Report by Head of Property, Place and Regeneration (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Property, Place and Regeneration (circulated previously) regarding an update on the provision of Environment Agency (EA) flood defences for Barnstaple.

The Head of Property, Place and Regeneration highlighted the following:

·       The Barnstaple Flood Defence Improvements Study and the Phase 2 Advanced Design Studies for Mill Road/Pilton Park were completed in 2016. This covered improvements to flood defences to protect Cells A and B which extend from Bradiford Water down to the River Yeo, including the Mill Road and Pottington areas of Barnstaple. The work to improve the existing flood defences would make Barnstaple more resilient and help protect the town against the effects of climate change.

·       This work was included in the EA project pipeline with detailed design work due to commence in 2021 and construction in 2023. The scheme had an estimated cost of £7m, with £5.5m coming from Government Flood Defence Grant in Aid. The funding gap of £1.5m still needed to be found from other sources, which was being investigated by the Council with EA support.

·       The EA and NDC have worked in partnership for some time to explore the upgrading of flood defences in Barnstaple. This has resulted in the delivery of new defences at Anchorwood and identified what was required on the opposite bank.

·       To refine the data contained in their capital programme, the EA carried out some analytical work and an outline cost benefit assessment was conducted in June 2021. This interrogated the 2016 model data, and used their understanding of the underlying flood risks and climate change guidance to examine the current condition and expected lifespan of flood defence assets in Barnstaple.

·       This review revealed that the current defences offer a better standard of protection to existing residential properties and have a longer residual life than originally thought. The defences should be able to handle current and future climate change flood risk (sea level rise and increased river flows) until the 2050s and with only minor works the lifetime of the existing defences can be extended to meet these demands.

·       As such, the Barnstaple flood defence programme was no longer an immediate priority for the EA. As a result the upgraded flood defences have been removed from the EA pipeline programme and the monies are no longer available. DEFRA funding was based on protecting existing properties and does not take into account the release of land for additional housing.

·       This of course had significant implications for the regeneration of Barnstaple, the housing crisis and five year housing land supply as when allocating sites and determining planning applications, sites must show that they were protected from flood risk for the life time of the development (or 100 years for residential development). The models show that the current defences would need upgrading in the next 30 years. 

·       Ongoing discussions have taken place with the EA in relation to both how we consider existing applications and those that will come forward before the realisation of the defence work.

·       If a planning application was received for residential development in an area at risk of flooding it must first pass the sequential test (i.e the Local Planning Authority must be satisfied that the development cannot be located elsewhere, or that when applying the sequential test, the wider sustainability benefits outweigh the ability to relocate it). If development can pass the sequential test then the exception test must be applied and show that the development would be safe for its lifetime and won’t increase flood risk elsewhere.

·       Historically the Council as Local Planning Authority had resisted applications that have relied on evacuation plans and safe refuge to meet the exception test and have insisted that if development would be affected by flood risk over the course of its lifetime that the finished floor level of residential accommodation must be built above the anticipated flood level and that safe access and egress must be achieved.

·       Officers have met on a number of occasions to consider the acceptability of evacuation and refuge and consider that each case would need to be determined on its individual merits in terms of risk and the planning balance. If mitigation plans were accepted by the emergency services and appropriate evacuation, refuge and mitigation measures can be identified then taking into account, social, economic and other environmental benefits, officers consider we should be supporting proposals rather than delaying the opportunity to boost housing supply and support the regeneration of the town. The mitigation measures might include safe refuge, an emergency evacuation plan across all accommodation, agreement with the emergency services etc.

·       Alongside this, officers and the EA have been discussing the delivery of the flood defences with Homes England to see if they were able to assist in helping with funds and accelerating their delivery, as it would release land for the delivery of housing. These discussions were ongoing.

·       This work would continue, however, development that was permitted in advance of any funding being secured would not contribute to the number of homes released. This does reduce the Council’s ability to obtain funding for the defences and was a risk of permitting development to come forward early but that was for Members to balance against the benefits of doing so, in their decision making. At present there was no guarantee as to the availability of this funding and officer’s would continue to work with colleagues to seek a solution in this regard.

In response to questions, the Head of Property, Place and Regeneration advised the following:

·       A briefing paper providing an update had been sent to the MP for North Devon.

In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised the following:

·       The Council had a co-operative relationship with the EA and were currently in discussions.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That a revised strategy for safe development in terms of flood risk be agreed, to enable officer’s to consider applications on a case by case basis, taking into account, mitigation and other social, economic and environmental benefits;

(b)  That the Council continue to have discussions with the Government, Environment Agency and other appropriate agencies on flooding and modelling taking into account the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report regarding modelling and financing.