Office for National Statistics

PAS Planning Advisory Service

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SMP Shoreline Management Plan

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems

1

1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 Background

In July 2011 Essex County Council’s Strategic Development Group commissioned Essex County Council’s Strategic Environmental Assessment Team, now re-branded within the Project Team in Place Services, to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) on the proposed Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Essex. Place Services continues to act as consultants for this work, therefore the content of the SEA should not be interpreted or otherwise represented as the formal view of Essex County Council.

This document is the Non Technical Summary of the Consultation Environmental Report which sets out the assessment of the consultation version of the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy (hereafter referred to as the EFRMS).

1.2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies

Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA’s) are required by the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010 to produce a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) which must be maintained, applied and monitored. Local flood risk is defined by the Act as meaning flood risk derived from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Ordinary watercourses are defined as those which do not form part of a main river. Flood risk from the sea, main rivers and reservoirs are therefore not defined as local flood risk and are the concern of the Environment Agency. Such sources of flood risk do however need to be considered insofar as their potential interaction with those flood risks defined as local to ensure that all joint risks of flooding are assessed at the local scale.

LFRMS’s are statutorily required to include the following:

The risk management authorities in the LLFA area and what flood and coastal erosion risk management functions they may exercise in relation to the area. If functions normally carried out by one body will be carried out by another, this also has to be specified.

The objectives for managing local flood risk. These will be relevant to the local area and reflect the level of local risk.

The measures proposed to achieve the objectives. This could include a wide range of measures such as sustainable drainage systems, designation of features, improvements to the sewage network and application of the planning system.

How and when measures are expected to be implemented.

The costs and benefits of these measures and how they are paid for.

The assessment of local flood risk for the purpose of the strategy. The strategy may identify gaps in the understanding of local flood risk and specify the actions which could close these gaps.

How and when the strategy is to be reviewed. The review period is not specified at the national level and it is therefore up to the LLFA to decide what is appropriate.

2

How the strategy contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives.

The LFRMS will, in all instances, have to be compliant with the national Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy.

1.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment

The European Directive 2001/42/EC1 (the ‘SEA Directive’) was adopted in June 2001 with a view to increase the level of protection for the environment, integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes and to promote sustainable development. It requires SEA to be carried out for all plans and programmes “which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level…”. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Essex is one such document.

The aim of the SEA is to identify potentially significant environmental effects created as a result of the implementation of the plan or programme on issues such as “biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic, material assets including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex 1(f)). The Directive was transposed into English legislation by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 20042 (the ‘SEA Regulation’).

1.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening

Prior to starting the SEA process a plan or programme would normally undergo ‘screening’. This process determines whether the plan is subject to the SEA Directive and therefore requires an SEA. In the case of Local Flood Risk Management Strategies, this question is answered in Article 3 of the ‘SEA Directive’ which clearly states that SEA is required for plans and programmes which are likely to have significant environmental effects and which are prepared for water management.

1.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance

The methodology adopted for the SEA of the EFRMS incorporates the requirements of SEA Directive and has been developed in accordance with the following guidance:

The Plan Making Manual (PAS online guidance available at: www.pas.co.uk)

Towards a more efficient and effective use of Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal in spatial planning (CLG, 2010);

Resource Manual to Support Application of the UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (UNECE, April 2007 (revised February 2011)); and

1 European Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes

on the environment, Article 1 2 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations, 2004, SI No. 1633, Parts 3

and 4

3

A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, (ODPM, 2005).

The SEA is an integral part of plan preparation and has five sequential stages. These main stages and the tasks for each stage are listed in the table below.

TABLE 1: STAGES IN THE SEA PROCESS AND THEIR PURPOSE

SEA Stages SEA Tasks

Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and environmental protection objectives

A2: Collecting baseline information

A3: Identifying environmental issues and problems

A4: Developing the SEA objectives and framework

A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA

Stage B: Developing and refining options and assessing effects

B1: Testing the plan objectives against the SEA objectives.

B2: Developing strategic alternatives.

B3: Predicting the effects of the plan, including alternatives.

B4: Evaluating the effects of the plan, including alternatives.

B5: Mitigating adverse effects.

B6: Proposing measures to monitor the environmental effects of implementing the plan.

Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report

C1: Preparing the Environmental Report.

Stage D: Consulting on the draft LFRMS and the SEA Report

D1: Consulting on the draft LFRMS and Environmental Report with the public and Consultation Bodies.

D2: Assessing significant changes.

D3: Making decisions and providing information.

Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the LFRMS

E1: Developing aims and methods for monitoring.

E2: Responding to adverse effects.

4

2 SUSTAINABILITY CONTEXT, BASELINE AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 Introduction

The following section outlines the key findings of the scoping stage (Stage A) and published Scoping Report (December 2011) which includes an outline of the plans and programmes, the baseline information profile for the strategy area, together with the SEA Objectives formulated as a result of the scoping stage.

2.2 Plans and Programmes

The EFRMS must comply with existing policies, plans and programmes at international, national and regional levels and strengthen and support local plans and strategies. It is therefore important to identify and review those policies, plans and programmes and environmental protection objectives which are relevant to both the EFRMS and the SEA at an early stage. This allows any inconsistencies or constraints within the EFRMS to be addressed and also to help develop the SEA framework.

It is recognised that no list of plans or programmes can be definitive and as a result this report describes only the key documents which influence the EFRMS. Table 2 outlines the key documents, whilst a comprehensive description of these documents together with their relevance to the EFRMS is provided within Annex A of the Environmental Report.

TABLE 2: KEY DOCUMENTS

International Plans and Programmes

EU Floods Directive - Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, 2007

EU Water Framework Directive - Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, 2000

National Plans and Programmes

Flood and Water Management Act 2011

Flood Risk Regulations, 2009

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (May 2011)

Selecting and reviewing Flood Risk Areas for local sources of flooding - Guidance to Lead Local Flood Authorities (2010)

Future Water, The Government’s water strategy for England, 2008

Water for People and the Environment; Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales, 2009

5

Making Space for Water – Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England (2005)

Directing the Flow: Priorities for Future Water Policy, 2002

The Impact of Flooding on Urban and Rural Communities, 2005

The Land Drainage Act, 1991, (as Amended 2004)

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004

The Water Act, 2003

National Standards for sustainable drainage systems: Designing, constructing, operating and maintaining drainage for surface runoff (December 2011)

Sub-national Plans and Programmes

TE2100 Flood Risk Management Plan (draft 2009)

Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2) (October 2010)

River Basin Management Plan Anglian River Basin District (December 2009)

River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District (December 2009)

Local Plans and Programmes

North Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan (December 2009)

South Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan (December 2009)

Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (December 2009)

Essex County Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (January 2011)

Essex County Council Level 1 Minerals and Waste Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Revised (July 2011)

Essex Local Transport Plan 2011

2011 Essex Biodiversity Action Plan

Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)

Braintree District LDF Core Strategy (September 2011)

Adopted Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (August 2005) + Saved Policy Direction August 2008

Castle Point Local Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)

Chelmsford Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD (February 2008)

Colchester Local Development Framework Core Strategy (December 2008)

6

Epping Forest Combined Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) Policy Document (February 2008)

Adopted Replacement Harlow Local Plan (July 2006) + Saved Policy Direction

Maldon District Replacement Local Plan And Saved Policies (November 2008)

Rochford Core Strategy (December 2011)

Tendring District Local Plan (December 2007)

Uttlesford Adopted Local Plan (January 2005) + Saved Policy Direction (December 2007)

Basildon Borough Council -Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (June 2011)

Brentwood Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (January 2011)

Braintree District Council, Chelmsford Borough Council, Colchester Borough Council, Maldon District Council - Mid Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (October 2007)

Castle Point Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Levels 1 and 2 (November 2010)

Epping Forest District Council and Harlow Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (April 2011)

Rochford District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 and 2 (February 2011)

Tendring District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (March 2009)

Uttlesford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (March 2008)

2.3 Baseline Information

The baseline information identifies current environmental issues and problems in the area which should be addressed in the EFRMS and provides a basis for predicting and monitoring the effects of implementing the EFRMS. The baseline may need to be updated during the SEA process as new information emerges and/or as additional issues come to light.

To ensure the data collected was relevant and captured the full range of environmental issues it was categorised under 8 thematic topics which cover all the topics referred to in Annex 1(f) of the SEA Directive. The detailed baseline information can be found in Annex B of the Environmental Report. The next section describes the key issues that were identified during the scoping phase.

2.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment Objectives

The SEA Objectives are based on policy advice and guidance and related to the key environmental issues identified within the Strategy area. They are used to evaluate, in a clear and consistent manner, the nature and degree of impact and whether significant effects are likely to emerge from the Strategy’s objectives and actions. Table 3 lists the SEA Objectives and identifies the key environmental issues from which they were derived.

7

TABLE 3: KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SEA OBJECTIVES

Key Environmental Issues SEA Objectives

- Past incidences of flooding

- Around 27,000 properties at risk of surface water flooding (from a 1 in 200 year event) in the main settlements

- Flood defence schemes

- Approximately 602,760 dwellings and 58,740 businesses in Essex

- 299 waste facilities including 15 landfill sites

1) To minimise the risk of flooding.

- Water resource issues

- Quality of water bodies particularly their ecological status

2) To maintain and enhance water resources and quality.

- Increasing population

- Accessibility to services and natural greenspace

3) To protect and enhance human health and wellbeing.

- International gateways and nationally and locally important transport routes

- Accessibility to services

4) To ensure the potential impact of flooding on existing and future critical infrastructure is minimised.

- Flood risk zones

- Various sources of flood risk including river flooding, surface water flooding, sewer flooding, tidal flooding and groundwater flooding

5) To ensure that new development is located with respect to the Sequential Test.

- Protection of internationally, nationally and locally designated sites for habitats, species and geological conservation

6) To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity across Essex.

- Large number of historic sites and recorded finds across Essex

- Protection of designated listed buildings, scheduled monuments, battle site and conservation areas.

7) To maintain and/or enhance the character of townscapes, cultural heritage and assets within Essex.

- High grade soils

- Distinct characteristics for each landscape character area and living landscape

- Sensitivity of local landscape to change

8) To protect best quality soil and enhance the quality and character of the landscape.

8


- Future climate change projections

- Ecological footprint

- Energy consumption

9) To adapt development to the impacts of climate change.

Annex C which accompanies the Environmental Report sets out how these SEA Objectives are incorporated into an SEA Framework. An SEA Framework is an important tool in the SEA process that is developed during the scoping phase in line with the Planning Advisory Service’s best practice guidance. It provides the context against which the emerging EFRMS can be assessed and sets out the SEA Objectives; the key questions that should be asked to decipher whether the EFRMS adheres to the principles of sustainability; and indicators which can monitor the impacts following implementation.

The SEA of the EFRMS will use the SEA Framework to look at the secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary effects of different elements within the EFRMS in accordance with Annex 1 of the SEA Directive. This will include assessment of the strategy’s objectives and options and the identification of mitigation measures where appropriate. The findings will be accompanied by appraisal matrices which will document the effects over time. The findings will be presented in a format like that of Table 4 and colour coding will be used for greater clarity.

TABLE 4: IMPACT ON SEA OBJECTIVES

SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term

Medium Term

Long Term

++ Strong positive impacts on the criterion - Negative impacts on the criterion

+ Positive impacts on the criterion / Uncertain impacts on the criterion

- - Strong negative impacts on the criterion

0 No impact on the criterion

9

3 APPRAISAL OF THE ESSEX FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OBJECTIVES

3.1 Introduction

The consultation version of the EFRMS contains ten overarching objectives which follow the guiding principles for flood risk management in Essex. The actions and measures set out in later sections of the EFRMS seek to support these objectives. Further to these is a set of environmental objectives which accord with the ideals of the Flood and Water Management Act with regards to local strategies showing how they will contribute to achieving wider environmental benefits. These have been assessed under the site level management action ‘Achieve wider Environmental Benefits’ which specifically focuses on their application.

3.2 Appraisal of Strategy Objectives

The ten overarching objectives are:

I. To provide a clear explanation of all stakeholder’s responsibilities in flooding issues.

II. To ensure a clear understanding of the risks of flooding and to indicate where similar information for river and coastal flooding can be found.

III. To define and explain the criteria by which areas at risk of flooding from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses are assessed and resources are prioritised.

IV. To state how risk management authorities will share information and resources.

V. To ensure households and properties are aware of the level of flood risk they face and the steps they will need to take to manage the risk.

VI. To set out clear and consistent plans for risk management so that communities and businesses can make informed decisions about the management of the residual risk.

VII. To ensure that planning decisions are properly informed by flooding issues and the impact future planning may have.

VIII. To encourage innovative management of flood and coastal erosion risks, taking account of the needs of communities and the environment.

IX. To ensure that emergency plans and responses to flood incidents are effective and that communities are able to respond properly to flood warnings.

X. To highlight where information regarding other forms of flooding can be found

10

Impact on SEA objectives

SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term ++ + + + + + + + +

Medium Term ++ + + + + + + + +

Long Term ++ + + + + + + + +

Summary

The ten objectives combined will have a significantly positive impact on managing the flood risk within Essex. The reporting and documentation of local flood events; the production of plans for flood risk management; and ensuring that everyone is aware of their role will all assist in minimising the risk of flooding. Increased knowledge on local flood issues and their future impact, particularly with regards to climate change, will also contribute to more informed planning decisions which determine the location of, and mitigation measures required, for new development. It is likely that the objectives would positively support human health and wellbeing and the environment in general by stipulating the need for management schemes to have regard to them. They could also lead to improved water quality through the implementation of measures such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and local action to reduce local flooding which is often linked to the pollution of water courses. Prioritisation of resources to manage flood risk should also ensure that the impact on critical infrastructure is minimised however it is important to note that these objectives don’t seek to protect all structures and developments from flooding because financial constraints would make this unattainable.

11

4 APPRAISAL OF THE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE FLOOD RISK IN ESSEX

4.1 Introduction

The EFRMS sets out a series of actions which will be taken forward to meet the objectives and guiding principles for flood risk management in Essex. They are divided into two types:

County-wide strategic actions

Site level, specific management actions

Each of the county-wide strategic actions, which inform the management actions, has been put forward with three options (alternatives) that have been considered during the preparation of the EFRMS. At this stage the EFRMS is seeking opinion by consultation on which of the three options are favoured. Our assessment will aim to identify those options which provide the most positive environmental outcomes and these will be put forward in our preferred list of actions in the conclusion.

This section sets out the actions; reviews their significant impacts and the impact of alternatives considered; and highlights any proposed mitigation measures.

4.2 County-Wide Strategic Actions

There are four county-wide strategic actions to combat flood risk. These will form the basis of annual action plans which will contain more detailed information. Each strategic action is supported by measures which the LLFA intend to take to address each action. The three options proposed for each action detail different ways of delivering these measures, and these have all been subjected to SEA below. For the purpose of our assessment the options have been numbered 1 to 3 for ease of reference. Please refer to the relevant sections within the EFRMS report for context surrounding each issue and their associated delivery options.

4.2.1 Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk

Options

1. Do Nothing 2. Implement mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents 3. Implement proactive measures and mechanisms for reporting and recording

flood incidents

12


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

Option 3

Short Term ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Medium Term ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Long Term ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Summary

A negative assessment has been made for Option 1 which is the ‘Do nothing’ approach. Understanding of local level flood risk can assist in minimising the impacts of flooding and the consequences of climate change by enabling more informed decision making. The approach for Option 1 does not seek to improve current knowledge and is therefore more likely to hinder the production of informed flood risk assessments and result in measures, aimed at minimising the impact of flooding, being less effective now and in the future. Strongly negative impacts have not been assessed as there is still existing localised strategies and information which could be utilised.

There are positive associations with Option 2 as it provides for a repository for flood related data which represents a better approach than what currently exists. Implementing mechanisms for producing a database of all incidences will lead to improved local knowledge on localised flooding and ascertain where further investigations are required to assess whether the risk or impacts associated with flooding can be minimised.

There is a degree of confusion over the phrasing of Option 3 which, although one option, refers to two different issues – adopting proactive measures to gain a better understanding of local flood risk and implementing mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents. Greater distinction should be made between these two approaches. Also, the assessment of Options 2 and 3 within the EFRMS conflicts with the text in the action. It states that efforts under Option 3 unlike Option 2 would be co-ordinated with historic incidences recorded to provide greater understanding on both current and likely future flood risk. However, the supporting text doesn’t mention the

13

recording of historical incidences or infer that the method for recording and reporting flood incidents would differ between the two options.

The SEA assumes that the latter part of Option 3 (implementing mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents) would result in the same positive outcomes as Option 2. The proactive approach related to this option seeks to deliver detailed modelling of surface water which would inform future development, and identify site specific mitigation measures so that the impacts of flooding can be reduced. This would strengthen the options impact on adapting to climate change and minimising flood risk creating significant positives. If “mini-SWMPs” were to be carried out for locally important flood risk areas positive impacts could also be recorded for improving water quality and minimising the impacts on water infrastructure as SWMPs lead to sustainable surface water management measures be adopted such and SuDS.

4.2.2 Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk

Options

1. Do Nothing

2. Develop a SuDS Design and Adoption Guide and agree mechanisms for co-operation between SuDS Approval Body and Local Planning Authorities

3. Ensure that all LPAs adopt similar standards in SFRAs and other documents regarding all forms of flood risk


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term ++ + + ++ 0 + + + +

Medium Term ++ + + ++ 0 + + + +

Long Term ++ + + ++ 0 + + + +

Option 3

Short Term ++ 0 + + + 0 0 0 +

Medium Term ++ 0 + + + 0 0 0 +

Long Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 +

14

Summary

The ‘Do nothing’ approach (Option 1) would have negative impacts on flood risk management within Essex. Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) would continue to include only fluvial and coastal flood risks thereby exclude or have little consideration of important local flood risk. There would also remain no clear local level guidance or co-ordination on the legislative requirements for SuDS which could hinder the effective delivery and adoption of SuD schemes which are considered sustainable measures. This option therefore fails to have regard to the future impacts of climate change at the local level.

Option 2, the production of local guidance for SuDS and establishing of mechanisms for co-ordination, would have a positive impact across many of the objectives within this SEA Framework. The commitment to produce a SuDS Design Guide and to provide the means for co-operation between the SuDS Approval Body and Local Planning Authorities would reduce confusion over the roles and responsibility and provide clear local guidance on the design requirements that developers, consultants and designers should to follow when creating SuDS. This option specifically deals with minimising the surface water flood risk of new development and consequently has a strong positive impact on SEA Objective 1. A strong positive is also recognised for SEA Objective 4 because the SuDS design guide will deal with the planning, design and delivery of attractive and high quality SuDS schemes which trunk roads and other major infrastructure would benefit from thereby minimising their potential impact from flooding. It is stated that the guide will allow for schemes which have multiple benefits to the environment (SEA Obj 6) and will be attractively designed (SEA Obj 7), on top of the benefits which would be realised against mitigating the impacts of flooding (SEA Obj 3 & 8) and preserving water quality (SEA Obj 2), SuDS will also aid in adapting new and existing development to the impacts of climate change (SEA Obj 9).

Option 3 seeks to ensure that SFRAs are standardised between the Local Planning Authorities covered by the EFRMS. It is clearly stated within the associated text that SFRAs will contain more information on local flood risk than before recognising that local surface and groundwater flooding threatens more homes than potentially larger scale fluvial and coastal flood events. In aiding the identification of potential flood risks against potential receptors a strong positive assessment is made against this option for its impact on minimising flood risk. Emphasis is also given in the supporting text to the ability to use SFRAs to inform the Sequential Test, allowing for the positive impact against SEA Objective 5. More in depth assessments of risk when locating new development would assist the protection of critical infrastructure and promote human wellbeing through the delivery of housing with minimal flood risk for the population. The positive assessments are strengthened by ensuring that there is a consistency of approach between the SFRAs that would be produced by each Local Planning Authority. A uniform approach would allow for a rapid development of understanding across the county and would provide a strong basis through which to address the remaining identified issues within the EFRMS. However, it is worthy to note that this option could be difficult to implement due to varying budgetary constraints between the Local Planning Authorities if the standard SFRA was very technical. Also, places may have different development interests or infrastructure pressures which the standards must take into consideration.

It is considered that Option 2 and Option 3 are not mutually exclusive and as such it is recommended that these are both followed.

15

4.2.3 Raise Community Awareness

Options

1. Do Nothing

2. Provide information for those aware of their risk of steps that can be taken

3. Proactively inform those who may not be aware of their level of risk and advise them on what steps to take


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Option 3

Short Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

Public engagement is key to reducing the impacts of flooding on a localised level as there are steps that can be taken by any individual to aid the safeguarding of their property from flooding. As such there is a clear differentiation between the options, from the negative impact that would be realised from making no attempt at public engagement to the positive impacts of proactively engaging individuals and communities.

Option 2 is assessed as having a generally positive performance across relevant indicators but this positive impact is slightly weaker than that realised under Option 3. By only informing those who are already aware of their personal flood risk there will be large proportions of the population who will remain uninformed. These unaware residents may still be at the risk of flooding, with a lack of knowledge the result of being either due to them having only recently moved into the area, only being at risk in

16

extreme events, or at risk due to extremely localised flooding caused by property modifications. The positive assessment in this case recognises that this option would still offer relative merit above Option 1. The EFRMS itself notes the importance of community engagement and states that this should be a priority. Given that there are measures that can be implemented by property owners to offset flood risk and/or minimise the impacts of flooding, this stance is agreed with and as such a ‘Do nothing’ approach is assessed as negative.

Option 3 provides a positive impact on SEA Objective 1 which seeks to reduce the impact of flooding and on SEA Objective 3 which seeks to protect and enhance human health and wellbeing. These two positive impacts will be further strengthened through the recognised need to communicate information differently to people which is respective to the level of flood risk they will likely experience. Even small changes to property, such as paving over permeable surfaces, can result in localised flooding episodes and as such it is important information is disseminated appropriately. The need for inclusive dissemination is recognised and it is stated that communication will utilise a number of different channels. However this option does not build on Option 2 by proactively informing households that are aware of the risk in addition to those households who aren’t aware which is why it does not afford any strong positive impacts. A positive impact is also assessed against SEA Objective 9 which seeks to adapt development to climate change. As part of the raising of community awareness, informed estimates to the likely evolution of flood risk with respect to climatic factors will be made, whilst a proactive attempt to ensure that local communities have prepared themselves and their properties for flood events will likely reduce the impact such an event could cause.

It is recommended that Options 2 and 3 are combined as they would cumulatively have a strong positive impact on minimising flood risk. Together the actions would raise awareness of flooding to a much greater number of people who are at risk.

4.2.4 Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities

Options

1. Disband current partnership arrangements and rely on ad hoc discussions

2. Maintain status quo

3. Convert to a catchment rather than an administrative basis for partnerships

17


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Option 3

Short Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

The advantages of partnership working are clear in that it allows the Lead Local Flood Authority to pool knowledge and data between disparate stakeholders, leading to a more efficient co-ordination of time and resources, and a holistic basis on which to form an opinion. A well-developed communicative framework will also allow disparate stakeholders to be aware of the intended direction of other stakeholders and they would then have an established reporting mechanism through which to highlight how those directions will impact on their own interests. A disbanding of these partnerships as suggested by Option 1 will not allow for the positive impacts described above and as such negative assessments are made regarding its potential impact on minimising flood risk and adapting to climatic change.

Option 2 suggests a maintaining of the status quo which would have largely positive impacts. The established partnerships and committees ensure the sharing of information to better inform, co-ordinate and manage flood risk across Essex. A partnership which includes infrastructure suppliers like water and highways agencies, and national agencies that manage other sources of flood risk would support the SEA Objectives seeking to reduce flood risk (SEA Obj 1); protect infrastructure and water sources (SEA Obj 3 & 4); in addition to ensuring that climate change is mitigated against (SEA Obj 9).

Option 3 has also been assessed as having a positive impact across the SEA Framework. Whilst it is recognised that such an approach would be more problematic for Essex County Council to co-ordinate given that catchments will cross administrative boundaries, there is the potential for mitigation and management to be more effectively delivered by managing flood risk on a catchment basis rather than by geo-political

18

boundaries. The parties involved would be the same as Option 2 therefore the positive assessments are replicated. Whilst there is the potential for a working framework to have positive impacts across other areas of the SEA Framework, it is considered that this is not the intention of the action and such impacts would likely be indirect or minor, if realised at all.

4.3 Site Level, Specific Management Actions

The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment has allowed the plan makers to identify six site level management actions for tackling flood risk in areas designated within the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment or for any further site analysis. These actions will inform future action plans on the types of localised flood management available. Each action has been assessed against the SEA Framework having regard to short, medium and long-term effects, and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects.

4.3.1 Encourage Implementation of Flood Resilience Measures and Property Protection Schemes


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

This action would likely flow from raising community awareness (countywide strategic action 3) and as such the assessment made is the same as the most sustainable options associated with that issue. Property protection measures, undertaken through an informed understanding of their need, will reduce flood risk (SEA Obj 1) to personal properties on a localised level, and will thereby have directly positive impacts on human health and wellbeing (SEA Obj 3). As more properties adopt such measures the likelihood of flooding may be reduced further in the long term. A positive impact is assessed against SEA Objective 9 which seeks to adapt development to climate change as it is assessed that as part of this encouragement, reference will be made to the likely evolution of flooding due to climatic factors. A significantly positive assessment cannot be made as the action does not provide certainty that such measures will be implemented particularly with regards to their funding. Whilst there is the potential for community flood proofing to be able to have positive impacts across other areas of the SEA Framework, it is considered that this is not the intention of the

19

policy and such impacts would likely be generally minor if realised at all. As such no impact has been assessed on other parts of the SEA Framework.

4.3.2 Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + + + + 0 + + + +

Medium Term + + + + 0 + + + +

Long Term + + + + 0 + + + +

Summary

The success of this action would be related to the second countywide strategic action, namely that of introducing a robust SuDS Framework. SuDS when properly implemented would have positive impacts across many of the SEA objectives within this SEA Framework. On top of the benefits which would be realised against mitigating flood risk and the impacts of flooding (SEA Obj 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8) and preserving water quality (SEA Obj 2), SuDS will also aid in adapting new and existing development to the impacts of climate change (SEA Obj 9). A significantly positive assessment cannot be made across the SEA Framework as the action does not provide certainty that such measures will be implemented, only the promotion that they should occur.

4.3.3 Manage Overland Flow Paths


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 ++

20

Summary

As an action taken to directly reduce the risk of flooding, there is a strong positive impact on SEA Objective 1. The stated measures include actions that would improve flood resistance to personal property which affords a positive assessment against SEA Objective 3. The measures are also directly linked to allowing water to be channelled effectively through highways and as such there is a positive impact against SEA Objective 4 which seeks to ensure that the impacts of flooding on infrastructure is minimised. A positive assessment has also been made against SEA Objective 9. The supporting text to this action states that urban areas will be re-designed to accommodate ‘Urban Blue Corridors’ and as such a positive assessment is made against SEA Objective 9 due to the fact that both new and existing development will be adapted to become more robust to the effects of flooding. In the long term this action is likely to result in a significant positive impact because more ‘Urban Blue Corridors’ will be in place to manage any future increases in flood risk.

4.3.4 Review Land Management Methods


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Medium Term + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Long Term + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Summary

In seeking to provide guidance for owners and land users on land management to directly help reduce flood risk in key areas this action affords a positive impact against SEA Objective 1. It would also promote better methods of land management to be carried forward to minimise the impact on climate change (SEA Obj 9). There is an agricultural focus to this action and as such a positive impact is assessed against SEA Objective 8 which seeks to protect the best and most versatile soils. Flood water running through fields will pick up nutrients and material as it travels, and could create diffuse pollution issues when it eventually drains. Actions to minimise surface water runoff including greater tree coverage could therefore have a positive impact on protecting water quality (SEA Obj 2) and, with regards to the example provided, also enhance the natural environment (SEA Obj 6). Further, it is assessed that minimising and delaying the surface runoff will have a positive impact on the effective use of drainage systems which is a critical infrastructure (SEA Obj 4).

21

4.3.5 Review Asset Management and Maintenance Methods


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

The focus of this action is primarily on maintaining and managing drainage infrastructure, water courses and important assets within the highways network. Surface water flooding is often caused by drainage systems becoming compromised or blocked entirely and as such a management programme which seeks to avoid this will reduce the likelihood of flooding wherever it may occur, allowing for a positive impact on SEA Objective 1. Drainage systems and highways are both critical infrastructure; therefore by ensuring that the flood risk is minimised and that they continue to operate efficiently this action would positively impact SEA Objective 4. A register of assets and the clarification of maintenance responsibilities should ensure the future up keep and adaptability of these assets to climate change (SEA Obj 9). Further, the register will assist in the maintenance of assets which have surroundings that are vulnerable to instances of flood risk such as residential properties thereby reducing their risk and protecting wellbeing and human health.

4.3.6 Achieve wider Environmental Benefits


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

Medium Term + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

Long Term + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

Summary

There is a clear focus within this action on improving environmental features. This action, which aims to ensure that wider environmental benefits are sort through the

22

inclusion of Environmental Objectives, promotes significant positive impacts to various aspects of the natural environment. Most prominent are the impacts on biodiversity and on water, as a resource and in terms of its quality. Further the Environmental Objectives specifically recognise the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change through measures to manage flood risk. Adhering to the Water Framework Directive targets, which specifically aim to protect all water bodies and enhance current water quality through the reduction of pollutants and the promotion of SuDS, not only supports SEA Objective 2 but SEA Objective 4 (the protection of critical infrastructure) as well. Contributing to the provision of green infrastructure would also benefit this Objective in addition to improving human health and wellbeing by delivering more accessible green space.

The Environmental Objectives afford a significantly positive assessment for SEA Objective 6 by conserving nationally significant biodiversity and geodiversity sites, protecting species and habitats that are listed on the national and local Biodiversity Action Plans, and by seeking to enhance all of these features. It is also likely that the quality of the landscape character where these protected sites are will be preserved resulting in a positive impact for SEA Objective 8.

A positive assessment was made for minimising flood risk (SEA Obj. 1). Working within the premise of environmental protection the strategy will incorporate measures such as SuDS that protect or enhance the natural environment but with the primary aim of managing flood risk.

23

5 CONCLUSIONS AND MONITORING

5.1 Conclusions

The ten overarching objectives for the EFRMS capture and support all the themes within the SEA Objectives. The outcome for SEA Objective 1, which seeks to minimise flood risk, is further strengthened by the synergistic impact of all the objectives in unison. By ensuring greater understanding of the risks and promoting more collaboration and sharing of resources, communities and responsible bodies will be better placed to prioritise resources, adopt plans, and implement local measures to effectively minimise the risk. The intention of the strategy is to set out the roles and responsibilities and to improve local flood risk management so as to minimise the impact of flooding on infrastructure, businesses and properties. One of the objectives (VIII) does strive to consider the needs of the environment but there is some ambiguity as to what parts of the environment it refers to. If it was made clear that ‘environment’ referred to the natural and built environment the positive impacts associated with SEA Objectives 6, 7 and 8 would be reinforced.

The ‘Do nothing’ approach for all county-wide actions would result in largely negative potential outcomes across the SEA Framework. Understanding local flood risk is vital for collaborative working and appropriate management to be implemented; and for the level of risk to communities, businesses, infrastructure and the environment as a whole to be realised. Such an approach, adopted for all the county-wide actions could result in strong cumulative negative impacts on the SEA Objectives, particularly with regards to minimising the impact and risk of flooding. The impact is likely to worsen overtime due to the inability of responsible bodies and communities to incorporate measures within new and existing developments that respond to changes in climate.

The other options put forward for these county-wide actions offer more beneficial outcomes. Option 3 for the actions ‘Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk’ and ‘Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ have potential for providing significant positive impacts when enacted independently. They both strongly support the minimisation of flood risk. The latter action ensures that local level flood risk is incorporated within SFRAs which are used to inform planning policy, while the former promotes the compilation of a comprehensive record of past flood events and strategic co-ordination resulting in greater opportunity to receive funding. Option 3 for the ‘Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk’ action also strongly supports the SEA Objective on adapting development to the impacts of climate change while Option 3 of the ‘Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ action strongly supports SEA Objective 4. The SuDS design guide will deal with the planning, design and delivery of attractive and high quality SuDS schemes which trunk roads and other major infrastructure would benefit from thereby minimising their potential impact from flooding.

A detailed assessment of the cumulative impacts of the county-wide actions is ideally suited when it is known what option is adopted for each action following consultation. However, this round of assessment has identified which options would produce the most beneficial outcomes in environmental terms and, as such, it is possible to evaluate any potential cumulative and synergistic impacts that may arise if they were adopted. Options 2 and 3 put forward for the county-wide action ‘Raise Community Awareness’ both seek to provide information to the community, however the former is

24

directed to those who are already aware of the risks while the latter is to those who aren’t. Independently they both afford a positive impact to minimising the risk and impact of flooding (Obj 1) but when combined into one preferred option they would result in a strong positive outcome on minimising the impacts of flooding. This is because together would raise awareness of flooding to a much greater number of people who are at risk.

The matrix in Table 5 reports the impacts on the SEA Objectives of the preferred options for each action and shows that together these actions effectively address and support all of the SEA Objectives. Two actions have been formed from an amalgamation of two options as this provides the most environmentally beneficial outcomes. These are ‘Adapt Spatial planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ and ‘Raise Community Awareness’. The last county-wide action in the EFRMS, ‘Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities’, could be either Option 2 or 3 as they have the same environmental outcomes. Although, it is recognised that Option 3 which is catchment wide partnership working would be more problematic for Essex County Council.

TABLE 5: MATRIX SHOWING THE IMPACTS OF THE SUGGESTED OPTIONS FOR COUNTY-WIDE STRATEGIC ACTIONS

Suggested Options for Actions SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk (Option 3)

++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Adapt Spatial planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk (Options 2 + 3)

++ + + ++ + + + + +

Raise Community Awareness (Options 2 + 3)

++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities (Either Option 2 or 3)

+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

The stated site level actions provide a strong basis for the mitigation of flood risk within Essex. The majority of SEA Objectives are impacted on in a positive manner through at least one of the actions contained within the EFRMS, as shown in the matrix in Table 6. The only SEA Objective where this is not the case is Objective 5 which seeks to ensure that new development can be appropriately located with respect to the Sequential Test. This is not considered to be a significant issue for local action as the Sequential Test is a strategic tool and its importance is suitably addressed and recognised in the assessment of county-wide strategic actions above.

25

TABLE 6: MATRIX SHOWING THE IMPACTS OF THE SUGGESTED OPTIONS FOR SITE LEVEL, SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Suggested Options for Actions SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Encourage Implementation of Flood Resilience Measures and Property Protection Schemes

+ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures

+ + + + 0 + + + +

Manage Overland Flow Paths ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 ++

Review Land Management Methods + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Review Asset Management and Maintenance Methods

+ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Achieve wider Environmental Benefits + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

A positive impact has been given to SEA Objective 7 through the action to ‘Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures’ because it is likely to provide well designed schemes which contribute to the character of areas. However, there is little consideration within the EFRMS on the impact that local flooding or measures to prevent it have on the historic environment. It is considered appropriate to recognise the value of the historic and built environment within the action ‘Achieve wider Environmental Benefits’, by ensuring that flood defences are in keeping with the existing townscape and, where appropriate, to ensure the protection of built heritage.

The appraisal of the site level options has identified a number of significant positive impacts that may arise following their implementation. These strong impacts are associated with only two actions - ‘Manage Overland Flow Paths’ and ‘Achieve Wider Environmental Benefits’ action. The former seeks to the redesign urban areas to be robust to the effects of flooding which promotes a strong positive assessment against SEA Objective 1. In the long term it will result in more Urban Blue Corridors being created to manage any future increases in flood risk thereby strongly impacting upon SEA Objective 9. The action to ‘Achieve Wider Environmental Benefits’ focuses on improving environmental features which promotes significant positive impacts on water, as a resource and in terms of its quality by adhering to the Water Framework Directive targets (SEA Obj 2). It also strongly supports the protection of biodiversity and geodiversity of local and national importance (SEA Obj 6) with a number of Environmental Objectives specifically related to their conservation. Further, one of the Environmental Objectives specifically recognises the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change through measures to manage flood risk (SEA Obj 9).

The local level actions will cumulatively have a strong contribution to minimising the risk and impacts of local flooding. Improving resilience at an individual and

26

community level, together with the implementation of sustainable drainage schemes and greater ownership of maintaining assets raises the profile of local flood prevention and ensures that measures are adopted to minimise its impact. Maintaining drainage infrastructure and creating Urban Blue Corridors are two different approaches to reduce surface water flooding which can disrupt the efficiency of critical infrastructure. When implemented together they would result in a strong positive impact on SEA Objective 4.

5.2 Recommendations:

The assessment of the objectives and actions has identified a number of areas where the EFRMS could be strengthened to promote a more sustainable approach. The recommendations will help inform further stages in preparation of the EFRMS. They are detailed below:

Reinforce the positive impacts associated with SEA Objectives 6, 7 and 8 in the assessment of the Strategy’s overarching objectives by referring to the natural and built environment in Objective VIII.

Provide greater clarity between the two approaches that Option 3 of the county-wide action ‘Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk’ seeks to make - adopting proactive measures to gain a better understanding of local flood risk and implementing mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents. Further, details of the differences between the latter approach in Option 3 and the approach for Option 2 would aid this assessment.

Combine Options 2 and Option 3 of the county-wide action ‘Adapt Spatial planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ to increase the number of positive impacts across the SEA Framework.

Combine Options 2 and 3 of the county-wide action ‘Raise Community Awareness’ to strengthen its impact on minimising flood risk. Together the actions would raise awareness of flooding to a much greater number of people who are at risk.

It is important to recognise the value of the historic and built environment within the site level action ‘Achieve Wider Environmental Benefits’, by ensuring that flood defences are in keeping with the existing townscape and, where appropriate, to ensure the protection of built heritage.

5.3 Monitoring

The significant sustainability effects of implementing this Strategy must be monitored in order to identify unforeseen adverse effects and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action. Annex C of this Environmental Report contains suggested indicators in order to monitor each of the SEA Objectives, however these may not all be collected due to limited resources and difficulty in data availability or collection.

27

6 NEXT STEPS

The Environmental Report will be subject to public consultation for 12 weeks alongside the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy.

All comments on the content of the Environmental Report should be sent to:

[email protected]

Flood Risk Management Team Essex County Council E3, County Hall Chelmsford CM1 1QH

Please clearly identify any comments which relate to the Environmental Report, and respond within the consultation deadline.

All responses received will be reviewed and taken into consideration for the next stage of appraisal process. This will involve a Strategic Environmental Assessment being undertaken on the final iteration of the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy.

mailto:[email protected]

Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Strategic Environmental Assessment Consultation Environmental Report

Prepared by the Project Team, Place Services

April 2012

The information contained in this document can be made available in alternative formats: large print, braille, audio tape or on disc. We can also

translate this document into other languages.

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies ............................................................... 7

1.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment ...................................................................... 8

1.4 The aim and structure of this report......................................................................... 8

2 Strategic Environmental Assessment Process and Methodology .................... 11

2.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening ................................................... 11

2.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance ................................................... 11

2.2.1 Stage A - Scoping Report ................................................................................... 12

3 Sustainability Context, Baseline and Objectives ................................................ 13

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Plans and Programmes ......................................................................................... 13

3.3 Baseline Information .............................................................................................. 15

3.3.1 Water .................................................................................................................. 15

3.3.2 Flooding .............................................................................................................. 17

3.3.3 Population and Human Health ............................................................................ 19

3.3.4 Biodiversity and Landscape ................................................................................ 20

3.3.5 Climatic Factors .................................................................................................. 22

3.3.6 Material Assets ................................................................................................... 23

3.3.7 Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................. 26

3.3.8 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 27

3.4 Data Limitations..................................................................................................... 27

3.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment Objectives .................................................. 27

4 Appraisal of the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy Objectives ............. 30

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Appraisal of Strategy Objectives ........................................................................... 30

5 Appraisal of the Actions to Improve Flood Risk in Essex ................................. 32

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 32

5.2 County-Wide Strategic Actions .............................................................................. 32

5.2.1 Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk ....................................................... 32

5.2.2 Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk .................................. 34

5.2.3 Raise Community Awareness ............................................................................. 36

5.2.4 Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities ............ 37

5.3 Site Level, Specific Management Actions ............................................................. 39

5.3.1 Encourage Implementation of Flood Resilience Measures and Property Protection Schemes ...................................................................................................................... 39

5.3.2 Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures ........................ 40

5.3.3 Manage Overland Flow Paths ............................................................................. 40

5.3.4 Review Land Management Methods ................................................................... 41

5.3.5 Review Asset Management and Maintenance Methods ..................................... 41

5.3.6 Achieve wider Environmental Benefits ................................................................ 42

6 Conclusions and Monitoring ................................................................................ 44

6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 44

6.2 Recommendations: ............................................................................................... 47

6.3 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 47

7 Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 48

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: The Environmental Report Requirements ........................................................... 9

Table 2: Stages in the SEA Process and their purpose ................................................... 11

Table 3: Key Documents .................................................................................................. 13

Table 4: Key Environmental Issues and SEA Objectives ................................................. 28

Table 5: Impact on SEA Objectives ................................................................................. 29

Table 6: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for County-Wide Strategic Actions ............................................................................................................................ 45

Table 7: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for Site Level, Specific Management Actions ....................................................................................................... 46

Annexes

Annex A: Plans and Programmes

Annex B: Baseline Information

Annex C: Strategic Environmental Assessment Framework

Non-Technical Summary

Glossary of Acronyms

AMR Annual Monitoring Report

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

BARR Buildings At Risk Register

CAMS Catchment Area Management Strategy

CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan

CLG Communities and Local Government

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EA Environment Agency

EBAP Essex Biodiversity Action Plan

EC European Commission

EEC European Economic Community

EFRMS Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy

EHER Essex Historic Environment Record

EU European Union

FWMA Flood and Water Management Act

GCR Geological Conservation Review

IMD Index of Multiple Deprivations

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LCA Landscape Character Area

LDF Local Development Framework

LFRMS Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority

LNR Local Nature Reserve

LoWS Local Wildlife Site

LSOA Lower Super Output Area

NNR National Nature Reserve

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

ONS Office for National Statistics

PAS Planning Advisory Service

PSA Public Service Agreement

RBS River Basin Strategy

SAC Special Area for Conservation

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

SLA Special Landscape Area

SM Scheduled Monument

SPA Special Protection Area

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

SPZ Special Protection Zone

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

UA Unitary Authority

UKCP09 UK Climate Change Projections 2009

WFD Water Framework Directive

7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In July 2011 Essex County Council’s Strategic Development Group commissioned Essex County Council’s Strategic Environmental Assessment Team, now re-branded within the Project Team in Place Services, to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) on the proposed Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Essex. Place Services continues to act as consultants for this work, therefore the content of the SEA should not be interpreted or otherwise represented as the formal view of Essex County Council.

This document is the Consultation Environmental Report which sets out the assessment of the consultation version of the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy (hereafter referred to as the EFRMS).

1.2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies

Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA’s) are required by the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010 to produce a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) which must be maintained, applied and monitored. Local flood risk is defined by the Act as meaning flood risk derived from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Ordinary watercourses are defined as those which do not form part of a main river. Flood risk from the sea, main rivers and reservoirs are therefore not defined as local flood risk and are the concern of the Environment Agency. Such sources of flood risk do however need to be considered insofar as their potential interaction with those flood risks defined as local to ensure that all joint risks of flooding are assessed at the local scale.

LFRMS’s are statutorily required to include the following:

The risk management authorities in the LLFA area and what flood and coastal erosion risk management functions they may exercise in relation to the area. If functions normally carried out by one body will be carried out by another, this also has to be specified.

The objectives for managing local flood risk. These will be relevant to the local area and reflect the level of local risk.

The measures proposed to achieve the objectives. This could include a wide range of measures such as sustainable drainage systems, designation of features, improvements to the sewage network and application of the planning system.

How and when measures are expected to be implemented.

The costs and benefits of these measures and how they are paid for.

The assessment of local flood risk for the purpose of the strategy. The strategy may identify gaps in the understanding of local flood risk and specify the actions which could close these gaps.

How and when the strategy is to be reviewed. The review period is not specified at the national level and it is therefore up to the LLFA to decide what is appropriate.

8

How the strategy contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives.

The LFRMS will, in all instances, have to be compliant with the national Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy.

1.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment

The European Directive 2001/42/EC1 (the ‘SEA Directive’) was adopted in June 2001 with a view to increase the level of protection for the environment, integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes and to promote sustainable development. It requires SEA to be carried out for all plans and programmes “which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level…”. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Essex is one such document.

The aim of the SEA is to identify potentially significant environmental effects created as a result of the implementation of the plan or programme on issues such as “biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic, material assets including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex 1(f)). The Directive was transposed into English legislation by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 20042 (the ‘SEA Regulation’).

1.4 The aim and structure of this report

The Environmental Report documents the SEA process. It identifies, describes and evaluates the likely significant effects of implementing the EFRMS and the different options suggested. Table 1 signposts the relevant sections of this report that contain the required content of an Environmental Report as outlined within the SEA Directive.

1 European Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on

the environment, Article 1 2 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations, 2004, SI No. 1633, Parts 3

and 4

9

Table 1: The Environmental Report Requirements

SEA Regulations – required content of Environmental Report Covered in this Report

An outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme, and of its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes.

Section 3.2 + Annex A

The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme.

Section 3.3 + Annex B

The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected. Sections 3.3 + 3.5 +

Annex B

Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Habitats Directive.

Sections 3.3 + 3.5 + Annex B

The environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation.

Sections 3.2 + 3.5 + Annex A

The likely significant effects on the environment, including short, medium and long-term effects, permanent and temporary effects, positive and negative effects, and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material asserts, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above issues.

Sections 4 + 5

The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme.

Sections 4, 5 + 6

An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information.

Section 3.4 + 5

A description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring. Section 6 + Annex

C

A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings. Separate NTS

This chapter provides an introduction to this Environmental Report and the SEA process. The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 Description of the SEA process and Methodology;

Chapter 3 Identification of other policies, plans, programmes, the baseline and sustainability objectives which are relevant to the strategy area;

Chapter 4 Sets out the Appraisal of the Strategy Objectives;

Chapter 5 Sets out the Appraisal of Actions

10

Chapter 6 Sets out the Conclusions and Monitoring.

Chapter 7 Sets out the next steps of the SEA.

There is a Non-Technical Summary and three annexes to this Environmental Report which contain the supporting evidence. Annex A contains a review of relevant plans and programmes, Annex B contains the baseline information and Annex C sets out the SEA Framework.

11

2 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening

Prior to starting the SEA process a plan or programme would normally undergo ‘screening’. This process determines whether the plan is subject to the SEA Directive and therefore requires an SEA. In the case of Local Flood Risk Management Strategies, this question is answered in Article 3 of the ‘SEA Directive’ which clearly states that SEA is required for plans and programmes which are likely to have significant environmental effects and which are prepared for water management.

2.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance

The methodology adopted for the SEA of the EFRMS incorporates the requirements of SEA Directive and has been developed in accordance with the following guidance:

The Plan Making Manual (PAS online guidance available at: www.pas.co.uk)

Towards a more efficient and effective use of Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal in spatial planning (CLG, 2010);

Resource Manual to Support Application of the UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (UNECE, April 2007 (revised February 2011)); and

A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, (ODPM, 2005).

The SEA is an integral part of plan preparation and has five sequential stages. These main stages and the tasks for each stage are listed in the table below.

Table 2: Stages in the SEA Process and their purpose


Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and environmental protection objectives

A2: Collecting baseline information

A3: Identifying environmental issues and problems

A4: Developing the SEA objectives and framework

A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA

Stage B: Developing B1: Testing the plan objectives against the SEA objectives.

12


and refining options and assessing effects

B2: Developing strategic alternatives.

B3: Predicting the effects of the plan, including alternatives.

B4: Evaluating the effects of the plan, including alternatives.

B5: Mitigating adverse effects.

B6: Proposing measures to monitor the environmental effects of implementing the plan.

Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report

C1: Preparing the Environmental Report.

Stage D: Consulting on the draft LFRMS and the SEA Report

D1: Consulting on the draft LFRMS and Environmental Report with the public and Consultation Bodies.

D2: Assessing significant changes.

D3: Making decisions and providing information.

Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the LFRMS

E1: Developing aims and methods for monitoring.

E2: Responding to adverse effects.

2.2.1 Stage A - Scoping Report

A draft copy of the Scoping Report was published for consultation, in accordance with the SEA Directive for 5 weeks from Thursday 15th September to Thursday 20th October 2011. The consultation sought the views of the three statutory consultation bodies (the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage) on the scope and level of detail. Furthermore, to ensure public participation the draft Scoping Report and accompanying annexes were also made available on Essex County Council’s website for wider consultation.

Representations were received from the three statutory consultees only. They were reviewed and compiled into a schedule of changes which are detailed in full within the final Scoping Report and subsequent amendments have been included within this report.

13

3 SUSTAINABILITY CONTEXT, BASELINE AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Introduction

The following section outlines the key findings of the scoping stage and published Scoping Report which includes an outline of the plans and programmes, the baseline information profile for the strategy area, together with the SEA Objectives.

3.2 Plans and Programmes

The EFRMS must comply with existing policies, plans and programmes at international, national and sub-national levels and strengthen and support local plans and strategies. It is therefore important to identify and review those policies, plans and programmes and environmental protection objectives which are relevant to both the EFRMS and the SEA at an early stage. This allows any inconsistencies or constraints within the EFRMS to be addressed and also to help develop the SEA framework.

It is recognised that no list of plans or programmes can be definitive and as a result this report describes only the key documents which influence the EFRMS. Table 3 outlines the key documents, whilst a comprehensive description of these documents together with their relevance to the EFRMS is provided within Annex A.

Table 3: Key Documents

International Plans and Programmes

EU Floods Directive - Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, 2007

EU Water Framework Directive - Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, 2000

National Plans and Programmes

Flood and Water Management Act 2011

Flood Risk Regulations, 2009

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (May 2011)

Selecting and reviewing Flood Risk Areas for local sources of flooding - Guidance to Lead Local Flood Authorities (2010)

Future Water, The Government’s water strategy for England, 2008

Water for People and the Environment; Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales, 2009

14

Making Space for Water – Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England (2005)

Directing the Flow: Priorities for Future Water Policy, 2002

The Impact of Flooding on Urban and Rural Communities, 2005

The Land Drainage Act, 1991, (as Amended 2004)

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004

The Water Act, 2003

National Standards for sustainable drainage systems: Designing, constructing, operating and maintaining drainage for surface runoff (December 2011)

Sub-national Plans and Programmes

TE2100 Flood Risk Management Plan (draft 2009)

Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2) (October 2010)

River Basin Management Plan Anglian River Basin District (December 2009)

River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District (December 2009)

Local Plans and Programmes

North Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan (December 2009)

South Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan (December 2009)

Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (December 2009)

Essex County Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (January 2011)

Essex County Council Level 1 Minerals and Waste Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Revised (July 2011)

Essex Local Transport Plan 2011

2011 Essex Biodiversity Action Plan

Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)

Braintree District LDF Core Strategy (September 2011)

Adopted Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (August 2005) + Saved Policy Direction August 2008

Castle Point Local Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)

Chelmsford Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD (February 2008)

15

Colchester Local Development Framework Core Strategy (December 2008)

Epping Forest Combined Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) Policy Document (February 2008)

Adopted Replacement Harlow Local Plan (July 2006) + Saved Policy Direction

Maldon District Replacement Local Plan And Saved Policies (November 2008)

Rochford Core Strategy (December 2011)

Tendring District Local Plan (December 2007)

Uttlesford Adopted Local Plan (January 2005) + Saved Policy Direction (December 2007)

Basildon Borough Council -Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (June 2011)

Brentwood Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (January 2011)

Braintree District Council, Chelmsford Borough Council, Colchester Borough Council, Maldon District Council - Mid Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (October 2007)

Castle Point Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Levels 1 and 2 (November 2010)

Epping Forest District Council and Harlow Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (April 2011)

Rochford District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 and 2 (February 2011)

Tendring District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (March 2009)

Uttlesford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (March 2008)

3.3 Baseline Information

Annex B details the complete baseline information profile for the strategy area, and is based on the information which was highlighted as relevant within the Scoping Report incorporating additional information highlighted as a result of consultation on the Scoping Report.

The following section outlines the key baseline information and therefore the current state of the environment for Essex.

3.3.1 Water

There are a number of large main rivers and tributaries that flow through Essex including the River Stour, River Colne, River Blackwater and River Chelmer in the north, the River Crouch and River Roach in the south, the River Lee, River Roding and River Stort to the west.

16

Water resources are extracted from major rivers, reservoirs and a large number of groundwater sources. The north of Essex contains Chalk, Crag and Drift aquifers. The Crag and Drift aquifers are overlain by sands and gravels of varying thickness which are locally important minor aquifers. The Chalk aquifer is the largest and most important type as it is used primarily for public water supply and spray irrigation. Due to the porosity of the underlying chalk these areas have a higher vulnerability to contamination and have therefore been designated a Source Protection Zone.

In addition, to natural water bodies there are various artificial water bodies in the county, especially reservoirs created through mineral extraction. Hanningfield, Abberton and Ardleigh Reservoirs are largest inland surface water resources in Essex.

Water management is challenging in Essex given the combination of high development growth and it being one of the driest counties in England. Annual rainfall in Essex is only 65% of the average in England and Wales. In general, water management is divided into river basin districts of which there are two covering Essex, Anglian and Thames, and these are subdivided into catchment areas. There are three river catchment areas covering Essex - the Combined Essex, the Upper Lee and the Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne and a significant portion of the water resource in these catchments is considered to be ‘water stressed’. The resource availability status of rivers and aquifers show that they are generally over abstracted and Essex imports substantial quantities of water to satisfy existing demand.

Each catchment area is also assessed in terms of the water quality. The catchment areas in Essex have large proportions of their water bodies with good chemical status however; this is not reflected in their overall status as their ecological status or potential is mainly poor or bad. An example is the Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne catchment area.

There are also a number of significant water management issues identified at both the Anglian and Thames River Basin District levels that should be dealt with, including:

abstraction and other artificial flow regulation – problems related to taking water from rivers, lakes and groundwater;

alien (non-native) species - invasive non-native species are plants and animals that have deliberately or accidentally been introduced outside their natural range, and by spreading quickly threaten native wildlife;

organic pollution – an excess of organic matter such as manure or sewage which depletes the oxygen available for wildlife;

pesticides – chemical and biological products used to kill or control pests;

phosphate – a nutrient in sewage and fertiliser that can cause too much algae to grow in rivers when in excess quantities;

physical modification – changes to the structure of water bodies such as for flood defence purposes;

sediment – undissolved particles of organic or inorganic material that can be suspended in a water body or accumulate on the surface. Some sedimentation occurs naturally however, excessive sedimentation can result from human activities; and

urban and transport pollution – a range of pollutants related to urban areas and the transport network.

17

The Thames RBD is also affected by chemicals (including priority hazardous substances, priority substances & specific pollutants) which may affect the physiology, growth, development and reproduction of aquatic organisms.

Influence of the EFRMS on Water

The EFRMS options are unlikely to affect water supply within Essex, however, the EFRMS options may affect the way in which major groundwater reserves are managed.

Construction, changes in flood risk to areas of potentially contaminated land and changes in flood frequency associated with the EFRMS options could lead to changes in the waterbodies within Essex. Such changes may affect a waterbody’s ability to achieve and / or maintain good ecological status.

3.3.2 Flooding

Flood Risk

Flooding, and the impact development would have on it, is significantly important in shaping development and affecting the lives of people. Essex lies within three catchment flood management plan areas – North Essex, South Essex and the Thames. The main sources of flood risk for people, property, infrastructure and land use in these catchment areas are river flooding, surface water flooding, sewer flooding, tidal flooding (South Essex and Thames) and groundwater flooding (South Essex and Thames).

A number of significant flood events have occurred within all three catchment areas in Essex. In North Essex there was flooding in 2000 on the Rivers Colne, Blackwater and Chelmer and further flooding in late October 2001 which caused significant damage and affected over 700 properties. In South Essex major tidal flooding occurred in 1953 and 1978 and significant river flooding was recorded in 1958 and 1968. In the Thames Region the last major flood event was in July 2007 and took place in the upper parts of the Thames catchment.

Records of 1,342 incidences of flood events and hotspots have been collected across Essex County. These incidences are from a range of flood sources. These include many incidences of surface water flooding across the County which occurs where rainfall exceeds the capacity of local drainage networks and water flows across the ground. Only two incidences of groundwater flooding - one at Debden Green and one at Hatfield Broad, although many of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments produced by the local authorities, as well as the Catchment Flood Management Plans indicate that a risk of groundwater flooding is present. There have also 464 sewer flooding events which are the responsibility of Thames Water and Anglian Water.

Surface water flood risk is relatively high in Essex with all main settlements assessed being ranked nationally in the top 1000 settlements most susceptible to to surface water flooding. The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for Essex (January 2011) suggests that “there are around 27,000 properties at risk of surface water flooding (from a 1 in 200 year event) in the main settlements of Essex alone”.

18

Significant levels of flood risk have also been identified along the Essex coast and inland along river stretches. Essex Trends 2011 states “While advances in flood protection have been made since the early 1950s the danger of coastal flooding remains significant, particularly as climate change increases the chance of storms and high tides coinciding.”

The number of planning permissions within Essex which were objected to by the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds was 45 during 2010/2011. Of these, 18 planning applications were approved by the local planning authority, 18 remain outstanding and the rest were either refused or withdrawn.

Flood and Coastal Defence Infrastructure

In response to past flood events, numerous engineering and flood alleviation schemes have been implemented within Essex to reduce river flooding and protect communities. They include flood embankments and walls on the River Can in Chelmsford and the River Colne in Colchester, channel improvements on the River Roach through Rochford, a pumping station at Parkeston, construction of the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation Channel, and flood storage areas in Heybridge, Halstead, Basildon, South Woodham Ferrers and Laindon.

The Essex coast stretches for over 300 miles and forms part of the Greater Thames complex of estuaries. It is predominantly low -lying leading to the need for flood defences along much of its length. According to the Shoreline Management Plan3 the coastal flood defences for Essex consist of the following:

Revetted earth embankments along most of the coastline which provide protection to low-lying coastal floodplains, grazing marshes and agricultural land and also to settlements in Jaywick, Brightlingsea, Maldon, Maylandsea, St Lawrence, Burnham-on-Crouch, North Fambridge, South Woodham Ferrers, South Fambridge, Paglesham and Wakering;

Sheet piling used in quays, marinas, ports and sections of erosional frontages such as Clacton;

A combination of concrete sea walls, promenades, wave return walls and beach control structures (timber and concrete groynes and breakwaters) to protect the communities in Harwich, Frinton, Clacton and sections of Mersea Island; and

no defence structures fronting the Naze Cliffs and other frontages where the defences run into higher ground.

Influence of the EFRMS on Flooding

The EFRMS options are likely to move towards closing the gap between national and local flood risk management identifying local measures to minimise the risk of flooding. Proposals for a streamlined NPPF would further necessitate clear guidance with regard to development and flood risk at the local level.

3 Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan 2 (draft consultation) March 2010

19

3.3.3 Population and Human Health

Understanding the context of local demographic trends is important in planning for the future of an area as it enables local authorities to predict the changing needs of the population and cater for them.

Essex has an estimated population of 1,413,000 people, having increased by 7.6% since the 2001 Census. This is a considerably higher level of growth compared to the 5.6% growth recorded nationally. Within Essex, the largest growth in population since 2001 has occurred in the Borough of Colchester at 16%, followed by a 12.3% increase in Uttlesford District. The lowest proportionate population increase is 3.1% which is recorded in Harlow and Epping Forest Districts. Population projections for Essex estimate that by 2031 the population will have increased to 1,727,300 people and household numbers will have increased to 791,000 by 2033. Both of these projected increases are above the level of growth projected nationally.

There are varying levels of deprivation across Essex, based on the governments Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which is measured by income, employment, health, education, barriers to housing and services, living standards and crime. The county has broadly low levels of deprivation when ranked nationally however pockets of severe deprivation do exist. In Essex there are 52 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the top 20% most deprived areas nationally and 13 LSOAs in the most deprived 10%. Of the 13, seriously deprived areas 4 are within Basildon Borough, 2 are within Colchester Borough and the remaining 7 are in the District of Tendring. Coastal Jaywick (E01021988) in Tendring District is the most deprived LSOA in the whole of England.

The health profile for Essex, published by the Association of Public Health Observatories, reports that the health of people in Essex is generally better than the England average. Deprivation is lower than average, however 46,975 children live in poverty. Life expectancy for both men and women is higher than the England average at 79.6 years and 83.1 years respectively. There are however inequalities within Essex for example, life expectancy is 6.8 years lower for men and 4.4 years lower for women in the most deprived areas of Essex than in the least deprived areas. Over the last 10 years, all cause mortality rates have fallen along with early death rates from cancer and from heart disease and stroke. Adult obesity is in line with the national average and obesity in Year 6 children, at around 16.1%, is better than the national average. The percentage of physically active pupils is however below the national trend. Priorities in Essex include improving educational attainment, reducing inequalities and improving levels of physical activity.

Accessible local greenspace is also an important contributor to good health. It not only provides a daily experience of wildlife but contact with nature boosts people’s physical and mental health. In Essex there is 15,055ha of accessible natural greenspace however only 9% of Essex households have full access to it when following criterion of Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt). 16% of households within Essex do not have any access to natural greenspace. The areas that fare the worst according to the ANGSt criteria are the more rural parts of the county as there is often limited official public access beyond the footpath network.

20

Influence of the EFRMS on Population and Human Health

The EFRMS and the options considered in it will seek to manage flood risk for the benefit of the population of Essex.

The EFRMS options considered may affect public access to recreational features, goods and public services that can make a material difference to their Quality of Life. The perceived level of flood risk that communities are exposed to may also affect levels of stress and impact on Quality of Life.

3.3.4 Biodiversity and Landscape

Nature Conservation

Essex is predominantly rural in character with a diverse wildlife. There are 25 species and 10 habitats which are considered characteristic of Essex and require protection through their inclusion on the 1999 Essex Biodiversity Action Plan which is currently being updated. In addition to the recognition of these priority species there is also a comprehensive inventory of species that are threatened with extinction. An Essex wide Red Data List lists over 6,000 species including those on the national list and those that are at present in a small number of sites in Essex, or are in decline. These species are found in a number of different types of areas across Essex. Brownfield sites, particularly those in the Thames Gateway, are of considerable importance because many Nationally Scarce and Essex Red Data species have been recorded within them. Brownfield sites are also home to species on the UK BAP such as the Shrill Carder Bee Bombus sylvarum, the Brown-banded Carder Bee Bombus humilis, the picture winged fly Dorycera graminum, the solitary wasps Cerceris quinquefasciata and C. quadricincta and the ground beetle Anisodactylus poeciloides.

There are sites designated as internationally, nationally and locally important due to the geology, habitats and species present in Essex. The Essex coastline affords international protection as Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas for Conservation due to a series of saltmarshes, mudflats sandflats, lagoons and estuaries which are not only important examples of habitats but are home to over 100,000 migratory birds. Conservation of sites and designations of biodiversity and geological value have an important role within the planning process, land management, and controlling development pressure.

There are a large number of nationally and locally designated sites including Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNR), Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS). As of February 2012, 97.98% of the designated SSSI areas in Essex (including the two Unitary Authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) were achieving the target of 95% of SSSI areas being in “favourable” or “unfavourable recovering” conditions. The areas not achieving the target were either unfavourable with no change in condition or unfavourable and declining.

There are 24 nationally important sites of geological conservation within Essex which have been awarded SSSI status. 12 of these have been designated due to their significance to the geomorphological evolution and Quaternary history of the Thames area and are specific to the area. There are many more Local Geological Sites within

21

Essex that are non-statutory and afford protection through the local planning system and the National Planning Policy Framework.

There are six NNR located in Essex. They are the Blackwater Estuary, Colne Estuary, Dengie, Hales Wood, Hamford Water and Hatfield Forest. In addition to these sites, Essex also has 39 LNRs and over 1,600 LoWSs and together with statutorily protected areas they represent the minimum habitat to maintain current levels of wildlife.

The amount of wooded area has diminished considerably in Essex over time. Three quarters has been lost since the 11th Century. The total wooded area is now around 5.7% and this is fragmented and scattered across Essex.

Landscapes

Within the Essex landscape there are many areas of special interest which have been designated and protected from inappropriate development. There is one AONB called Dedham Vale which lies on the border of Suffolk and Essex covering an area of 90 sq km. It has been designated as such because it is an exceptional example of a lowland river valley.

There are 80 living landscapes identified in Essex which are large landscape scale areas of the countryside like river valleys, estuaries, forested ridges, and grass and heath mosaics, which are ecologically stable and bursting with life. Some 20 vision documents are in place, including Dedham Vale in the Stour Valley, Colne Valley, Lea Valley, Epping Forest, Blackwater Estuary, Hatfield Forest, Galleywood Common and Hockley Woods.

35 Landscape Character Areas have also been designated within Essex through Landscape Character Assessments and are areas with a recognisable pattern of landscape characteristics, both physical and experiential, that combine to create a distinct sense of place. Many of these defined character areas have a moderate or high sensitivity to development and change. Essex also has some very rare historic landscapes including those of European wide importance such as the Forests of Hatfield and Writtle, coastal wetlands and ancient woods.

A large proportion of land in Essex is also designated within the largest green belt within the UK, London’s Metropolitan Green Belt. It extends over 8 local authorities within the county and covers approximately 85,240 hectares and is protected by planning policies which enforce restrictions on certain development within the designated area

In addition to these landscape designations, Essex also contains protected lanes which have significant historic and landscape values; and special roadside verges which if sensitively managed can increase the biodiversity of the verges themselves and act as corridors to the surrounding countryside.

Influence of the EFRMS on Biodiversity and Landscape

EFRMS options may include construction, land use change, changes in flood risk, frequency or changes in water levels that have the potential to adversely affect nature conservation, biodiversity and landscape features. Alternatively, such changes may present opportunities to improve the condition of existing habitats or create new biodiversity and landscape features.

22

3.3.5 Climatic Factors

Changes in climate are inevitable.Using the UK Climate Change Projections 2009 (UKCP09) the East of England region is projected to experience changes to both temperatures and rainfall with average temperatures in the summer expected to increase by up to 2.5oC and by 2.2oC in winter by 2050. Rainfall in the summer could decrease by 17% by 2050, and increase in the winter by 14%. Climate change will also result in sea level rise and subsidence which will lead to more frequent flooding of coastal areas. Increased temperatures and greater fluctuation in annual precipitation will further increase pressure on water resources. Essex is already one of the driest areas in the UK.

Essex’s impact on the environment is measured by its “ecological footprint” which shows the amount of resources used in Essex compared to the level of resources available globally. The analysis for Essex identifies that Essex as a whole is using more natural resources than its share. The reason for a higher ecological footprint per person in Essex compared to the UK average is largely due to transport, more specifically to car and rail travel.

The burning of fossil fuels, changes in land use, and various industrial processes are adding heat-trapping gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), to the atmosphere. One of the main causes of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is through the burning of fossil fuels for: electricity; heating dwellings and other buildings; and transportation (using internal combustion of fossil fuels and fossil fuel products).

The Domestic sector produced the largest amount of CO2 emissions per capita in Essex at 2.1kt. This level is fairly consistent across all local authority areas in Essex. The industry and commercial sector emits the lowest amount of CO2 per capita within Essex at 1.8kt but between districts this varies with Harlow being the largest emitter at 3.2kt and Castle Point being the lowest emitter at 1kt. The road transport sector recorded high emissions of CO2 per capita in Uttlesford, Brentwood and Braintree at 3, 3 and 2.6kt respectively compared to the lowest emitter Harlow, which only produced 1.0kt. Overall, Essex has the highest estimated traffic flows than its neighbouring counties within the East of England and although traffic flow within Essex has showed signs of decreasing since 2007 it remains around 8,377 million vehicle miles per year4.

The transport sector consumes the largest amount of energy within Essex compared to the domestic and industry and commercial sectors. As a whole Essex reportedly consumed 29,919 GWh of energy in 2009.

Essex has the capacity to generate over 180 MW of energy using renewable energy resources that are either in operation, under construction or with planning consent. The largest amount of generating capacity is from landfill gas at 66.3 MW. The current energy generation per year within Essex is 849.2 GWh (0.8492 MW) and more than of which comes from dedicated biomass.

Influence of the EFRMS on Climatic Factors

The EFRMS options have the potential to lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions through construction or intensive maintenance. Alternatively, options may

4 Department for Transport data

23

provide an opportunity to reduce emissions by adopting more sustainable approaches to flood management.

The flood risk options may provide the opportunity to address any potential increase in flood risk due to climate change.

3.3.6 Material Assets

Housing

Over 60% of Essex residents live in urban areas, which include the four main towns of Basildon with 100,000 residents, Chelmsford with 100,000 residents, Colchester with over 105,000 residents, and Harlow with 90,000 residents5.

There are around 602,760 dwellings currently within Essex6 but demand and pressure for more housing is expected to increase as the population is projected to expand. This future need has resulted in the provision of new housing being a key issue for all local authorities.

In the period 2010/11 Essex delivered a net increase of 2,786 dwellings across all districts and boroughs. Completions can be seen to vary across the county, with Colchester (633) delivering the most completions and Maldon (36) the least.

Housing trajectories show that across the period 2001 to 2026, Essex is expected to experience a net increase of at least 95,085 new dwellings, 52,897 of which will be built from 2011. A large proportion of the provision up to 2026 will come from Colchester (21,122), Chelmsford (15,967) and Tendring (10,378).

Local authorities are also required to show a five-year supply of deliverable land for housing. A summation of AMR targets would provide around 23,600 net completions in the county over the next 5 years, and current supply indicates that this will be exceeded with 23,866 net completions being delivered. There is variation in performance against AMR targets however. With an expected total of 2,614 completions over the period 2011 – 2016, Basildon greatly exceeds its AMR target of 1,410, as does Tendring with expected completions totalling 2,454 compared to a target of 1,554. Conversely, additional housing completions are expected to total 1,477 in Harlow against an AMR 5 year total of 2,965.

Economy

The economy of Essex is large and generally prosperous, with high standards of living. Although unemployment remains high at 6.4% in 2011 it remains below the national average. Wages are higher than the national averages for both residence based (£563.3) and workplace based (£498.7) earnings7. Higher value earnings are found in the west of Essex largely due to greater connections into London.

Indicative economic forecast for job growth in Essex was 106,500 jobs by 2031. The highest levels of growth are expected within Chelmsford and Colchester at 23,500 and 18,000 respectively.

5 Essex Transport Strategy 2011

6 DCLG, 2010 Live Tables

7 NOMIS data for 2011

24

There are approximately 58,740 businesses in Essex which is a higher number of active enterprises compared to any of its nearest neighbouring counties. However annual growth in the number of businesses has been slightly below the national level within Essex at 0.41%. 63% of Essex businesses have rural based locations and are predominantly small scale; around 70% have no more than four employees and only 1-2% have 100 or more8.

In keeping with the national trend the service sector accounts for a large proportion of the Essex economy providing 82.7% of jobs, a quarter of which are within public administration, health and education and another quarter in distribution, hotels and restaurants.

Agricultural

In Essex, approximately 72% of the 369,394ha land area is farmland and a significant amount of this is of high grade soils. There are significant areas of Grade 1 agricultural land within Tendring and Rochford Districts, and smaller areas within Maldon District and Colchester Borough. The majority of agricultural land within Essex can be broadly classified as Grade 2 in the north and Grade 3 to the south. This is related to the location of the Essex till, with better quality land located in the north-west of the County.

Mineral Resources

The geology of Essex can be split into three broad zones: North-western Essex which is composed mainly of chalk; mid-Essex which is made up of sands, gravels, acidic soil and glacial outwash; and coastal areas which are composed of clays and marshes.

The main mineral resources in Essex are sand and gravel, also known as aggregates, and Essex is the largest producer and consumer of these two materials in the East of England. The County has 24 active sand and gravel sites, 2 brick clay and 1 chalk site, and 25 dedicated and active sites for aggregate recycling. 25% of the aggregate extracted is exported outside of the County and most of it is transported to London. Essex also imports a significant amount of ‘hard rock’ from the East Midlands and South West and is capable of doing so with the existing infrastructure of 4 wharves and 4 rail depots within the County.

Protecting valued countryside may constrain where mineral development can take place and competing interests for land can threaten the sterilisation of Essex's mineral resources through development over mineral bearing land. However, once extraction has occurred quarries can present opportunities for environmental enhancement including biodiversity, recreation, agriculture, surface water storage and potential to alleviate flood risk.

Waste Management

In 2010/11 0.66mt of household waste was managed in Essex, the equivalent to 548kg per household, of which 30% was recycled, 20% composted, and 50% landfilled. There are approximately 299 waste facilities dispersed throughout Essex and

8 Essex Local Economic Assessment and ONS

25

Southend at the base date of 31 March 20119. This includes 15 landfill sites which separately hold inert, non-hazardous and hazardous waste.

Transport Infrastructure

Essex has good transport connections by road, rail, air and sea. The nationally important M11, M25, A12 and A120 run through the county, and major local roads including the A13, A127, A120 and A414 provide good coverage. Three main rail lines radiate from London, supplemented by a number of branch lines, serving 57 railway stations, and the London Underground extends into the south of the county. As a result of its proximity to London, there is a large commuter population. The county also contains two major ‘International Gateways’: the UK’s third busiest airport at Stansted (which handles around 20 million passengers each year); and Harwich International sea port which provides nationally important connections to Holland and Denmark.10

However there are persistent network efficiency issues on both the roads and rail with a number of strategic inter-urban routes operating at or near to capacity and the two mainline railway networks being at or above their capacity during the morning and evening peaks.

Around 6% of traffic on Essex’s roads is made up of HGVs, rising to nearly a fifth on the Essex section of the M25, 16% on the M11 and around 14% on sections of the A12 and A12011. There are also around 50 freight trains passing through Essex each day, travelling mainly between Felixstowe and the North-West via London12.

Travel by car is the preferred travel choice for most trips within Essex; however travel by train represents a higher proportion of trips made than in other comparable areas. This is largely attributed to the fact that a large proportion of commuting trips out of Essex are accommodated by the rail network.

The average Essex resident commuting distance is 14km (9miles) which is 4km (2.5miles) above the national average and also reflects the importance of London as a source of employment, particularly for those living to the west of the county. Apart from those who travel to London, journey to work data for Essex residents indicates that a high proportion of people live in close proximity to their place of work, with 30% of residents living less than 3 miles from their job13.

Accessibility to key services such as employment, healthcare, education and retail provision for Essex residents is greatest in the centre of urban settlements and decreases considerably in the most rural parts of the county. Vulnerable Essex residents currently have relatively poor access to services and Essex has one of the lowest numbers of households with good access to key services or work within the East of England. Values were indexed with a base of 100 for England and Essex scored 87 while neighbouring county of Hertfordshire and the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend-On-Sea scored 127, 119 and 142 respectively14.

9 Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2010-2011


11 Average Annual Daily Traffic Flow (AADF) data produced by the Department for Transport, 2010

12 Strategic Freight Network (2008) Network Rail


14 2010 Accessibility Statistics, Department for Transport

26

Influence of the EFRMS on Material Assets

The EFRMS options will seek to manage flood risk to critical infrastructure and material assets within Essex. The implementation of options has the potential to disrupt critical transport infrastructure (such as road or rail networks), waste management facilities, utilities (such as clean water) or access to community care facilities (hospitals or health centres). The location of such infrastructure may influence the range of available options.

The options may change the frequency and extent of flooding leading to consequent changes in the use of land affecting its versatility and or productivity.

The EFRMS options may have the potential to compromise mineral resources and degrade soil quality and/or function and, as a result, what that land can be used for, e.g. by construction activities or increasing the seasonal period during which soil is waterlogged.

3.3.7 Cultural Heritage

The management of Essex’s historic environment, which includes designated and undesignated landscapes, buildings and below ground archaeology is important to protect the setting in which people live and to ensure development is sustainable Essex. There are a large number of sites of cultural and historic importance across Essex, these include:

Historic landscapes.

12,975 Listed Buildings are distributed across the whole of Essex, with a greater concentration to the north particularly in the districts of Uttlesford and Braintree and also around historic towns such as Colchester.

193 buildings are currently ‘at risk’ (‘at risk and ‘newly at risk’) according to the Heritage at Risk Register. This accounts for 1.5% of the total 13,254 Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments in Essex.

279 Scheduled Monuments, ranging from prehistoric burial mounds to unusual examples of World War II defensive structures, and distributed throughout the county.

193 designated Conservation Areas of which some are counted more than once where they lie within several districts.

38 historic parks and gardens.

One historic battlefield site

36,214 known archaeological sites

These historic environment assets are afforded varying degrees of protection from inappropriate development which would impact upon them and their setting.

Influence of the EFRMS on Cultural Heritage

The EFRMS options may involve construction activities, land use changes or alterations to flooding regimes that can adversely affect historic environment sites and

27

their settings. The options may also manage the flood risk to heritage features or lead to improved access to historic environment sites.

3.3.8 Air Quality

The SEA of the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy concluded that significant impacts on air quality as a result of the strategy were unlikely to occur and therefore it was scoped out of the assessment. Having reviewed the objectives of the EFRMS it is concluded that significant impacts on air quality as a result of the EFRMS are also unlikely to occur and therefore Air Quality is scoped out of this SEA.

3.4 Data Limitations

Not all the relevant information was available at county level and as a result regional data was used to identify trends but it is believed that the available information shows a comprehensive view on sustainability within the county of Essex.

It should be noted that while the baseline will be continually updated throughout the SEA process, the information outlined within this report represents a snapshot of the information available at the time of undertaking this round of assessments.

3.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment Objectives

The SEA Objectives are based on policy advice and guidance and related to the key environmental issues within the Strategy area. They are used to evaluate, in a clear and consistent manner, the nature and degree of impact and whether significant effects are likely to emerge from the Strategy’s objectives and actions. Table 4 lists the SEA Objectives and identifies the key environmental issues from which they were derived.

28

Table 4: Key Environmental Issues and SEA Objectives


- Past incidences of flooding

- Around 27,000 properties at risk of surface water flooding (from a 1 in 200 year event) in the main settlements

- Flood defence schemes

- Approximately 602,760 dwellings and 58,740 businesses in Essex

- 299 waste facilities including 15 landfill sites

1) To minimise the risk of flooding.

- Water resource issues

- Quality of water bodies particularly their ecological status

2) To maintain and enhance water resources and quality.

- Increasing population

- Accessibility to services and natural greenspace

3) To protect and enhance human health and wellbeing.

- International gateways and nationally and locally important transport routes

- Accessibility to services

4) To ensure the potential impact of flooding on existing and future critical infrastructure is minimised.

- Flood risk zones

- Various sources of flood risk including river flooding, surface water flooding, sewer flooding, tidal flooding and groundwater flooding

5) To ensure that new development is located with respect to the Sequential Test.

- Protection of internationally, nationally and locally designated sites for habitats, species and geological conservation

6) To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity across Essex.

- Large number of historic sites and recorded finds across Essex

- Protection of designated listed buildings, scheduled monuments, battle site and conservation areas.

7) To maintain and/or enhance the character of townscapes, cultural heritage and assets within Essex.

- High grade soils

- Distinct characteristics for each landscape character area and living landscape

- Sensitivity of local landscape to change

8) To protect best quality soil and enhance the quality and character of the landscape.

- Future climate change projections

- Ecological footprint

- Energy consumption

9) To adapt development to the impacts of climate change.

29

Annex C which accompanies this Environmental Report sets out how these SEA Objectives are incorporated into an SEA Framework. An SEA Framework is an important tool in the SEA process that is developed during the scoping phase in line with the Planning Advisory Service’s best practice guidance. It provides the context against which the emerging EFRMS can be assessed and sets out the SEA Objectives; the key questions that should be asked to decipher whether the EFRMS adheres to the principles of sustainability; and indicators which can monitor the impact following implementation.

The SEA of the EFRMS will use the SEA Framework to look at any secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary effects of different elements within the EFRMS in accordance with Annex 1 of the SEA Directive. This will include assessment of the Strategy’s objectives and options and the identification of mitigation measures where appropriate. The findings will be accompanied by appraisal matrices which will document the effects over time. The findings will be presented in a format like that of Table 5 and colour coding will be used for greater clarity.

Table 5: Impact on SEA Objectives

SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term

Medium Term

Long Term

Strong positive impacts on the criterion

Positive impacts on the criterion

Uncertain impacts on the criterion

Negative impacts on the criterion

Strong negative impacts on the criterion

No impact on the criterion

+ +

+

/

-

- -

0

30

4 APPRAISAL OF THE ESSEX FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OBJECTIVES

4.1 Introduction

The consultation version of the EFRMS contains ten overarching objectives which follow the guiding principles for flood risk management in Essex. The actions and measures set out in later sections of the EFRMS seek to support these objectives. Further to these is a set of environmental objectives which accord with the ideals of the Flood and Water Management Act with regards to local strategies showing how they will contribute to achieving wider environmental benefits. These have been assessed under the site level management action ‘Achieve wider Environmental Benefits’ which specifically focuses on their application.

4.2 Appraisal of Strategy Objectives

The ten overarching objectives are:

I. To provide a clear explanation of all stakeholder’s responsibilities in flooding issues.

II. To ensure a clear understanding of the risks of flooding and to indicate where similar information for river and coastal flooding can be found.

III. To define and explain the criteria by which areas at risk of flooding from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses are assessed and resources are prioritised.

IV. To state how risk management authorities will share information and resources.

V. To ensure households and properties are aware of the level of flood risk they face and the steps they will need to take to manage the risk.

VI. To set out clear and consistent plans for risk management so that communities and businesses can make informed decisions about the management of the residual risk.

VII. To ensure that planning decisions are properly informed by flooding issues and the impact future planning may have.

VIII. To encourage innovative management of flood and coastal erosion risks, taking account of the needs of communities and the environment.

IX. To ensure that emergency plans and responses to flood incidents are effective and that communities are able to respond properly to flood warnings.

X. To highlight where information regarding other forms of flooding can be found

31


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term ++ + + + + + + + +

Medium Term ++ + + + + + + + +

Long Term ++ + + + + + + + +

Summary

The ten objectives combined will have a significantly positive impact on managing the flood risk within Essex. The reporting and documentation of local flood events; the production of plans for flood risk management; and ensuring that everyone is aware of their role will all assist in minimising the risk of flooding. Increased knowledge on local flood issues and their future impact, particularly with regards to climate change, will also contribute to more informed planning decisions which determine the location of, and mitigation measures required, for new development. It is likely that the objectives would positively support human health and wellbeing and the environment in general by stipulating the need for management schemes to have regard to them. They could also lead to improved water quality through the implementation of measures such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and local action to reduce local flooding which is often linked to the pollution of water courses. Prioritisation of resources to manage flood risk should also ensure that the impact on critical infrastructure is minimised however it is important to note that these objectives don’t seek to protect all structures and developments from flooding because financial constraints would make this unattainable.

32

5 APPRAISAL OF THE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE FLOOD RISK IN ESSEX

5.1 Introduction

The EFRMS sets out a series of actions which will be taken forward to meet the objectives and guiding principles for flood risk management in Essex. They are divided into two types:

County-wide strategic actions

Site level, specific management actions

Each of the county-wide strategic actions, which inform the management actions, has been put forward with three options (alternatives) that have been considered during the preparation of the EFRMS. At this stage the EFRMS is seeking opinion by consultation on which of the three options are favoured. Our assessment will aim to identify those options which provide the most positive environmental outcomes and these will be put forward in our preferred list of actions in the conclusion.

This section sets out the actions; reviews their significant impacts and the impact of alternatives considered; and highlights any proposed mitigation measures.

5.2 County-Wide Strategic Actions

There are four county-wide strategic actions to combat flood risk. These will form the basis of annual action plans which will contain more detailed information. Each strategic action is supported by measures which the LLFA intend to take to address each action. The three options proposed for each action detail different ways of delivering these measures, and these have all been subjected to SEA below. For the purpose of our assessment the options have been numbered 1 to 3 for ease of reference. Please refer to the relevant sections within the EFRMS report for context surrounding each issue and their associated delivery options.

5.2.1 Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk

Options

1. Do nothing 2. Implement mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents 3. Implement proactive measures and mechanisms for reporting and recording

flood incidents

33


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

Option 3

Short Term ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Medium Term ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Long Term ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Summary

A negative assessment has been made for Option 1 which is the ‘Do nothing’ approach. Understanding of local level flood risk can assist in minimising the impacts of flooding and the consequences of climate change by enabling more informed decision making. The approach for Option 1 does not seek to improve current knowledge and is therefore more likely to hinder the production of informed flood risk assessments and result in measures, aimed at minimising the impact of flooding, being less effective now and in the future. Strongly negative impacts have not been assessed as there is still existing localised strategies and information which could be utilised.

There are positive associations with Option 2 as it provides for a repository for flood related data which represents a better approach than what currently exists. Implementing mechanisms for producing a database of all incidences will lead to improved local knowledge on localised flooding and ascertain where further investigations are required to assess whether the risk or impacts associated with flooding can be minimised.

There is a degree of confusion over the phrasing of Option 3 which, although one option, refers to two different issues – adopting proactive measures to gain a better understanding of local flood risk and implementing mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents. Greater distinction should be made between these two approaches. Also, the assessment of Options 2 and 3 within the EFRMS conflicts with the text in the action. It states that efforts under Option 3 unlike Option 2 would be co-ordinated with historic incidences recorded to provide greater understanding on both current and likely future flood risk. However, the supporting text doesn’t mention the

34

recording of historical incidences or infer that the method for recording and reporting flood incidents would differ between the two options.

The SEA assumes that the latter part of Option 3 (implementing mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents) would result in the same positive outcomes as Option 2. The proactive approach related to this option seeks to deliver detailed modelling of surface water which would inform future development, and identify site specific mitigation measures so that the impacts of flooding can be reduced. This would strengthen the options impact on adapting to climate change and minimising flood risk creating significant positives. If “mini-SWMPs” were to be carried out for locally important flood risk areas positive impacts could also be recorded for improving water quality and minimising the impacts on water infrastructure as SWMPs lead to sustainable surface water management measures be adopted such and SuDS.

5.2.2 Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk

Options

1. Do Nothing

2. Develop a SuDS Design and Adoption Guide and agree mechanisms for co-operation between SuDS Approval Body and Local Planning Authorities

3. Ensure that all LPAs adopt similar standards in SFRAs and other documents regarding all forms of flood risk


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term ++ + + ++ 0 + + + +

Medium Term ++ + + ++ 0 + + + +

Long Term ++ + + ++ 0 + + + +

Option 3

Short Term ++ 0 + + + 0 0 0 +

Medium Term ++ 0 + + + 0 0 0 +

Long Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 +

35

Summary

The ‘Do nothing’ approach (Option 1) would have negative impacts on flood risk management within Essex. Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) would continue to include only fluvial and coastal flood risks thereby exclude or have little consideration of important local flood risk. There would also remain no clear local level guidance or co-ordination on the legislative requirements for SuDS which could hinder the effective delivery and adoption of SuD schemes which are considered sustainable measures. This option therefore fails to have regard to the future impacts of climate change at the local level.

Option 2, the production of local guidance for SuDS and establishing of mechanisms for co-ordination, would have a positive impact across many of the objectives within this SEA Framework. The commitment to produce a SuDS Design Guide and to provide the means for co-operation between the SuDS Approval Body and Local Planning Authorities would reduce confusion over the roles and responsibility and provide clear local guidance on the design requirements that developers, consultants and designers should to follow when creating SuDS. This option specifically deals with minimising the surface water flood risk of new development and consequently has a strong positive impact on SEA Objective 1. A strong positive is also recognised for SEA Objective 4 because the SuDS design guide will deal with the planning, design and delivery of attractive and high quality SuDS schemes which trunk roads and other major infrastructure would benefit from thereby minimising their potential impact from flooding. It is stated that the guide will allow for schemes which have multiple benefits to the environment (SEA Obj 6) and will be attractively designed (SEA Obj 7), on top of the benefits which would be realised against mitigating the impacts of flooding (SEA Obj 3 & 8) and preserving water quality (SEA Obj 2), SuDS will also aid in adapting new and existing development to the impacts of climate change (SEA Obj 9).

Option 3 seeks to ensure that SFRAs are standardised between the Local Planning Authorities covered by the EFRMS. It is clearly stated within the associated text that SFRAs will contain more information on local flood risk than before recognising that local surface and groundwater flooding threatens more homes than potentially larger scale fluvial and coastal flood events. In aiding the identification of potential flood risks against potential receptors a strong positive assessment is made against this option for its impact on minimising flood risk. Emphasis is also given in the supporting text to the ability to use SFRAs to inform the Sequential Test, allowing for the positive impact against SEA Objective 5. More in depth assessments of risk when locating new development would assist the protection of critical infrastructure and promote human wellbeing through the delivery of housing with minimal flood risk for the population. The positive assessments are strengthened by ensuring that there is a consistency of approach between the SFRAs that would be produced by each Local Planning Authority. A uniform approach would allow for a rapid development of understanding across the county and would provide a strong basis through which to address the remaining identified issues within the EFRMS. However, it is worthy to note that this option could be difficult to implement due to varying budgetary constraints between the Local Planning Authorities if the standard SFRA was very technical. Also, places may have different development interests or infrastructure pressures which the standards must take into consideration.

36

It is considered that Option 2 and Option 3 are not mutually exclusive and as such it is recommended that these are both followed.

5.2.3 Raise Community Awareness

Options

1. Do Nothing

2. Provide information for those aware of their risk of steps that can be taken

3. Proactively inform those who may not be aware of their level of risk and advise them on what steps to take


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Option 3

Short Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

Public engagement is key to reducing the impacts of flooding on a localised level as there are steps that can be taken by any individual to aid the safeguarding of their property from flooding. As such there is a clear differentiation between the options, from the negative impact that would be realised from making no attempt at public engagement to the positive impacts of proactively engaging individuals and communities.

Option 2 is assessed as having a generally positive performance across relevant indicators but this positive impact is slightly weaker than that realised under Option 3.

37

By only informing those who are already aware of their personal flood risk there will be large proportions of the population who will remain uninformed. These unaware residents may still be at the risk of flooding, with a lack of knowledge the result of being either due to them having only recently moved into the area, only being at risk in extreme events, or at risk due to extremely localised flooding caused by property modifications. The positive assessment in this case recognises that this option would still offer relative merit above Option 1. The EFRMS itself notes the importance of community engagement and states that this should be a priority. Given that there are measures that can be implemented by property owners to offset flood risk and/or minimise the impacts of flooding, this stance is agreed with and as such a ‘Do nothing’ approach is assessed as negative.

Option 3 provides a positive impact on SEA Objective 1 which seeks to reduce the impact of flooding and on SEA Objective 3 which seeks to protect and enhance human health and wellbeing. These two positive impacts will be further strengthened through the recognised need to communicate information differently to people which is respective to the level of flood risk they will likely experience. Even small changes to property, such as paving over permeable surfaces, can result in localised flooding episodes and as such it is important information is disseminated appropriately. The need for inclusive dissemination is recognised and it is stated that communication will utilise a number of different channels. However this option does not build on Option 2 by proactively informing households that are aware of the risk in addition to those households who aren’t aware which is why it does not afford any strong positive impacts. A positive impact is also assessed against SEA Objective 9 which seeks to adapt development to climate change. As part of the raising of community awareness, informed estimates to the likely evolution of flood risk with respect to climatic factors will be made, whilst a proactive attempt to ensure that local communities have prepared themselves and their properties for flood events will likely reduce the impact such an event could cause.

It is recommended that Options 2 and 3 are combined as they would cumulatively have a strong positive impact on minimising flood risk. Together the actions would raise awareness of flooding to a much greater number of people who are at risk.

5.2.4 Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities

Options

1. Disband current partnership arrangements and rely on ad hoc discussions

2. Maintain status quo

3. Convert to a catchment rather than an administrative basis for partnerships

38


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Option 1

Short Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Medium Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Long Term - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Option 2

Short Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Option 3

Short Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

The advantages of partnership working are clear in that it allows the Lead Local Flood Authority to pool knowledge and data between disparate stakeholders, leading to a more efficient co-ordination of time and resources, and a holistic basis on which to form an opinion. A well-developed communicative framework will also allow disparate stakeholders to be aware of the intended direction of other stakeholders and they would then have an established reporting mechanism through which to highlight how those directions will impact on their own interests. A disbanding of these partnerships as suggested by Option 1 will not allow for the positive impacts described above and as such negative assessments are made regarding its potential impact on minimising flood risk and adapting to climatic change.

Option 2 suggests a maintaining of the status quo which would have largely positive impacts. The established partnerships and committees ensure the sharing of information to better inform, co-ordinate and manage flood risk across Essex. A partnership which includes infrastructure suppliers like water and highways agencies, and national agencies that manage other sources of flood risk would support the SEA Objectives seeking to reduce flood risk (SEA Obj 1); protect infrastructure and water sources (SEA Obj 3 & 4); in addition to ensuring that climate change is mitigated against (SEA Obj 9).

Option 3 has also been assessed as having a positive impact across the SEA Framework. Whilst it is recognised that such an approach would be more problematic for Essex County Council to co-ordinate given that catchments will cross administrative boundaries, there is the potential for mitigation and management to be more effectively delivered by managing flood risk on a catchment basis rather than by geo-political boundaries. The parties involved would be the same as Option 2 therefore the positive

39

assessments are replicated. Whilst there is the potential for a working framework to have positive impacts across other areas of the SEA Framework, it is considered that this is not the intention of the action and such impacts would likely be indirect or minor, if realised at all.

5.3 Site Level, Specific Management Actions

The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment has allowed the plan makers to identify six site level management actions for tackling flood risk in areas designated within the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment or for any further site analysis. These actions will inform future action plans on the types of localised flood management available. Each action has been assessed against the SEA Framework having regard to short, medium and long-term effects, and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects.

5.3.1 Encourage Implementation of Flood Resilience Measures and Property Protection Schemes


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

This action would likely flow from raising community awareness (countywide strategic action 3) and as such the assessment made is the same as the most sustainable options associated with that issue. Property protection measures, undertaken through an informed understanding of their need, will reduce flood risk (SEA Obj 1) to personal properties on a localised level, and will thereby have directly positive impacts on human health and wellbeing (SEA Obj 3). As more properties adopt such measures the likelihood of flooding may be reduced further in the long term. A positive impact is assessed against SEA Objective 9 which seeks to adapt development to climate change as it is assessed that as part of this encouragement, reference will be made to the likely evolution of flooding due to climatic factors. A significantly positive assessment cannot be made as the action does not provide certainty that such measures will be implemented particularly with regards to their funding. Whilst there is the potential for community flood proofing to be able to have positive impacts across other areas of the SEA Framework, it is considered that this is not the intention of the policy and such impacts would likely be generally minor if realised at all. As such no impact has been assessed on other parts of the SEA Framework.

40

5.3.2 Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + + + + 0 + + + +

Medium Term + + + + 0 + + + +

Long Term + + + + 0 + + + +

Summary

The success of this action would be related to the second countywide strategic action, namely that of introducing a robust SuDS Framework. SuDS when properly implemented would have positive impacts across many of the SEA objectives within this SEA Framework. On top of the benefits which would be realised against mitigating flood risk and the impacts of flooding (SEA Obj 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8) and preserving water quality (SEA Obj 2), SuDS will also aid in adapting new and existing development to the impacts of climate change (SEA Obj 9). A significantly positive assessment cannot be made across the SEA Framework as the action does not provide certainty that such measures will be implemented, only the promotion that they should occur.

5.3.3 Manage Overland Flow Paths


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 ++

Summary

As an action taken to directly reduce the risk of flooding, there is a strong positive impact on SEA Objective 1. The stated measures include actions that would improve flood resistance to personal property which affords a positive assessment against SEA Objective 3. The measures are also directly linked to allowing water to be channelled

41

effectively through highways and as such there is a positive impact against SEA Objective 4 which seeks to ensure that the impacts of flooding on infrastructure is minimised. A positive assessment has also been made against SEA Objective 9. The supporting text to this action states that urban areas will be re-designed to accommodate ‘Urban Blue Corridors’ and as such a positive assessment is made against SEA Objective 9 due to the fact that both new and existing development will be adapted to become more robust to the effects of flooding. In the long term this action is likely to result in a significant positive impact because more ‘Urban Blue Corridors’ will be in place to manage any future increases in flood risk.

5.3.4 Review Land Management Methods


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Medium Term + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Long Term + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Summary

In seeking to provide guidance for owners and land users on land management to directly help reduce flood risk in key areas this action affords a positive impact against SEA Objective 1. It would also promote better methods of land management to be carried forward to minimise the impact on climate change (SEA Obj 9). There is an agricultural focus to this action and as such a positive impact is assessed against SEA Objective 8 which seeks to protect the best and most versatile soils. Flood water running through fields will pick up nutrients and material as it travels, and could create diffuse pollution issues when it eventually drains. Actions to minimise surface water runoff including greater tree coverage could therefore have a positive impact on protecting water quality (SEA Obj 2) and, with regards to the example provided, also enhance the natural environment (SEA Obj 6). Further, it is assessed that minimising and delaying the surface runoff will have a positive impact on the effective use of drainage systems which is a critical infrastructure (SEA Obj 4).

5.3.5 Review Asset Management and Maintenance Methods


SEA Objectives

42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Medium Term + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Long Term + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Summary

The focus of this action is primarily on maintaining and managing drainage infrastructure, water courses and important assets within the highways network. Surface water flooding is often caused by drainage systems becoming compromised or blocked entirely and as such a management programme which seeks to avoid this will reduce the likelihood of flooding wherever it may occur, allowing for a positive impact on SEA Objective 1. Drainage systems and highways are both critical infrastructure; therefore by ensuring that the flood risk is minimised and that they continue to operate efficiently this action would positively impact SEA Objective 4. A register of assets and the clarification of maintenance responsibilities should ensure the future up keep and adaptability of these assets to climate change (SEA Obj 9). Further, the register will assist in the maintenance of assets which have surroundings that are vulnerable to instances of flood risk such as residential properties thereby reducing their risk and protecting wellbeing and human health.

5.3.6 Achieve wider Environmental Benefits


SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short Term + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

Medium Term + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

Long Term + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

Summary

There is a clear focus within this action on improving environmental features. This action, which aims to ensure that wider environmental benefits are sort through the inclusion of Environmental Objectives, promotes significant positive impacts to various aspects of the natural environment. Most prominent are the impacts on biodiversity and on water, as a resource and in terms of its quality. Further the Environmental Objectives specifically recognise the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change through measures to manage flood risk. Adhering to the Water Framework Directive targets, which specifically aim to protect all water bodies and enhance current water quality through the reduction of pollutants and the promotion of SuDS, not only

43

supports SEA Objective 2 but SEA Objective 4 (the protection of critical infrastructure) as well. Contributing to the provision of green infrastructure would also benefit this Objective in addition to improving human health and wellbeing by delivering more accessible green space.

The Environmental Objectives afford a significantly positive assessment for SEA Objective 6 by conserving nationally significant biodiversity and geodiversity sites, protecting species and habitats that are listed on the national and local Biodiversity Action Plans, and by seeking to enhance all of these features. It is also likely that the quality of the landscape character where these protected sites are will be preserved resulting in a positive impact for SEA Objective 8.

A positive assessment was made for minimising flood risk (SEA Obj. 1). Working within the premise of environmental protection the strategy will incorporate measures such as SuDS that protect or enhance the natural environment but with the primary aim of managing flood risk.

44

6 CONCLUSIONS AND MONITORING

6.1 Conclusions

The ten overarching objectives for the EFRMS capture and support all the themes within the SEA Objectives. The outcome for SEA Objective 1, which seeks to minimise flood risk, is further strengthened by the synergistic impact of all the objectives in unison. By ensuring greater understanding of the risks and promoting more collaboration and sharing of resources, communities and responsible bodies will be better placed to prioritise resources, adopt plans, and implement local measures to effectively minimise the risk. The intention of the strategy is to set out the roles and responsibilities and to improve local flood risk management so as to minimise the impact of flooding on infrastructure, businesses and properties. One of the objectives (VIII) does strive to consider the needs of the environment but there is some ambiguity as to what parts of the environment it refers to. If it was made clear that ‘environment’ referred to the natural and built environment the positive impacts associated with SEA Objectives 6, 7 and 8 would be reinforced.

The ‘Do nothing’ approach for all county-wide actions would result in largely negative potential outcomes across the SEA Framework. Understanding local flood risk is vital for collaborative working and appropriate management to be implemented; and for the level of risk to communities, businesses, infrastructure and the environment as a whole to be realised. Such an approach, adopted for all the county-wide actions could result in strong cumulative negative impacts on the SEA Objectives, particularly with regards to minimising the impact and risk of flooding. The impact is likely to worsen overtime due to the inability of responsible bodies and communities to incorporate measures within new and existing developments that respond to changes in climate.

The other options put forward for these county-wide actions offer more beneficial outcomes. Option 3 for the actions ‘Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk’ and ‘Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ have potential for providing significant positive impacts when enacted independently. They both strongly support the minimisation of flood risk. The latter action ensures that local level flood risk is incorporated within SFRAs which are used to inform planning policy, while the former promotes the compilation of a comprehensive record of past flood events and strategic co-ordination resulting in greater opportunity to receive funding. Option 3 for the ‘Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk’ action also strongly supports the SEA Objective on adapting development to the impacts of climate change while Option 3 of the ‘Adapt Spatial Planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ action strongly supports SEA Objective 4. The SuDS design guide will deal with the planning, design and delivery of attractive and high quality SuDS schemes which trunk roads and other major infrastructure would benefit from thereby minimising their potential impact from flooding.

A detailed assessment of the cumulative impacts of the county-wide actions is ideally suited when it is known what option is adopted for each action following consultation. However, this round of assessment has identified which options would produce the most beneficial outcomes in environmental terms and, as such, it is possible to evaluate any potential cumulative and synergistic impacts that may arise if they were adopted. Options 2 and 3 put forward for the county-wide action ‘Raise Community Awareness’ both seek to provide information to the community, however the former is directed to those who are already aware of the risks while the latter is to those who

45

aren’t. Independently they both afford a positive impact to minimising the risk and impact of flooding (Obj 1) but when combined into one preferred option they would result in a strong positive outcome on minimising the impacts of flooding. This is because together would raise awareness of flooding to a much greater number of people who are at risk.

The matrix in Table 6 reports the impacts on the SEA Objectives of the preferred options for each action and shows that together these actions effectively address and support all of the SEA Objectives. Two actions have been formed from an amalgamation of two options as this provides the most environmentally beneficial outcomes. These are ‘Adapt Spatial planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ and ‘Raise Community Awareness’. The last county-wide action in the EFRMS, ‘Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities’, could be either Option 2 or 3 as they have the same environmental outcomes. Although, it is recognised that Option 3 which is catchment wide partnership working would be more problematic for Essex County Council.

Table 6: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for County-Wide Strategic Actions

Suggested Options for Actions

SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk (Option 3)

++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++

Adapt Spatial planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk (Options 2 + 3)

++ + + ++ + + + + +

Raise Community Awareness (Options 2 + 3) ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Establish Working Framework with other Risk Management Authorities (Either Option 2 or 3)

+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

The stated site level actions provide a strong basis for the mitigation of flood risk within Essex. The majority of SEA Objectives are impacted on in a positive manner through at least one of the actions contained within the EFRMS, as shown in the matrix in Table 7. The only SEA Objective where this is not the case is Objective 5 which seeks to ensure that new development can be appropriately located with respect to the Sequential Test. This is not considered to be a significant issue for local action as the Sequential Test is a strategic tool and its importance is suitably addressed and recognised in the assessment of county-wide strategic actions above.

46

Table 7: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for Site Level, Specific Management Actions

Suggested Options for Actions

SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Encourage Implementation of Flood Resilience Measures and Property Protection Schemes

+ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures

+ + + + 0 + + + +

Manage Overland Flow Paths ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 ++

Review Land Management Methods + + 0 + 0 + 0 + +

Review Asset Management and Maintenance Methods

+ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +

Achieve wider Environmental Benefits + ++ + + 0 ++ 0 + ++

A positive impact has been given to SEA Objective 7 through the action to ‘Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures’ because it is likely to provide well designed schemes which contribute to the character of areas. However, there is little consideration within the EFRMS on the impact that local flooding or measures to prevent it have on the historic environment. It is considered appropriate to recognise the value of the historic and built environment within the action ‘Achieve wider Environmental Benefits’, by ensuring that flood defences are in keeping with the existing townscape and, where appropriate, to ensure the protection of built heritage.

The appraisal of the site level options has identified a number of significant positive impacts that may arise following their implementation. These strong impacts are associated with only two actions - ‘Manage Overland Flow Paths’ and ‘Achieve Wider Environmental Benefits’ action. The former seeks to the redesign urban areas to be robust to the effects of flooding which promotes a strong positive assessment against SEA Objective 1. In the long term it will result in more Urban Blue Corridors being created to manage any future increases in flood risk thereby strongly impacting upon SEA Objective 9. The action to ‘Achieve Wider Environmental Benefits’ focuses on improving environmental features which promotes significant positive impacts on water, as a resource and in terms of its quality by adhering to the Water Framework Directive targets (SEA Obj 2). It also strongly supports the protection of biodiversity and geodiversity of local and national importance (SEA Obj 6) with a number of Environmental Objectives specifically related to their conservation. Further, one of the Environmental Objectives specifically recognises the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change through measures to manage flood risk (SEA Obj 9).

The local level actions will cumulatively have a strong contribution to minimising the risk and impacts of local flooding. Improving resilience at an individual and community level, together with the implementation of sustainable drainage schemes and greater ownership of maintaining assets raises the profile of local flood

47

prevention and ensures that measures are adopted to minimise its impact. Maintaining drainage infrastructure and creating Urban Blue Corridors are two different approaches to reduce surface water flooding which can disrupt the efficiency of critical infrastructure. When implemented together they would result in a strong positive impact on SEA Objective 4.

6.2 Recommendations:

The assessment of the objectives and actions has identified a number of areas where the EFRMS could be strengthened to promote a more sustainable approach. The recommendations will help inform further stages in preparation of the EFRMS. They are detailed below:

Reinforce the positive impacts associated with SEA Objectives 6, 7 and 8 in the assessment of the Strategy’s overarching objectives by referring to the natural and built environment in Objective VIII.

Provide greater clarity between the two approaches that Option 3 of the county-wide action ‘Improve Understanding of Local Flood Risk’ seeks to make - adopting proactive measures to gain a better understanding of local flood risk and implementing mechanisms for reporting and recording flood incidents. Further, details of the differences between the latter approach in Option 3 and the approach for Option 2 would aid this assessment.

Combine Options 2 and Option 3 of the county-wide action ‘Adapt Spatial planning Policy to Reflect Local Flood Risk’ to increase the number of positive impacts across the SEA Framework.

Combine Options 2 and 3 of the county-wide action ‘Raise Community Awareness’ to strengthen its impact on minimising flood risk. Together the actions would raise awareness of flooding to a much greater number of people who are at risk.

It is important to recognise the value of the historic and built environment within the site level action ‘Achieve Wider Environmental Benefits’, by ensuring that flood defences are in keeping with the existing townscape and, where appropriate, to ensure the protection of built heritage.

6.3 Monitoring

The significant sustainability effects of implementing this Strategy must be monitored in order to identify unforeseen adverse effects and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action. Annex C of this Environmental Report contains suggested indicators in order to monitor each of the SEA Objectives, however these may not all be collected due to limited resources and difficulty in data availability or collection.

48

7 NEXT STEPS

This Environmental Report will be subject to public consultation for 12 weeks alongside the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy.

All comments on the content of this Environmental Report should be sent to:

[email protected]

Flood Risk Management Team Essex County Council E3, County Hall Chelmsford CM1 1QH

Please clearly identify any comments which relate to the Environmental Report, and respond within the consultation deadline.

All responses received will be reviewed and taken into consideration for the next stage of appraisal process. This will involve a Strategic Environmental Assessment being undertaken on the final iteration of the Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy.

mailto:[email protected]

Consultation environment report - non technical summary

Documents

Transcript of Consultation environment report - non technical summary