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
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
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.
1

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:
1

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
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
2

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
A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes,
and environmental protection objectives
Stage A: Setting the
A2: Collecting baseline information
context and
objectives,
establishing the
A3: Identifying environmental issues and problems
baseline and deciding
on the scope
A4: Developing the SEA objectives and framework
A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA
B1: Testing the plan objectives against the SEA objectives.
B2: Developing strategic alternatives.
Stage B: Developing
and refining options
and assessing effects
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
Stage D: Consulting
on the draft LFRMS
and the SEA Report
C1: Preparing the Environmental 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.
3
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
4
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)
5
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.
6
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.
7
Key Environmental Issues
SEA Objectives
- 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
++
8
No impact on the criterion
3
3.1
APPRAISAL OF THE ESSEX FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY OBJECTIVES
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
9
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.
10
4
4.1
APPRAISAL OF THE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE FLOOD RISK IN
ESSEX
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
11
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
-
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
+
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 coordinated with historic incidences recorded to provide greater understanding on both
current and likely future flood risk. However, the supporting text doesn’t mention the
12
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
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
-
Short Term
++
+
+
++
0
+
+
+
+
Medium Term
++
+
+
++
0
+
+
+
+
Long Term
++
+
+
++
0
+
+
+
+
Short Term
++
0
+
+
+
0
0
0
+
Medium Term
++
0
+
+
+
0
0
0
+
Long Term
++
0
+
+
0
0
0
+
13
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.
14
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
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
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
-
Short Term
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
Medium Term
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
Long Term
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
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
15
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
16
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
-
Short Term
+
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
Medium Term
+
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
Long Term
+
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
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
17
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
18
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
++
19
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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).
20
4.3.5
Review Asset Management and Maintenance Methods
Impact on SEA objectives
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
21
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.
22
5
5.1
CONCLUSIONS AND MONITORING
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
23
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
SEA Objectives
Suggested Options for Actions
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.
24
TABLE 6: MATRIX SHOWING THE IMPACTS OF THE SUGGESTED OPTIONS FOR SITE
LEVEL, SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
SEA Objectives
Suggested Options for Actions
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
25
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:
5.3

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.
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.
26
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.
27
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
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
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.
7

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
8
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.
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.
A description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring.
A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings.
Sections 4, 5 + 6
Section 3.4 + 5
Section 6 + Annex
C
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
9
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.
10
2
2.1
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
AND METHODOLOGY
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
SEA Stages
SEA Tasks
A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and
environmental protection objectives
Stage A: Setting the
context and
A2: Collecting baseline information
objectives,
establishing the
A3: Identifying environmental issues and problems
baseline and deciding
A4: Developing the SEA objectives and framework
on the scope
A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA
Stage B: Developing
B1: Testing the plan objectives against the SEA objectives.
11
SEA Stages
SEA Tasks
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
Stage D: Consulting
on the draft LFRMS
and the SEA Report
C1: Preparing the Environmental 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
2.2.1
E1: Developing aims and methods for monitoring.
E2: Responding to adverse effects.
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.
12
3
3.1
SUSTAINABILITY CONTEXT, BASELINE AND OBJECTIVES
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
13
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)
14
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.
15
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:








16
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.
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”.
17
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
18
Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan 2 (draft consultation) March 2010
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.
19
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-onSea 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
20
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.
21
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
22
Department for Transport data
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
DCLG, 2010 Live Tables
7
NOMIS data for 2011
6
23
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 12% 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
24
Essex Local Economic Assessment and ONS
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
Essex Transport Strategy 2011
11
Average Annual Daily Traffic Flow (AADF) data produced by the Department for Transport, 2010
12
Strategic Freight Network (2008) Network Rail
13
Essex Transport Strategy 2011
14
2010 Accessibility Statistics, Department for Transport
10
25
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
26
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.
27
Table 4: Key Environmental Issues and SEA Objectives
Key Environmental Issues
-
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.
8) To protect best quality soil and enhance
the quality and character of the landscape.
-
High grade soils
Distinct characteristics for each
landscape character area and living
landscape
Sensitivity of local landscape to change
-
Future climate change projections
Ecological footprint
Energy consumption
9) To adapt development to the impacts of
climate change.
-
-
-
-
28
SEA Objectives
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
0
No impact on the criterion
29
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:
30
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
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.
31
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
32
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
-
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
+
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 coordinated with historic incidences recorded to provide greater understanding on both
current and likely future flood risk. However, the supporting text doesn’t mention the
33
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
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
34
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
-
Short Term
++
+
+
++
0
+
+
+
+
Medium Term
++
+
+
++
0
+
+
+
+
Long Term
++
+
+
++
0
+
+
+
+
Short Term
++
0
+
+
+
0
0
0
+
Medium Term
++
0
+
+
+
0
0
0
+
Long Term
++
0
+
+
0
0
0
+
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.
35
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
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
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
-
Short Term
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
Medium Term
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
Long Term
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
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.
36
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
37
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
-
Short Term
+
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
Medium Term
+
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
Long Term
+
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
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
38
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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.
39
5.3.2
Implement Sustainable Drainage and Source Control Measures
Impact on SEA objectives
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
40
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
Impact on SEA objectives
SEA Objectives
41
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
Impact on SEA objectives
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
42
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.
43
6
6.1
CONCLUSIONS AND MONITORING
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
44
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
SEA Objectives
Suggested Options for Actions
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.
45
Table 7: Matrix showing the impacts of the suggested options for Site Level, Specific
Management Actions
SEA Objectives
Suggested Options for Actions
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
46
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:
6.3

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.
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.
47
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.
48