Managed Realignment: Land Purchase, Compensation and Payment for Alternative Beneficial Land Use
The Guidance Note below was produced following consultation. It explains the circumstances in which land purchase and financial compensation for managed realignment of river or coastal flood defences can be funded from the Defra flood management budget under current legislation. Please note that the additional guidance on the implementation of Habitats Regulations in the case of coastal squeeze has been produced since this paper was originally published. This additional guidance can be accessed from the relevant section of this paper (section 3.2).
Contents
1 Purpose of this Paper
- To explain the circumstances in which land purchase and financial compensation for managed realignment of river or coastal flood defences can be funded from the Defra flood management budget under current legislation.
- To identify alternative sources of funding for such payments where other benefits arise from a proposed realignment scheme.
Audience: This guidance note is aimed at operating authorities and other flood management professionals involved in the development of flood management and coastal defence schemes.
2 Summary
2.1 Legislation
2.1.1 Flood and coastal defence legislation in England and Wales is largely permissive and does not confer
- any right to protection from flooding or coastal erosion
- any right to any particular standard of protection where defences are provided
2.1.2 In a few instances legislation does create a requirement for protection, for example
- there is a statutory duty on riparian owners to provide flood protection in parts of London
- the Habitats Regulations1 create a requirement for protection of internationally designated sites from inappropriate or damaging inundation.
2.1.3 For flood protection that is ultimately funded by the taxpayer, decisions on protection are made in the light of the potential damage to assets measured in national economic terms.
2.2 Policy
2.2.1 The realignment of defences landward, or allowing natural erosion to continue, are two of the options that operating authorities should consider when formulating river or coastal defence proposals.
2.2.2 Where the operating authority considers that maintaining the current line of defence is not economically worthwhile or sustainable then ‘walk away’ will often be the most appropriate response.
2.2.3 If an existing defence will be left to fail under the natural forces acting upon it, the coast or river will realign itself over a period of time. Operating authorities and riparian owners have a duty of care to ensure that appropriate warnings are given to users of the area and to reroute rights of way.
2.2.4 The type of ‘unmanaged realignment’ outlined in point 2.2.3 will result in considerable uncertainty for the public and the landowner, as the time of defence failure cannot be calculated with any great certainty.
2.2.5 Managed realignment is the positive management of the natural realignment process to achieve greater control of the process and long-term security of defences.
2.2.6 Landowners may apply for consent from their local planning authority to construct their own protection scheme but will need to demonstrate the likely impact on the adjacent coastline and take account of other potential impacts. They would then be responsible for all costs of construction and future maintenance.
2.3 Financial compensation and land purchase
2.3.1 The purchase or long term-lease of land is a legitimate charge on the flood management budget when:
- It is required for the building of set back defences, i.e. the land under the ‘footprint’ of the new defence
- It will contribute to the performance of the new defences, e.g. where the wave attenuation of a stretch of land seaward of a new defence will allow smaller defences to be built.
(In the above situations any purchase or lease costs must be included in the cost:benefit analysis of the scheme.)
- It is required for habitat creation to offset the impact of new defences or sea level rise on a Natura 2000 site.
2.3.2 The purchase or long-term lease of land is not a legitimate charge on the flood management budget in any other circumstances, including for habitat creation outside the Natura 2000 structure.
2.3.3 Where the land required for managed realignment does not improve flood or coastal defence and is not required under the Habitats regulations (i.e. the realignment is undertaken for purely economic reasons) it may nonetheless have other benefits. Although no financial compensation can be paid from the Defra flood management budget, there are other sources of funding available to assist landowners to manage the transition of land from agricultural to intertidal or wetland habitat.
3 Background to This Guidance
3.1 Legislation
3.1.1 The Land Drainage Act 19912, Water Resources Act 19913 and Coast Protection Act 19494
These Acts all make provision for the payment of compensation for damage or injury arising directly from the execution of works, and for the purchase of land required for the construction of defences.
There is no general legal right to provision of flood defences except in certain specific cases (e.g. the statutory duty on riparian owners to provide flood protection in parts of London and the legal requirements of the Habitats Regulations) and there is therefore no provision for payment of compensation where the operating authority decides not to provide defences.
Where an operating authority has provided defences, they have a common-law duty of care to maintain the defences and could be liable for damage or injury arising from negligent acts or failure to act reasonably to prevent predictable damage. If the decision is taken to abandon defences, the operating authority must follow reasonable procedures and give due notice to all affected parties. Operating Authorities should always seek advice on specific schemes from local planning and legal teams.
3.1.2 The Human Rights Act 19985
The Act provides, amongst other things, for the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1), and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). Any removal of rights must be challengeable in public proceedings under Article 6 (the right to a fair trial).
Essentially, no one can be deprived of the unimpeded use of their land except in the public interest. This applies to compulsory purchase cases and to restrictions on what people may or may not do with watercourses or flood or coastal defence structures on their land. Where there is a clear public safety interest there are unlikely to be grounds for challenge under the Act, but the Operating Authority must carefully consider the use of any power before it is exercised.
There are grounds for a challenge where people suffer from flooding or coastal erosion resulting from a decision not to undertake works where that decision was one which no reasonable Minister (or other person in authority) could possibly have made. This could apply to decisions to abandon the public maintenance of an existing defence line or to adopt managed realignment. As with all flood and coastal management works, decisions must be rational and take account of the general interest (including the economic interests) of the country. It is in the interests of all parties that decisions are fully supported by appropriate documentation.
3.1.3 Environment Act 19956 and Wildlife & Countryside Act 19817
Operating Authorities have a duty under these Acts, together with the Land Drainage Act, to further the conservation of flora and fauna so far as is consistent with their statutory functions.
Operating Authorities’ duties under the Habitats Regulations are considered in greater detail in section 3.2 below.
3.2 Requirements under the Habitats Regulations
Summary
Operating Authorities have a duty to maintain the integrity of designated sites of international importance (Natura 2000 sites). This includes protecting the sites against inappropriate water level or river management and conserving the interest of such sites where they are threatened by coastal erosion, sea level rise or flooding. There is a presumption in favour of protecting sites in-situ, but this is not always a sustainable option and replacement habitat will be required in some cases.
As there is a legal obligation to protect the integrity of internationally designated sites, land purchase is justified in the following cases:
- where replacement habitat is required to compensate for the effect of flood and coastal defence operations on a site; or
- where retreat of the line of defence is shown to be necessary to prevent coastal squeeze from affecting the integrity of a site (BUT see also additional guidance on coastal squeeze implications).
In both cases, the operating authority in consultation with English Nature must demonstrate that the work is necessary to maintain the integrity of the designated area and this will usually be considered in production of the relevant CHaMP. English Nature should always be consulted on any plans which affect a Natura 2000 site.
3.2.1 Implications for the ‘Hold the Line’ approach
Many of the intertidal habitats in England are designated Natura 2000 sites, and are therefore protected under the Habitats Regulations. Sea levels are predicted to rise at an increasing rate over the next 50 years as a result of global warming. Where a ‘hold the line’ policy is adopted for sea defences, intertidal habitats will be squeezed between the defences and the rising sea rather than moving landward as they would under natural conditions.
Where capital or maintenance works are carried out on a sea wall which is fronted by a Natura 2000 site, the operating authority is required to estimate the amount of habitat that will be lost through sea level rise during the expected life-time of the structure. They are then required to create sufficient new habitat to compensate for the loss. English Nature must be consulted on a case-by-case basis and the government will normally take their advice as to the area of compensatory habitat required. They have indicated that this will typically be in the ratio of 1:1 when dealing with losses due to sea level rise.
3.2.2 Implications for the ‘Do Nothing’ approach
No compensatory habitat is required where an existing sea wall is allowed to fail under natural processes. Although there will be a short-term loss of intertidal habitat while the wall is still functional, this will be replaced through the resumption of natural coastal processes once the wall fails. The area of new habitat created can be used to offset predicted losses from coastal squeeze elsewhere in the locality.
3.2.3 Strategic approaches to habitat creation
Operating Authorities are encouraged to adopt a strategic approach to intertidal habitat re-creation and to compensate for sea level rise on an estuary wide basis. At the high level this will usually be through preparation of a Coastal Habitat Management Plan (CHaMP) and subsequent revisions to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). In areas where no CHaMP is planned but there are Habitats Regulations implications, it will be necessary for Operating Authorities to undertake a separate strategic study.
Wherever possible, opportunities should be sought to create large blocks of new habitat, rather than several isolated smaller areas. Not only does this have ecological advantages, it is also likely to be more cost-effective. Habitat creation should ideally be in locations that can provide a range of intertidal habitat, especially saltmarsh and mudflat. Predicted losses due to sea level rise will need to be revised over time to take account of actual recorded rise.
Ideally replacement habitat should be in or adjacent to the Natura 2000 site that is affected. It is accepted that this will not always be possible and that a flexible approach is required. Where a strategic plan is in place, it may be possible to identify a small number of large sites for habitat creation to offset numerous smaller losses in the CHaMP area. This approach is being used to good effect in the Humber estuary.
Through the CHaMPs a habitat loss/gain account will be established. Habitats gained through managed and unmanaged realignment should be reported to the Environment Agency for inclusion in their annual report to Defra under High Level Target 4.
3.2.4 Funding
In view of the International nature of the obligations, land purchase for habitat creation to offset sea level rise impacts on European sites will be eligible for Defra grant aid at the rate normally applicable to coastal defences in the area. This applies only for schemes which would affect Natura 2000 sites; this may include works beyond the physical boundaries of the site but does not cover non-Natura 2000 intertidal habitats.
This is part of the cost of adopting a ‘hold the line’ policy on frontages adjacent to Natura 2000 sites and should be taken into account in when making strategic decisions.
3.2.5 Anticipatory Land Acquisition (Land Banking)
This is the process by which areas of land are purchased for the specific purpose of creating habitats to compensate for the impacts of future development. The Habitats Regulations do not lend themselves easily to this approach, however where a strategic assessment has been made of sea defence needs, a controlled form of land banking is acceptable. The concept has been used at Thorngumbald on the Humber estuary where 75 ha of intertidal habitat are being created through managed realignment. A small part is required as compensation for works currently under construction; the remainder will be available as compensation for future works identified in the Humber Strategy Plan.
- Land should only be purchased once predicted losses have been identified, either specifically or in principle
- Land can be purchased as and when it becomes available and at the market rate, which may lead to substantial cost savings
- Land can only be used as compensation following liaison with local planning authorities and Defra on an appropriate assessment for the scheme proposal to ensure that no reasonable alternatives exist and that there is a case of overriding public interest
- The time taken to obtain planning approval and Defra grant aid for the works should be much reduced because there no need to seek legal title to a piece of land
Land should normally be acquired within the area of the strategic plan that identifies a need for it. Where habitat creation opportunities are limited within one CHaMP area due to, for example, the area being heavily developed, Operating Authorities may agree to create the habitat elsewhere. Where there is a need to create freshwater habitats it may be more sustainable to create compensatory habitat well inland. Any decision to create compensatory habitat remotely from the affected area must be supported by English Nature and will be subject to overall approval from Defra.
3.2.6 Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO)
The Water Resources Act 1991 gives the Environment Agency powers to compulsorily purchase any land which is required for the exercise of its functions. Flood defence functions include the duty to promote the conservation of flora, fauna and natural beauty (the Environment Act section 6). Therefore the Environment Agency’s CPO powers extend to the purchase of land required for habitat replacement under the Habitats Regulations. In practice, however, it is likely to be difficult to justify the purchase of a specific area of land. Information within the CHaMP may support the decision, but CPO should only be contemplated as a last resort.
3.3 Policy
The published Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence in England and Wales8 states, that flood and coastal defence schemes should be technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable. It notes that schemes should:
- be cost effective, taking account of all costs and benefits over the lifetime of a scheme
- be based on a sound understanding of natural processes;
- work with these process as far as possible; and
- start from the presumption that natural river and coastal processes should not be disrupted except where human life or important artificial or natural assets are at risk.
Both proposals for new schemes and maintenance decisions should reflect this policy.There will therefore be circumstances where continued maintenance of existing defences can no longer be justified by the value of assets protected. As noted in section 3.1, any decisions must have a clear rational basis or they will be open to challenge under the Human Rights Act.
3.4 Financial compensation
The Government, in its response9 to the 1998 Agriculture Select Committee report into flood and coastal defence10, stated the current approach to compensation, as set out below.
'Except in limited circumstances, outlined below, no compensation is payable to those affected by flooding or erosion, including cases where it is decided not to defend a particular area, or to undertake managed realignment. This approach, adopted by successive Governments, is justified by current legislation, which provides operating authorities with permissive powers to undertake flood and coastal defence works. Save for the specific requirements of the Habitats Directive, there is no general obligation to build or maintain defences either at all, or to a particular standard. Consonant with this approach, the legislation also makes no provision for compensation from public funds to persons whose property or land is affected by erosion or flooding.
Payment is, however, possible where quantifiable beneficial use arises. Thus land may be acquired for the construction or maintenance of defences, and compensation paid for damage arising expressly from such operations. Also, in some circumstances where land seaward of justifiable new defences can be shown to contribute to effective defence, whether locally or remotely, landowners may be eligible for payment for depreciation or loss of land. Finally, if a defence is realigned landward, land currently in agricultural use may be considered for payments under agri-environment schemes if a long term return to inter-tidal habitat fulfils the relevant objectives.'
Where a landowner wishes to maintain their own defences without public assistance then clearly different criteria apply. Consent from the local planning authorities will usually be required, but it would be unreasonable to withhold that consent unless the proposed works would give rise to clear and demonstrable disbenefits or adverse impacts on the environment or on the wider community. Any decision to withhold consent must be justifiable and the landowner must have the right to challenge the decision.
Where removal of an existing coastal or estuarial flood defence can be managed to achieve new inter-tidal habitat, a landowner would be able to apply to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and receive payments for 10 years for management of the transition. These payments are not compensation for loss of land, rather they recognise the environmental benefits of the change of land use from agricultural to intertidal habitat and any loss of income that involves. In the case of managed realignment the level of payment recognises that the change of land use would be permanent, while under other uses of the CSS it may remain economic to return the land to agricultural use. However it should be made clear to landowners that the alternative to managed realignment is often unmanaged realignment under which they will eventually lose land due to failure of non-maintained defences without financial assistance.
Payments are made for managing the transition, so land cannot be considered for inclusion in the scheme retrospectively after a defence has failed. (There are also other conditions attached to such payments and the consultation arrangements attached to the Scheme should ensure that the creation of new habitat sites does not create unjustified new liabilities for flood management authorities.)
Where the creation of an extended intertidal zone will make a positive contribution to the performance of existing or realigned flood defences, for example where a stretch of saltmarsh or mudflat will attenuate wave action to a degree that smaller defences can to be built, purchase or long-term lease of the land required will be a legitimate charge on the flood management budget. Any purchase or lease costs must be included in the cost: benefit analysis of the scheme, which will be assessed for grant aid in the usual manner.
4 Managed Realignment Scenarios
The approach to land purchase and compensation will depend on the purpose for which the works are being carried out. A number of hypothetical scenarios are considered below to illustrate application of this policy. This is not an exhaustive list and is not intended to imply that the scenarios given are the only acceptable means of implementing flood and coastal defence works.
4.1 Retreat to high ground
Situation: A flood defence provides protection to a limited area fronting high ground. The assets within the protected area are of relatively low economic value (e.g. grazing land) or can be relocated (e.g. caravans) (figure 1)
Action: Further expenditure on maintaining the existing line of defence is not cost-effective and there is no justification for publicly funded intervention. The landowner or relevant public authorities have a duty of care to carry out any works required for public safety, such as the formal closure and diversion of any designated footpath along the line of the existing defences, and the coastline should be left to revert to its natural alignment along the high water contour.
Funding Implications:
- Compensation is not payable under the Land Drainage, Water Resources or Coast Protection Acts for areas where a defence is no longer maintained.
- The landowner can apply for permission from their local authority to maintain the defences at their own cost. They would have to demonstrate that the work would not have an adverse affect on adjacent lengths of river or coast.
- If the land can be used to create a habitat listed under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, the landowner can apply for Countryside Stewardship Scheme payments to manage the transition from agricultural use to long-term habitat.
Figure 1 Realignment to high ground
Where individual properties, groups of properties or other assets exist within the setback area then appropriate standards of protection should be considered for each asset and any specific protection works justified on an individual basis. Similarly, where counter walls or other structures are required, their justification should be considered on the basis of assets at risk in the area protected.
4.2 Realignment of defence to reduce length to be maintained
Situation: A long river or coastal defence protects an undeveloped peninsula fronting a developed area. The assets on the peninsula are of low economic value or can be relocated. An examination of the options for maintaining a defence shows that the most sustainable solution is to reconstruct the defence on a new alignment, which excludes the peninsula from the protected area. (figures 2a and 2b)
Action: Further expenditure on maintaining the existing line of defence is not cost-effective and there is no justification for publicly funded intervention. New defences are constructed to protect the developed area. The landowner or relevant public authorities will have to carry out any works required for public safety, such as the formal closure and diversion of any designated footpath along the line of the previous defences.
Funding Implications:
- Purchase of the land required for the new flood defence (i.e. for the land under the footprint of the new defence and for any land expected to provide protection for the new defences) can be funded from the flood management budget. Compensation may be payable for incidental disruption related to the new construction, but only where a loss can be clearly demonstrated
- The landowner can apply for permission from the local planning authority to maintain the defences at their own cost. They would have to demonstrate that such work would not have an adverse affect on adjacent lengths of river or coast.
- If the land can be used to create a habitat listed under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, the landowner can apply for Countryside Stewardship Scheme payments to manage the transition from agricultural use to long-term habitat.
Figure 2a Coastal or estuary floodbank realigned to reduce defence length
Figure 2b River floodbank realigned to reduce defence length
4.3 Realignment to improve performance
Various forms of defence realignment may be proposed to improve overall performance of a coastal system or river catchment.
4.3.1 Coastal Realignment
Situation: A strategy for a coastal sub-cell identifies an alternative alignment as more sustainable in the long term by allowing development of a ‘stable’ bay formation between two natural or artificial headlands (see fig. 4a).
Action: Justification of the proposed line will depend on the assets to landward of this line and the full long term costs of providing and maintaining any defences, including maintenance of the related 'hard points’. A decision on the economically preferred option must take into account all costs.
Funding Implications:
- If the rear ‘stable’ line is the economically preferred option then the marginal additional costs of maintaining the front line are not worthwhile. No payment of compensation or purchase of land or assets between the two defence lines will be justified.
- If the rear line is considered to be desirable in the long term but there is short-term economic justification for maintaining the front line, the operating authority should consider a strategic policy of purchase of assets in the intervening area, as they become available, so that the preferred policy can be adopted in the long term. This option would need to be tested through economic analysis.
(There will be other coastal situations where the current alignment is not considered sustainable and similar considerations will apply.)
Figure 4a Coastal realignment for sustainability
4.3.2 Estuary Realignment
Situation: A long-term strategy for a whole estuary or major sub estuary identifies the overall need for a wider plan form to produce a more sustainable regime which will have benefits for alleviating flooding to developed areas. For example, such widening may offset tidal increases due to previous human interference.
Action: The optimal additional inter-tidal area required is determined as part of the strategic plan.
Funding Implications:
- The required intertidal area can be created through a combination of land purchase, participation in agri-environment schemes (where this delivers relevant environmental benefits) and other environmental initiatives. Funding from the public flood management budget would be available if there are strategic flood defence gains from more sustainable management of the estuary as a whole.
- It is likely that the set back of defences in an estuary will lead to the creation of valuable intertidal habitats which may be used as compensation for works elsewhere. See section 3.2 for further information and funding options.
- Where the flood management budget can not be used for set back, there may still be other organisations willing to purchase land for the purpose of creating intertidal habitats. The actual form of funding for each site would be a matter for negotiation between all parties involved.
The development of analytical and predictive tools for assessing long-term changes, including models, to make such assessments is still the subject of major research programmes. Defra encourages operating authorities to use the best available models to inform their estuary management decisions, recognising that a degree of professional judgement in their use will be required.
Figure 4b Managed realignment to improve hydraulic performance of an estuary
*NB As noted above increasing width, as illustrated here, will not necessarily reduce flood levels upstream and in practice a number of other issues such as changes in the tidal prism and wave fetch would also have to be taken into account when determining net changes in performance. Recent work has suggested that in some circumstances it may actually be beneficial to increase the inter-tidal area in the upper reaches of an estuary though the same principles would apply provided that appropriate links between the works and improved performance could be clearly demonstrated.
4.3.3 River Defence Realignment
Situation: Realignment works on a river are proposed to achieve benefits such as improving discharge capacity and reducing flood levels. This would involve leaving undefended some land which would be worth defending in its own right. (figure 4c). The operating authority are able to demonstrate that their decision is based on a clear analysis of the situation; that the proposed realignment is an optimal solution; and that there is a sound evaluation of the flood defence benefits achieved.
Action: The existing defences are set back, resulting in a significant change in potential land use in previously defended areas.
Funding Implications:
- The whole area within the new floodbanks forms part of the new flood defence works and land purchase, lease or alternative financial arrangement for use of the land would be a legitimate charge on the flood management budget.
- Such purchase should only be considered where the land would otherwise be worth defending and the works result in a significant change in potential land use.
Fig 4c Realignment of river floodbanks to improve discharge capacity at high flows
Situation: It is proposed to improve the flood defence performance of a river catchment by embanking some areas of floodplain to control flood storage. The area will be deliberately flooded in larger events to make more effective use of the floodplain storage available for mitigation.
Action: The area is embanked leading to it flooding less frequently than in the natural state, although depth and duration are increased in larger events.
Funding implications:
- There will not be any net financial loss, except that directly related to construction works, that could support a claim for compensation.
- In the exceptional circumstance where it is deemed necessary for the operating authority to have full control of the area, it will be appropriate to purchase areas allocated for flood storage.
- The frequency of flooding will not normally be any greater than at present, and in many cases will be reduced. Operating authorities should consider long term management of such areas in ways that will largely recoup the capital cost.
There is also the possibility that embanked areas of flood plain could be kept permanently wet, to a shallow depth. This is likely to reduce its effectiveness as a flood storage area. However, if the operating authority can justify the creation of such wetland habitat under the Habitats Regulations, the land involved could be eligible for purchase.
A note on standards of protection: In most catchments it will be appropriate to provide different levels of protection to different parts of the catchment, depending on their land use. In general, protection measures reduce the area of land available as active floodplain and increase the water volume and flood levels of the river. Therefore the real cost of protecting the least developed areas can be very high, as maintenance of standards in one part of the catchment will also involve raising all other defences.
Where a catchment strategy defines such a deliberate policy of differential standards, which means that the standard of protection to some areas is not increased, there are no grounds for compensation because there is no legal obligation to provide any particular standard of defence. Also such a policy can normally be implemented by simply not carrying out improvement works in those areas where it is least justified.
4.4 Set back in mitigation for encroachment by flood or coastal defence work elsewhere
Situation: Defence works protect an area of significant economic value but now require replacement or reinforcement. Past development has produced a situation where the most economic approach is to construct new defences in front of the existing line of defence. There may also be opportunities to rationalise and improve the security of the defence alignment. The proposed works will result in some loss of a Natura 2000 site.
Action: If the Operating Authority can demonstrate that the new defences are the only feasible solution, it is required by the Habitats Regulations to provide compensatory habitat elsewhere. After consultation with English Nature, suitable land is purchased from the flood management budget and converted to compensatory habitat. The new defences are built after the compensatory habitat is in place.
Funding Implications:
- If establishment of a set back site is the optimum solution then all site purchase and management costs are a legitimate charge on the flood management budget and suitable land can be purchased as part of the flood defence scheme. Justification would be based on the costs of alternative approaches, for example comparison of long-term costs with those of reconstruction of defences without encroachment.
Figure 5 Managed set back for habitat replacement in an estuary
References
- The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 ISBN 0-11-0457161
- Land Drainage Act 1991 ISBN 0-10-545991-7
- Water Resources Act 1991 ISBN 0-10-545791-4
- Coast Protection Act 1949 as amended by the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 ISBN 0-10-850039-X
- Human Rights Act 1998 ISBN 0-10-5442984
- Environment Act 1995 ISBN 0-10-5425958
- Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 0-10-5469815
- MAFF/WELSH OFFICE 1993 Strategy for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales DEFRA/NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES PB1471
- Government response to 1998 Agriculture Select Committee report ISBN 0-10-555067-1
- 1998 Agriculture Select Committee report 0-10-5548073
- ENGLISH NATURE, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL Coastal Habitat Management Plans: An Interim Guide to Content and Structure ENGLISH NATURE, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL ISBN 1-85716-515-2
Glossary of Terms
- COASTAL SQUEEZE
- The process by which coastal habitats and natural features are progressively lost or drowned, caught between coastal defences and rising sea levels.
- DO NOTHING
- A 'without project' case where there is no flood or coastal defence activity. The effects of doing nothing should be costed in a project appraisal as a basis for comparison with schemes involving some investment.
- ENVIRONMENT
- Where environmental issues are referred to, this term is used to encompass landscape/natural beauty, flora, fauna, geological or geomorphological features and buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historical interest.
- FLOODING
- Refers to inundation by water whether this is caused by breaches, overtopping of banks or defences, or by inadequate or slow drainage of rainfall or underlying ground water levels. Flooding due to blocked drains and sewers or the escape of water from a water supply service will usually be the responsibility of the local Water Company and will not be affected by Managed Realignment.
- NATURA 2000 SITES
- Sites protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. These are sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the European Habitats Directive; Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the European Birds Directive; and wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar sites)
- NATURAL
- Encompasses both the small number of natural areas and the much greater semi-natural areas of Britain which have been influenced by humans over the years. It is also applied to those processes over which humans have no significant control, e.g. wind, waves, sediment transport etc.
- OPERATING AUTHORITIES
- A body with statutory powers to undertake flood defence or coast protection activities, usually the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Board or Local Authority.
- SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS
- Projects which take account of the inter-relationship with other defences, developments and processes within a catchment area; which take account of their serial and environmental impact, including use of non-measurable resources; and which avoid, as far as possible, tying future generations into inflexible and expensive options for the defence.
- WALK AWAY
- Where there is an existing structure which is not sustainable. The effects of ceasing maintenance should be costed in a project appraisal as a basis for comparison with schemes involving further maintenance or replacement.
Page last
modified: 20 November 2003
Page published: 21 March 2003