Consultation outcome

Flood risk management plans (FRMPs) consultation summary of response

Updated 13 June 2022

© Crown copyright 2022

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-flood-risk-management-plans-frmps-2021-to-2027/outcome/flood-risk-management-plans-frmps-consultation-summary-of-response

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

Flood risk management plans (FRMPs) are strategic plans that set out how to manage flood risk in nationally identified flood risk areas (FRAs).

They are statutory plans required by the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, and must be reviewed by the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) every 6 years.

The first FRMPs were published in March 2016. They contain actions to manage flood risk across England between 2015 to 2021. The new set of plans will cover 2021 to 2027.

The Environment Agency worked together with lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) and other risk management authorities (RMAs) to produce draft FRMPs for public consultation.

As required by the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, a public consultation on the draft FRMPs for 2021 to 2027 ran from 22 October 2021 to 21 January 2022. The primary purpose of the consultation was to gather views and comments from a wide range of stakeholders to help inform a final set of plans and actions to manage flood risk between 2021 to 2027.

We have summarised the responses both nationally and by the 10 river basin districts which each have their own plan. To see the summary of a particular river basin district, select the relevant link:

1.2 FRMPs in context

It is important to put FRMPs into the context in which they are being updated. There are over 5.2 million homes and businesses in England at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. FRMPs will help to create a better place for people and wildlife.

With a rapidly changing climate, the need to plan together to improve the overall resilience of our local places is more important than ever before. The more we plan together and work in partnership, the more we can provide together for local people, places and our environment.

The plans will also help to inform and push ahead existing programmes of work, such as the Programme of flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes, and work with local communities to improve resilience. They aim to support and contribute to the delivery of the ambitions in the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (FCERM strategy), such as nature-based solutions, and longer term adaptive approaches for taking action at the right time.

They are one of several plans which set out how the flood and water environment is managed, including the FCERM Strategy, river basin management plans, shoreline management plans, local flood risk management strategies, and drainage and wastewater management plans.

We have coordinated the preparation of the draft FRMPs with draft river basin management plans (RBMPs) to encourage better join-up in the management of flood risk and the water environment. RBMPs set out how organisations, stakeholders and communities will work together to protect and improve the water environment to 2027.

The consultation on the draft RBMPs also opened on 22 October 2021 to make it easier for respondents to view the plans side by side. The RBMPs consultation closed on 22 April 2022.

1.3 What is the summary of responses?

This document is a summary of the consultation responses, following a review and analysis by the Environment Agency. It doesn't include all responses but gives a broad representation of the ones received.

A full set of responses, from those who gave their permission for their feedback to be published, can be found on Citizen Space. All personal information has been omitted from these published responses.

All responses received will be considered as we write the final set of plans. We will also publish a 'You Said, We Did' document later in the year, which will set out in more detail how we acted on the responses.

2. Consultation process

2.1 What was consulted on?

The consultation included several documents, drafted by the Environment Agency and LLFAs and made available on the online consultation tool, Citizen Space.

These were:

  • Part A: High level overview of the FRMPs and flood risk management in England for 2021 to 2027
  • Part B: 10 draft FRMPs, one for each river basin district, including an overview of the approach taken, a summary of the flood risk, and the impact of climate change.
  • Flood Plan Explorer: A new interactive mapping tool, where you can discover information about all the proposed FRMP measures.
  • strategic environmental assessment reports:  The findings of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). An SEA was undertaken for each FRMP to ensure that environmental effects were considered during the development of the plans
  • strategic environmental assessment non-technical summaries: A clear summary of the SEA report, and its findings

2.2 What questions were asked?

We asked a number of questions across several themes to obtain feedback. These were:

Strategic measures

  • Question 5 - The draft FRMPs set out a number of strategic measures to manage flood risk in identified flood risk areas. Do you agree with these measures?
  • Question 6 - The draft FRMPs set out a number of strategic measures to manage flood risk outside of identified flood risk areas. If applicable to the FRMP you are responding to, do you agree with these measures?

FCERM strategy and climate change

  • Question 7 -To what extent do you think the objectives and measures set out in the draft Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) support and contribute to the delivery of the ambitions in the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy (FCERM Strategy)?
  • Question 8 - To what extent do the measures in the draft FRMPs help to deliver multiple benefits for both flood risk management and the wider water environment?
  • Question 9 - To what extent do you agree that the draft FRMPs consider the likely impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Flood Plan Explorer

  • Question 10 - How easy did you find using flood plan explorer when looking for draft flood risk management plan (FRMP) measures?
  • Question 11 - What improvements, if any, would you make to flood plan explorer?

Your experience and supporting delivery

  • Question 12 - Overall, how would you describe your experience of finding the information you were looking for within the draft flood risk management plans (FRMPs) and flood plan explorer?
  • Question 13 - In what ways do you think you could support the delivery of the measures as set out in the draft FRMPs?

Strategic environmental assessments

  • Question 14 - Do you agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?
  • Question 15 - Are there further significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, of the draft flood risk management plans (FRMPs) which you think should be considered?
  • Question 16 - Are there further opportunities to enhance any positive or mitigate any negative environmental effects that should be considered for the final FRMPs?

2.3 How was the consultation run?

We worked in partnership with stakeholders, listening and gathering views on the FRMPs.

Prior to the consultation, the Environment Agency and LLFAs worked with a wide range of stakeholders to help promote the draft FRMPs consultation. This included local government, the water industry, the farming industry, catchment partnerships and regional flood and coastal committees. The aim was to introduce the FRMPs, to show why they were important to them, and why they should respond.

The Environment Agency engaged with stakeholders through its national and area teams. Area teams worked closely with their LLFAs and local stakeholders to promote the consultation and develop draft measures. We carried out several joint stakeholder events both internally and externally to show the co-ordination between FRMPs and RBMPs.

Some examples of the organisations we engaged are:

  • Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs)
  • the RFCC conservation members
  • Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT), lead local flood authorities (LLFAs)
  • Coastal Partnerships
  • National Farmers Union (NFU)
  • National Flood Forum
  • Marine Management Organisation, Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Association of Drainage Authorities
  • Catchment-Based Approach (CaBA)
  • Local Government Association
  • London Drainage Engineers Group
  • Natural Resources Wales
  • Scottish Environment Protection Agency

We communicated through newsletters, mailouts, press release on GOV.UK, and social media (Twitter and Facebook). LLFAs also promoted the consultation via their own websites and social media accounts.

3. Executive summary of responses

We received 255 responses in total, of which 42 were from members of the public and 190 from organisations. The chart below shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 3.1: Organisations who responded to the FRMP consultation

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 78 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 70 responses from local government
  • 42 members of the public
  • 15 responses from utility companies
  • 12 responses from national organisations
  • 12 responses from environment management organisations
  • 3 from national infrastructure organisations

3.1 Responses from FRMPs

Each of the 10 FRMPs and SEAs received individual responses. 29 responses provided feedback on all 10 FRMPs and SEAs. The number of responses we received per plan were:

  • 50 for the Thames plan
  • 46 for the Humber plan
  • 38 for the South East plan
  • 30 for the North West plan
  • 29 for the Anglian plan
  • 28 for the Severn plan
  • 22 for the South West plan
  • 13 for the Northumbria plan
  • 13 for the Solway Tweed plan
  • 6 for the Dee plan

Note: The total number of responses does not match the sum of the organisational and individual responses as some organisations submitted more than one response. There was also one unknown response.

3.2 Main themes

The main themes raised in the responses, were:

  • partnerships – the value of working in partnership to plan and deliver flood risk management solutions
  • engagement – the value of engagement and working in partnership with all organisations and government departments
  • nature-based solutions – support for the implementation of nature-based solutions, including natural flood management techniques, so more biodiversity and environmental benefits can be delivered across the flood and water environment
  • catchment-based approach – support for and a greater emphasis on this for flood risk management
  • alignment - the need to align with other plans and strategies so delivery is effective, for example, local nature recovery strategies, and shoreline management plans
  • land management – the need to consider all land uses, when assessing and managing flood risk, including the benefits of agricultural land
  • climate change and adaptation – the importance of working together across all organisations to adapt and having better information on factors such as the carbon footprint of the measures.
  • funding – the need to identify funding and resources for timely delivery of measures
  • readability – the ability to find information in the plans and within flood plan explorer

Note: these themes are not exclusive or listed in any order.

Overall, there was a broad support for the information and measures included in the FRMPs. A breakdown of the feedback we received is shown in figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Support for information and measures in the FRMPs

Element of the FRMP which was consulted on Total or partial agreement; For FPE: easy or OK; For finding information: found all or most information No agreement; For FPE: not easy; For finding information: did not find most or found no information
Measures in FRAs 27% 4%
Measures outside FRAs 64% 3%
Plans support FCERM Strategy 66% 3%
Plans provide multiple benefits 63% 5%
Plans consider climate change 68% 3%
Flood Plan Explorer (FPE) ease of use 57% 26%
Did users find information they were looking for? 60% 18%
Conclusions of SEAs 49% 2%

4. Summary – national feedback

The respondents who answered the questions for all the consultation documents were:

Figure 4.1: Consultees who answered questions for all consultation documents

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 3 responses from local environmental management organisations
  • 9 responses from national environment management organisations
  • 3 responses from local government
  • 6 responses from national organisations
  • 3 responses from individuals
  • 1 response from the insurance industry
  • 2 responses from national infrastructure organisations
  • 1 response from the private sector
  • 1 response from utility organisations

4.1 Main themes

The themes from the national responses were:

  • support and implementation of nature-based solutions, including natural flood management techniques, biodiversity net gain and achieving environmental benefits across the flood and water environment
  • the need to use a catchment-based approach for flood risk management
  • the value of engagement and working in partnership across organisations and parties
  • the need to acknowledge the cost and resources needed to implement the plans and the importance of identifying funding and optimising its use.
  • the fact that an alignment of strategies and plans is essential to ensure a comprehensive approach
  • the relevance of climate change adaptation and achieving net zero carbon

4.2 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs).

Points raised in the responses included:

  • nature-based solutions - support for nature-based solutions across the whole catchment including managing existing and new woodland. Natural flood management projects should be considered as part of all flood schemes
  • funding – the funding for flood risk management assets and their maintenance should be set out more clearly in the plans
  • partnership and engagement – early engagement and partnership working with landowners, communities and risk management authorities is important for the successful delivering of measures and ambitions in the plans
  • links with other plans and strategies– FRMPs should show how they link with other plans, such as local nature recovery strategies (LNRS), drainage and wastewater management plans (DWMPs), shoreline management plans (SMPs) local flood risk management strategies (LFRMS), environmental land management schemes (ELMs), catchment sensitive farming (CSF) and work to address flooding from surface water

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

There were similar points raised for this question, for example:

  • nature-based solutions – the need for natural flood management, tree planting, and taking a catchment-based approach in places outside of FRAs
  • local flood risk measures – it is important to manage flood risk outside of FRAs by working with communities on flood schemes and identifying local measures

Question 7: FCERM strategy

Issues raised included:

  • catchment-based approach – FRMPs should have a greater emphasis on the catchment-based approach
  • nature-based solutions – to align more with the FCERM strategy, FRMPs should specifically reference nature-based solutions in the objectives, including coastal habitat restoration
  • links with other plans and strategies – being clearer how the FRMPs and the measures deliver the FCERM strategy, as well as to support and align with other plans (for example, DWMPs and SMPs)

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Topics raised in the responses included:

  • delivery and action – taking the opportunity to deliver genuine and additional benefits for communities and the environment through flood risk management, infrastructure, and local environmental projects
  • nature-based solutions – support for nature-based solutions in the plans as they can also deliver multiple benefits in river basin management plans and local nature recovery strategies. An opportunity to improve delivery through stronger links to carbon and biodiversity net gain
  • agricultural benefits – that the farming community and the benefits that agriculture brings should be better represented in the plans

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

The following points were made:

  • climate modelling – more detail is needed on climate modelling to determine if the measures address climate changes predictions
  • climate resilient places – the plans benefitted from the inclusion of climate change information and aligning the objectives with the FCERM strategy
  • Net zero – the FRMPs should demonstrate how objectives could be delivered whilst supporting the net zero carbon agenda
  • coastal habitats – the need for more detail on how the plans will address loss of habitat due to coastal erosion

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Issues raised included:

  • mapping – the inclusion of separate maps for river basin districts, FRAs and strategic areas are helpful, although the data is sometimes hard to understand. A tool to compare the different FRMPs at a high-level would be helpful
  • measuring success and links to other measures – flood plan explorer is a helpful tool to judge the success of measures. It would be useful to link to other data explorers to see related data, such as water quality measures
  • summary of plans – a summary of the plans within flood plan explorer would have helped inform consultation responses

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Overall respondents felt that there was too much documentation and clear summaries were needed for each section.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

The topics covered in the responses included:

  • identification of priority catchments – partnership working will be essential with organisations that can help to deliver measures, such as woodland creation, inland and coastal habitat creation, and water quality. Prioritising catchments for these activities will make partnership working more effective
  • partnerships and engagement - partnership working is needed to improve the resilience of assets and infrastructure. During the delivery phase more engagement with landowners and rural businesses is needed to understand the impacts of measures
  • use of flood plan explorer – is a powerful tool that will help to identify areas where measures are needed and can be promoted locally

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

Many of the responses received in relation to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Reports relate to the content and measures within the FRMP. The topics raised included:

  • historic environment – there is an important link between the historic environment and natural flood management, and there are opportunities for the historic environment to support this. It is important to consider how FRMP measures impact on historic landscape character and sense of place, as well as specific designated assets. Strategic mitigation measures should be included
  • biodiversity and designated sites – a habitats regulations assessment should be undertaken, with the results feeding into the final FRMP and SEA. It is important to consider the impact of the FRMP on protected sites, priority habitats and protected species
  • agriculture and land management – impact on food production is a key consideration, and there needs to be a balance between natural flood management and agricultural land loss. Agriculture can support multiple benefits including carbon, biodiversity, and natural flood management
  • nature-based solutions – support for nature-based solutions, including natural flood management techniques, habitat restoration, and use of woodland where appropriate.
  • catchment-based approach – this is seen as very important to delivering nature-based solutions and looking at flood risk management holistically. There is a need for collaborative working to maximise the benefits of this approach.
  • plans, policies and programmes review – additional plans, policies and programmes for consideration were proposed by some stakeholders
  • links with other plans or projects – greater clarity is needed with regards to how the FRMPs fit with other plans (including the FCERM strategy and RBMPs) and at a project level. Clear links should be made with the nature recovery networks and local nature recovery strategies
  • planning - final FRMPs should underpin reforms to the planning system, with more commitment to sustainable drainage systems

5. Summary of river basin district feedback

5.1 Anglian

We received 29 responses specific to the Anglian FRMP. The Figure 5.1 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.1: Consultees who responded to the Anglian FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 12 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 1 response from national environment management organisations
  • 7 responses from local government
  • 2 responses from national organisations
  • 3 responses from individuals
  • 3 responses from utility organisations
  • 1 response where no answer was provided

5.2 Main themes

The main themes from the Anglian FRMP responses were partnerships and land management.

5.3 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the consultees agreed totally of partially with the measures.

Figure 5.2: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Anglian River Basin District

Response Number of responses
Totally 7
Partially 12
Not at all 1
Don't know 1
Not answered 8

Some of the points raised in the responses included:

  • there was support for the identification of sites for delivery of projects with multiple outcomes, as well as protecting valuable farmland
  • to improve the accessibility to readers, the extent of the measures and information should be clearer and more accurate

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the consultees who responded to this question agreed partially with the identified measures.

Figure 5.3: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Anglian River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 11
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 12

A summary of additional points raised included:

  • that the inclusion of measures outside of FRAs was essential
  • more specific measures were needed to help protect the environment

Question 7: FCERM strategy

Most of the consultees who responded to this question agreed that the FRMP supported the delivery of the FCERM strategy ambitions.

Figure 5.4: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 12
Not at all 0
Don't know 2
Not answered 10

Issues raised included:

  • more information on how the FRMPs linked to other strategies and plans was requested
  • respondents supported a multi-stakeholder catchment-based approach as it would help with the delivery of measures

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Most of the respondents partially agreed that FRMPs delivered multiple benefits.

Figure 5.5: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 14
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 9

Some of the points raised in the responses included:

  • although there was a request to mention the Water Framework Directive more, it was recognised that the plan's measures generally support the protection or enhancement of the water environment
  • there were questions raised about how delivery of wider benefits would be monitored, whilst acknowledging the difficulty in assessing the impact of those benefits

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Again, most respondents who answered the question agreed totally or partially.

Figure 5.6: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 4
Partially 14
Not at all 1
Don't know 3
Not answered 7

Topics raised in the responses included:

  • being clearer on how the measures would manage residual flood risk and contribute to the climate emergency

  • there were calls for more research into understanding the impacts of climate change and a better understanding of how changing land use could be part of the solution

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer (FPE)

The overall experience reported by users of FPE was positive. Responses also suggested some improvements to the navigation and search functions.

Figure 5.7: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 8
It was ok 11
Not easy 2
Don't know 1
Not answered 7

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Responses show that most consultees found what they were looking for.

Figure 5.8: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 12
I found most of what I was looking for 5
I did not find much of what I was looking for 3
I did not find anything I was looking for 1
Not answered 8

However, there were also comments that the documents were too large making it harder to find information quickly.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Some points raised included:

  • the opportunity to work in partnership and support the delivery of FRMPs was welcomed
  • more engagement with risk management authorities (RMAs) and farmers was suggested to improve the delivery of FRMP measures

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

Not all respondents answered the SEA question. Although there seems to be a general agreement with the conclusions of the SEA, the lack of detail at this stage and a need for further assessments as plans or projects progress were identified.

Figure 5.9: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 4
Partially 8
Not at all 0
Don't know 4
Not answered 13

Figure 5.10: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 6
No 7
Don't know 5
Not answered 11

Figure 5.11: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 5
No 4
Don't know 8
Not answered 12

5.4 Dee

We received 6 responses for the Dee FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.12 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.12: Consultees who responded to the Dee FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 2 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 1 response from national environment management organisations
  • 3 responses from utility organisations

5.5 Main themes

The main themes from the Dee FRMP responses were partnerships engagement, and readability.

5.6 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Although the Dee River Basin District does not have FRAs, national level measures do cover the Dee River Basin District and the whole of England. Half of the consultees agreed totally or partially with the measures, whereas the other half did not answer the question.

Figure 5.13: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Dee River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 2
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

The responses were identical to the previous question on measures within FRAs.

Figure 5.14: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Dee River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 2
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

The issues raised included the need for more clarity on the wording of some measures to establish who is the lead authority. Respondents explained that the Welsh and English Dee should be differentiated more clearly in the FRMP.

Question 7: FCERM strategy

Half of the consultees totally or partially agreed that the FRMP supported the delivery of the FCERM strategy ambitions, whereas the other half did not answer this question.

Figure 5.15: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Partially 2
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Respondents asked for more detail on the objectives and measures and how they relate with the FCERM strategy objectives and measures.

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

There was a mixed response to this question. Respondents asked for more clarity to show how the delivery of multiple benefits will be achieved.

Figure 5.16: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 1
Not at all 1
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Those who responded to the question agreed that climate change had been considered in the FRMP. There was a call for more clarity regarding how the climate estimates are applied to assets and properties at risk now and in the future.

Figure 5.17: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 2
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Those who responded to this question had mixed views about flood plan explorer's usability.

Figure 5.18: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 0
It was ok 2
Not easy 1
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Some of the topics raised included:

  • there was a request for the ability to download the proposed FRMP measures in a Microsoft Excel format
  • there was a suggestion to clarify that the flood plan explorer covers England only

Question 12: finding FRMP information

The respondents who answered the question were able to find all or most of what they were looking for.

Figure 5.19: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 1
I found most of what I was looking for 2
I did not find much of what I was looking for 0
I did not find anything I was looking for 0
Not answered 3

There was a suggestion to strengthen the links between the FRMPs and flood plan explorer so that the context from the plans is not lost while browsing different measures on the flood plan explorer.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

The need to maintain strong partnerships across all organisations working on flood risk management was raised.

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

The 2 answers we received show a degree of agreement with the conclusions of the SEA. Respondents suggested to see an assessment to quantify the potential impacts of the proposed measures on the environment to prioritise them.

Figure 5.20: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 1
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

Figure 5.21: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 1
No 1
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

Figure 5.22: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 1
No 1
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

5.7 Humber

We received 46 responses for the Humber FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.23 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.23: Consultees who responded to the Humber FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 23 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 15 responses from local government
  • 1 response from national organisations
  • 4 responses from individuals
  • 3 responses from utility organisations

The main themes from the Humber FRMP responses were partnerships, climate change, catchment-based approach.

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the consultees agreed with the measures identified in FRAs. There was a call to clarify how FRAs were identified.

Figure 5.24: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Humber River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 18
Partially 21
Not at all 1
Don't know 1
Not answered 5

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Consultees generally agreed with the measures identified outside FRAs.

Figure 5.25: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Humber River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 20
Partially 18
Not at all 1
Don't know 3
Not answered 4

Some respondents wanted clarification about ongoing partnership working on measures and specific schemes outside of identified FRAs.

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Respondents were in general agreement that the draft FRMP objectives and measures support and contribute to the delivery of the ambitions in the FCERM strategy. However, some felt that they may not be sufficient to deliver the ambitions of the FCERM strategy in full.

Figure 5.26: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 14
Partially 26
Not at all 1
Don't know 2
Not answered 3

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Respondents agreed totally or partially. They considered that FRMPs provide an important framework to identify potential multiple benefits but on the ground, benefits would only be seen once measures are delivered through detailed actions.

Figure 5.27: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 10
Partially 23
Not at all 1
Don't know 3
Not answered 9

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Most consultees agreed partially or totally that FRMPs considered flood risk associated with climate change.

Figure 5.28: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 17
Partially 25
Not at all 1
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Some of the points raised included:

  • more is needed to show how climate change modelling and forecasting will identify actions at a local community level
  • there should be more done to highlight the impact of climate change on food producers and the agricultural sector

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Most respondents said that they could find measures in the flood plan explorer.

Figure 5.29: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 19
It was ok 19
Not easy 6
Don't know 0
Not answered 2

The following points were made:

  • there were some difficulties identifying FRMP measures relevant to their place of interest
  • it was positive to have a large amount of useful information in a single mapping tool

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Respondents said that they could generally find most of what they looked for.

Figure 5.30: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found most of what I was looking for 16
I found most of what I was looking for 21
I did not find much of what I was looking for 4
I did not find anything I was looking for 2
Not answered 3

However, consultees also explained that there was a lot of information to analyse which could be difficult to navigate.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Respondents showed a keenness to support the implementation of the FRMPs. However, funding was highlighted as a constraint, and it should be used effectively.

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

Most of those who answered agreed with the conclusions of the SEA.

Figure 5.31: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 15
Partially 12
Not at all 2
Don't know 5
Not answered 12

Figure 5.32: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 10
No 15
Don't know 5
Not answered 16

Figure 5.33: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 16
No 8
Don't know 8
Not answered 14

Topics raised in the responses included:

  • the need to ensure that FRMPs do not conflict or constrain the local nature recovery strategies actions to be developed by 2024
  • more interventions are needed at a catchment-scale, where natural flood management or land use solutions would be beneficial
  • the alignment between FRMPs and RBMPs was welcomed to maximise environmental opportunities and benefits. This could also prevent potential conflicting measures and projects being progressed and delivered at the same time

5.8 Northumbria

We received 13 responses for the Northumbria FRMP consultation questions. The chart below shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.34: Consultees who responded to the Northumbria FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 6 responses from local government
  • 4 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 1 response from national organisations
  • 1 response from individuals
  • 1 response from utility organisations

5.9 Main themes

The main themes from the Northumbria FRMP responses were funding, flood risk area identification and climate change.

5.10 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

There was a general agreement with the measures identified.

Figure 5.35: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Northumbria River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 4
Not at all 0
Don't know 2
Not answered 2

The need to identify other FRAs was raised. There was support for Newcastle city centre being identified as a flood risk area, and a request for specific FRMP measures for the Tees catchment.

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Respondents also agreed totally or partially with measures identified outside FRAs.

Figure 5.36: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Northumbria River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 5
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 2

Topic raised in the responses included:

  • there is a need for more collaborative working to deliver the measures
  • the funding needed to implement the measures should be identified

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Most consultees felt that the FRMP supported the delivery of the ambitions in the FCERM strategy.

Figure 5.37: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 6
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 1

Issues raised included:

  • there needs to be a stronger commitment to deliver nature-based solutions
  • the plans could go further to align with the FCERM strategy so that all relevant groups can understand their roles and responsibilities better to deliver the FRMP actions

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Most respondents agreed partially.

Figure 5.38: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 3
Partially 8
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 1

The following points were made:

  • it is important to recognise the environmental benefits and ecosystem services of agricultural land. These include biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water quality. These benefits could be jeopardised if agricultural land is flooded
  • there is limited base data and case studies to understand the costs and benefits of nature-based solutions and biodiversity net gain in relation to flood risk management

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Respondents generally agreed that the FRMP consider the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change.

Figure 5.39: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 6
Partially 5
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 1

Some of the points raised included:

  • although the FRMP measures that will assist with climate change and improve flood resilience were supported, there needs to sufficient resourcing and funding to deliver them
  • it is important that FRMPs recognise the impacts of climate change on food production and farming

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Most respondents found it ok or easy to use.

Figure 5.40: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 4
It was ok 5
Not easy 3
Don't know 0
Not answered 1

The feedback received included the following points:

  • the flood plan explorer should focus on usability for individuals and communities to see their local measures
  • it should be easier to switch between river basin districts, FRAs, strategic areas and national measures

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Overall, respondents could most or all of what they looked for although some respondents could not find much of what they looked for.

Figure 5.41: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found I was looking for 2
I found most of what I was looking for 7
I did not find much of what I was looking for 3
I did not find anything I was looking for 0
Not answered 1

It was reported that the FRMPs were difficult to navigate. There was a suggestion to produce a summary list of the measure information and details for each geographical area. This will help readers understand where actions will be delivered.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

The consistency of the FRMP measures with those in the local flood risk management strategies was welcomed. The responses also showed eagerness to work with all organisations in the delivery of the measures.

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

There was a general agreement with the conclusions of the SEA.

Figure 5.42: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 6
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 1

Figure 5.43: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 4
No 5
Don't know 2
Not answered 2

Figure 5.44: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 6
No 5
Don't know 1
Not answered 1

Some of the issues raised included:

  • the need to address wider coastal issues and habitats in the assessments
  • there were concerns around the adoption of natural flood management or more nature-based solution measures that may also result in the loss of agricultural land through land use change

5.11 North West

We received 30 responses for the North West FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.45 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.45: Consultees who responded to the North West FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 12 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 10 responses from local government
  • 3 responses from national organisations
  • 3 responses from individuals
  • 2 responses from utility organisations

5.12 Main themes

The main themes from the North West FRMP responses were:

  • the value of working in partnership and engagement across all interested organisations and parties
  • the need to identify the funding and resources to deliver the FRMP
  • there were some difficulties in reading or understanding the FRMP

5.13 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the consultees agreed totally or partially with the measures.

Figure 5.46: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the North West River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 8
Partially 16
Not at all 0
Don't know 3
Not answered 3

The fact that the coverage of existing flood risk areas may affect stakeholders' ability to attract funding was raised in the responses.

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most respondents agreed totally or partially.

Figure 5.47: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the North West River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 9
Partially 12
Not at all 1
Don't know 3
Not answered 5

The following points were made:

  • there was support for catchment-based approaches
  • respondents explained that sufficient funding and resourcing for lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) and risk management authorities (RMAs) will be required to deliver measures
  • data accuracy and data sharing were important to enable delivery of the measures

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

There was a general agreement that the plan supported the FCERM strategy.

Figure 5.48: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 7
Partially 19
Not at all 0
Don't know 2
Not answered 2

Some of the topics raised included:

  • a detailed plan would be required to deliver the ambitions of the FCERM strategy
  • there were concerns that using agricultural land for flood protection could have serious implications for the north-west economy

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Consultees generally agreed that the FRMP will deliver multiple benefits.

Figure 5.49: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 20
Not at all 2
Don't know 1
Not answered 2

Some of the points raised included:

  • there was more detail requested on how risk management authorities (RMAs) and lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) will implement community resilience
  • there were calls to put more emphasis on implementing nature-based solutions
  • there were concerns that plans did not have enough detail about reducing pollution and improving water quality

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Respondents generally agreed that the FRMP considered the impact of flood risk associated with climate change.

Figure 5.50: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 10
Partially 17
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 2

The following points were made:

  • that the FRMP does not adequately cover drainage infrastructure capacity in the context of climate change
  • measures and objectives should consider flood forecasting more
  • improving the coordination of risk management authorities (RMAs) to deal with both future and current risks
  • where rising water levels could be contaminated by former mines, solutions will be required to treat the contaminated water
  • upland natural flood management alongside hard engineering solutions would provide significant resilience to the impacts of climate change

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Although most respondents said that they could use it, some said that it was not easy.

Figure 5.51: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 5
It was ok 12
Not easy 11
Don't know 0
Not answered 2

Issues raised included:

  • there were suggestions to add a facility to download the measures as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
  • the density of the data displayed made it difficult to read the map

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Overall respondents found all or most of what they were looking for.

Figure 5.52: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 5
I found most of what I was looking for 19
I did not find much of what I was looking for 4
I did not find anything I was looking for 0
Not answered 2

Some of the points made included:

  • there were some concerns about the length of the FRMP and the usability of the consultation page and links to documents
  • there was a suggestion to add PDFs on the consultation page to help stakeholders when navigating the flood plan explorer

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Respondents generally wanted to support the delivery of the FRMPs. Respondents from the agricultural sector wanted to be involved where measures might impact agricultural land or rural landowners.

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

All of those who responded, except from one person, agreed totally or partially with the conclusions of the SEA. There was a call for consideration of the impact of flood risk management measures on food production and the need for flood risk management measures to work with agriculture where possible.

Figure 5.53: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 10
Partially 10
Not at all 1
Don't know 3
Not answered 6

Figure 5.54: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 10
No 9
Don't know 4
Not answered 7

Figure 5.55: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 9
No 4
Don't know 10
Not answered 7

5.14 Severn

We received 28 responses for the Severn FRMP consultation questions. The chart below shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.56: Consultees who responded to the Severn FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 8 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 10 responses from local government
  • 2 responses from national organisations
  • 4 responses from individuals
  • 4 responses from utility organisations

5.15 Main Themes

The main themes from the Severn FRMP responses included:

  • the implementation of nature-based solutions, especially those that provide multiple benefits was welcomed
  • there was appreciation for existing partnerships and engagement which also help data sharing
  • resources and funding were highlighted as potential constraints for the implementation of the plans

5.16 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most respondents partially or totally agreed with the measures.

Figure 5.57: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Severn River Basin District

Response Number of responses
Totally 9
Partially 10
Not at all 0
Don't know 2
Not answered 7

Points raised in the response included:

  • there were requests for the measures to include more detail to ensure consistency and improve understanding of their environmental benefits
  • some gaps in both the spatial extent and issues covered by measures were reported

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most consultees agreed partially or totally with the measures.

Figure 5.58: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Severn River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 8
Partially 10
Not at all 0
Don't know 4
Not answered 6

The following topics were raised:

  • there were concerns regarding flood risk area (FRA) coverage as some places which flood or are at risk of flooding are not included in FRAs
  • more detail was needed to clarify the approach to deal with flooding outside FRAs.
  • some of the measures focus too much on studies and investigations rather than delivering actions
  • there was broad support for nature-based solutions. However, respondents had mixed views on the focus measures should have to balance nature-based solutions and other solutions such as hard defences

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Most of the consultees agreed totally or partially that the FRMP supported the delivery of the ambitions in the FCERM strategy.

Figure 5.59: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 7
Partially 11
Not at all 0
Don't know 4
Not answered 6

The issues raised included the need for clearer links between the plans and the FCERM strategy.

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Most respondents agreed that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits.

Figure 5.60: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 5
Partially 12
Not at all 1
Don't know 4
Not answered 6

Some of the points made included:

  • in some cases, resources and funding have constrained the delivery of multiple benefits in projects in the past
  • there is a need to highlight better the benefits and contributions on measures regarding issues such as biodiversity and water quality

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Most consultees agreed that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change.

Figure 5.61: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 7
Partially 11
Not at all 0
Don't know 4
Not answered 6

Issues raised included:

  • some measures will mitigate climate change impacts whilst also enabling a better understanding of the impacts
  • the need to consider predicted future impacts and managing these by increasing resilience through nature-based solutions
  • more consideration of the value of agricultural land regarding future flood protection and food production is needed
  • further data is required to understand the baseline status of ecological habitats and species
  • there was support for continued partnership working, including data sharing, to enable better climate change planning with vulnerable sectors

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Although most consultees said that they found ok or easy to use flood plan explorer, some of them did not find it easy. There was a mixed response regarding difficulty using the flood plan explorer.

Figure 5.62: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 4
It was ok 11
Not easy 8
Don't know 0
Not answered 5

Matters raised included the following:

  • the map feature was helpful by presenting information spatially
  • sometimes there was too much information presented at once
  • that being able to download data from the system and being able to search by location or theme would be useful

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Most consultees reported that they could find most or all of what they looked for. However, five of them could not find much or anything.

Figure 5.63: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 6
I found most of what I was looking for 11
I did not find much of what I was looking for 4
I did not find anything I was looking for 1
Not answered 6

Issues covered in the responses included:

  • there should be a full economic analysis of the measures as a whole in the FRMPs and their supporting information
  • there was a request for more information to understand how the measures were determined
  • the plan should be written in plain English and shortened or divided. It was suggested that a meeting on how to use the document would help to navigate the information better

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

A wide variety of organisations and groups explained that they were willing to support the delivery of the FRMPs. Several risk management authorities (RMAs) were keen to collaborate by working on joint programmes of work. Both resources and funding were identified as potential delivery constraints.

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

Most of the respondents agree totally or partially with the SEA conclusions. However, a fourth of the respondents did not know.

Figure 5.64: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 9
Partially 4
Not at all 0
Don't know 7
Not answered 8

Figure 5.65: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 6
No 10
Don't know 4
Not answered 8

Figure 5.66: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 7
No 7
Don't know 5
Not answered 9

Topics points raised included:

The recognition of the importance of agricultural land in the SEA was appreciated, although greater quantification of effects and consideration of the impact on food production is needed.

  • more detail should be included regarding the negative impacts of engineered solutions and the benefits of nature-based solutions
  • the impact of using natural flood management and nature-based solutions on food production should be discussed further
  • there should be more engagement with catchment partnerships and the food production industry

5.17 Solway Tweed

We received 13 responses for the Solway Tweed FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.67 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.67: Consultees who responded to the Solway Tweed FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 4 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 2 responses from local government
  • 3 responses from national organisations
  • 2 responses from individuals
  • 2 responses from utility organisations

5.18 Main themes

The main themes from the Solway Tweed FRMP responses were partnerships engagement and readability.

5.19 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Although the Solway Tweed River Basin District does not have FRAs, national level measures do cover the Solway Tweed River Basin District and the whole of England. Those who responded agreed either totally or partially with the measures.

Figure 5.68: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Solway Tweed River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 2
Partially 7
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

All except one of the respondents who answered the question agreed partially or totally with the measures outside FRAs.

Figure 5.69: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Solway Tweed River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 6
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 5

The matters raised included:

  • the need to improve clarity of the wording of some measures
  • partnership working would be important to ensure adequate asset maintenance, identifying future resilience opportunities and wider catchment benefits

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Most of the consultees who responded to this question partially agreed.

Figure 5.70: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 8
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

Some of the issues raised included:

  • a greater emphasis on a catchment-based approach to manage the flow of water through the catchment better. All sources of water and their cumulative impact in flood risk should be understood
  • although the FCERM strategy makes its long-term ambitions clear, there is a need to clarify how the implementation of the FRMP measures will support them
  • the economic benefits that agriculture provides should be taken into consideration

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

The respondents who answered this question had mixed views on this.

Figure 5.71: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 0
Partially 7
Not at all 2
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

Some of the topics raised included:

  • maintaining momentum will be very important so the potential benefits can be realised
  • the multiple benefits that agricultural land provides, such as landscape character, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, water quality, recreation and tourism could be jeopardised if agricultural land is flooded

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Most of the consultees who answered the question agreed totally or partially.

Figure 5.72: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 2
Partially 6
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 4

Some of the issues raised included:

  • the plan does not address the impact of climate change on food production and the rural economy
  • sewer flooding should be part of this section as it is a type of flood risk.
  • there are inconsistencies over which scenarios are used across different programmes and strategies

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

There were mixed views for this question.

Figure 5.73: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 3
It was ok 3
Not easy 3
Don't know 0
Not answered 4

There were some suggestions on usability including:

  • the use of aerial imagery and mapping software to help display the measures more clearly
  • the ability to download the measures into a spreadsheet to make it easier to comment

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Most of the respondents who answered the questions found most or all of what they were looking for.

Figure 5.74: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 2
I found most of what I was looking for 5
I did not find much of what I was looking for 2
I did not find anything I was looking for 0
Not answered 4

However, there were issues raised about the usability and layout of the consultation page and document links.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Respondents were keen to work in partnership and support the delivery of the measures.

Question 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

The consultees who answered this question agreed totally or partially with the conclusions of the SEA.

Figure 5.75: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 7
Not at all 0
Don't know 0
Not answered 5

Figure 5.76: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 5
No 2
Don't know 0
Not answered 6

Figure 5.77: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 5
No 2
Don't know 1
Not answered 5

The matters raised included:

  • a balance between the adoption of natural flood management and the loss of agricultural land which could impact on food production
  • coastal issues should be considered further in the environmental assessments

5.20 South East

We received 38 responses for the South East FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.78 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.78: Consultees who responded to the South East FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 13 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 1 response from national environment management organisations
  • 9 responses from local government
  • 2 responses from national organisations
  • 10 responses from individuals
  • 3 responses from utility organisations

5.21 Main themes

The main themes emerging from the South East FRMP responses were:

  • the importance of nature-based solutions and partnerships in flood risk management.
  • the impact of climate change and inappropriate urban design and development
  • how risk management authorities and the Environment Agency engage during the town and country planning process and associated policy development
  • the focus on flood risk areas within the plans appears inconsistent with a catchment-based approach, which is vital to manage the movement and storage of water at the catchment scale and to maximise the use of nature-based solutions for flood risk

5.22 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

There was a mixed response to this question with some consultees agreeing partially or totally and others disagreeing.

Figure 5.79: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the South East River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 8
Partially 18
Not at all 3
Don't know 2
Not answered 7

Some of the points raised included:

  • there was support for the promotion of nature-based solutions highlighting the importance of early engagement with partners on these solutions
  • it is important not to limit options to FRA boundaries
  • the potential impact of development on flood risk if not addressed properly, and the need to see more sustainable urban drainage systems to manage surface water flooding

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the consultees who answered this question agreed totally or partially.

Figure 5.80: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the South East River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 8
Partially 15
Not at all 2
Don't know 5
Not answered 8

The feedback received in this question relates to national level measures, since local measures are not included for locations outside of FRAs. Responses showed that national-level measures are very comprehensive and provide a good range of measures across all areas. There was some specific feedback on some measures.

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Most of those who responded agreed to some degree that the FRMP supported the delivery of the FCERM strategy.

Figure 5.81:Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 6
Partially 19
Not at all 2
Don't know 4
Not answered 7

Issues raised included:

  • although there was general support, respondents said that objectives and measures could be made more specific
  • it was considered that the plan aligned with the river basin management plan
  • both greater financial support and commitment to the delivery of measures was needed to implement the plan
  • there was support for nature-based solutions

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Most of the respondents agreed partially.

Figure 5.82: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 6
Partially 17
Not at all 2
Don't know 4
Not answered 9

Topics raised in the responses included:

  • there is a need to consider nature-based solutions and taking a natural capital approach to options appraisal
  • strengthening the links between the river basin management plan, local habitat creation schemes, the nature recovery network, and the local nature recovery strategies
  • more should be done in urban areas to promote nature recovery and the multiple benefits of surface water schemes

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Most of those who responded this question agreed either partially or totally.

Figure 5.83: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 8
Partially 14
Not at all 2
Don't know 3
Not answered 11

The following points were made:

  • there was support for the national FRMP objectives relating to climate change, mapping, research and awareness raising
  • the scale of potential impacts should not be underestimated to ensure funding is also not underestimated
  • the plan would benefit from consideration of climate change impacts and associated longer-term challenges. These include the threat of coastal erosion, the climate mitigation role of coastal habitats, the need for adaptation, and the impact of development on the urban environment

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Most of the respondents found it ok or easy to use.

Figure 5.84: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 4
It was ok 18
Not easy 9
Don't know 0
Not answered 7

Some respondents suggested potential improvements including:

  • making it easier to find local measures
  • streamlining the presentation of national measures
  • providing more explanatory text or a short user guide and the option to see measures in a list format

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Although most of the consultees found some or what they were looking for, others didn't.

Figure 5.85: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 6
I found most of what I was looking for 16
I did not find much of what I was looking for 8
I did not find anything I was looking for 1
Not answered 7

The feedback received shows that there was a lot of information in the FRMP. There was a suggestion to add a short section to clarify its contents and who the information is for.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Respondents were willing to continue assisting by direct support of measures, promoting preparedness for flooding through community and personal flood plans, and strengthening local development planning policy.

Other issues raised included:

  • the importance of partnership working
  • the need to co-ordinate the plans with investment programmes
  • the important role of local organisations should be recognised, such as parish and town councils, as well as community-based flood groups and riparian owners

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

Most consultees who responded agreed totally or partially with the conclusions of the SEA. A considerable number of consultees did not respond and some of them did not know.

Figure 5.86: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 9
Partially 13
Not at all 0
Don't know 6
Not answered 10

Figure 5.87: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 9
No 8
Don't know 7
Not answered 14

Figure 5.88: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 12
No 2
Don't know 10
Not answered 14

Issues raised included:

  • partnership working should be encouraged in relation to measures and mitigation
  • there was a question about how the Environment Agency would monitor the delivery of the FRMP and measures against the SEA findings

5.23 South West

We received 22 responses for the South West FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.89 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.89: Consultees who responded to the South West FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 7 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 1 response from national environment management organisations
  • 9 responses from local government
  • 1 response from national organisations
  • 2 responses from individuals
  • 2 responses from utility organisations

5.24 Main themes

The main themes from the South West FRMP responses were coastal, climate change and adaptation, agriculture, partnerships

5.25 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the consultees who responded agreed totally or partially with the measures.

Figure 5.90: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the South West River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 4
Partially 11
Not at all 0
Don't know 3
Not answered 4

Points raised in the responses included:

  • there was overall support for the measures to deliver multiple benefits
  • there was not enough information on the funding and resource for each of the measures
  • there was a call to understand how the locations of FRAs were identified, as some locations that frequently flood were not captured

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most respondents agreed partially with the measures outside FRAs.

Figure 5.91: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the South West River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 1
Partially 15
Not at all 0
Don't know 1
Not answered 5

Some of the matters raised included:

  • there was good alignment between some of the FRMP measures outside of FRAs and priority projects the catchment partnerships and other partners were working on
  • that flood risk needed to be better identified for small local communities in the South West River Basin District
  • better alignment was needed to manage coastal flooding and the work on shoreline management plans

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Although most consultees agreed totally or partially, 2 of them didn't agree at all.

Figure 5.92: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 2
Partially 14
Not at all 1
Don't know 2
Not answered 3

Topics raised included:

  • that greater support is needed for coastal erosion outside of FRAs
  • there is a need for greater emphasis on catchment-based approach

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

The answers receive followed the same pattern as the previous question. Most respondents partially agreed.

Figure 5.93: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 2
Partially 13
Not at all 1
Don't know 2
Not answered 4

The issues raised included:

  • the need to address long term maintenance of nature-based solutions
  • measures to reduce emissions from all greenhouse gases have not been included
  • the need for resources so risk management authorities are better able to deliver multiple benefits

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Most consultees agreed partially or totally, although some did not know and one disagreed.

Figure 5.94: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 2
Partially 13
Not at all 1
Don't know 3
Not answered 3

The following points were made:

  • further detail of how climate adaptation will take place was needed to support local communities to make decisions on climate change
  • more detail regarding how climate change will impact surface water issues and more measures to address surface water flooding are needed

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

There were mixed views on how easy consultees found using flood plan explorer.

Figure 5.95: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 2
It was ok 9
Not easy 8
Don't know 0
Not answered 3

Although the postcode search was welcomed, there was a call for improvements to the measures search functionality.

Question 12: finding FRMP information

Although there were mixed views, the majority of the respondents found most or all what they were looking for.

Figure 5.96: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking for 2
I found most of what I was looking for 12
I did not find much of what I was looking for 4
I did not find anything I was looking for 0
Not answered 4

Respondents felt that there was a lot of information and that the core information should be summarised more clearly. Some found it difficult to understand the many plans and strategies referenced.

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Some of the points raised by the consultees included:

  • the importance of engaging with schools and universities in the delivery of local flood risk management
  • the fact that partnerships provide good value in the delivery of wider catchment scale measures
  • the lack of resourcing will reduce the ability to support measures delivery

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

One third of the respondents didn't answer the question and those who answered didn't know or agreed partially with the SEA conclusions. The feedback received said that coastal flooding should be addressed more and that the SEAs should consider the impact of flooding on food production.

Figure 5.97: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 0
Partially 9
Not at all 0
Don't know 6
Not answered 7

Figure 5.98: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 6
No 2
Don't know 5
Not answered 9

Figure 5.99: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 8
No 2
Don't know 6
Not answered 6

5.26 Thames

We received 50 responses for the Thames FRMP consultation questions. Figure 5.100 shows the breakdown of responses.

Figure 5.100: Consultees who responded to the Thames FRMP

Respondents from each type of organisation were as follows:

  • 17 responses from local environment management organisations
  • 1 response from national environment management organisations
  • 12 responses from local government
  • 1 response from national organisations
  • 13 responses from individuals
  • 1 response from national infrastructure organisations
  • 5 responses from utility organisations

5.27 Main themes

The main themes from the Thames FRMP responses were catchment, climate change, environmental benefits, integration, land management, mapping, partnership, readability and resilience.

5.28 A summary of responses to each consultation question

Question 5: strategic measures in flood risk areas (FRAs)

Most of the respondents agreed totally or partially, although some of them did not agree at all.

Figure 5.101: Did consultees agree with measures identified in flood risk areas in the Thames River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 18
Partially 12
Not at all 4
Don't know 5
Not answered 11

Some of the topics raised included:

  • the status of measures, identification of FRAs in recently flooded areas, suitability of the national level measures and associated resourcing to be able to implement the draft measures
  • the need for better links between flood risk plans, security of water resources, and water resource plans and to reduce overlaps
  • there were more opportunities to implement pan-London measures.
  • a call for government action on paving over gardens
  • the need for more information on the data used in the preliminary flood risk assessment

Question 6: strategic measures outside of flood risk areas (FRAs)

Respondents expressed similar views for this question.

Figure 5.102: Did consultees agree with measures identified outside flood risk areas in the Thames River Basin District?

Response Number of responses
Totally 16
Partially 14
Not at all 3
Don't know 7
Not answered 10

The matters raised in the responses included:

  • areas outside identified FRAs felt overlooked although respondents acknowledged that there were measures at the river basin district scale
  • the importance of development and land-use planning. The role that local planning authorities have in mitigating the impact of surface water flood risk
  • more support for lead local flood authorities to manage groundwater flood risk
  • the need to understand better how the plan measures will be implemented
  • the lack of references in the plans to river erosion
  • social issues such as language barriers, social deprivation, and mental health issues should also be considered in the plans

Question 7: supporting the FCERM strategy

Most respondents agreed either partially or totally. However, three of those who answered the question disagreed.

Figure 5.103: Did consultees agree that the FRMP supported delivery of the ambitions in the national FCERM strategy?

Response Number of responses
Totally 9
Partially 19
Not at all 3
Don't know 7
Not answered 12

The issues raised included:

  • more clarity is needed about how the strategies differ and how they will be reported and implemented moving forward
  • there was a call to consider wetlands and fenlands as carbon sinks and flood storage basins

Question 8: delivering multiple benefits

Most of the consultees who answered the question agreed partially or totally although 5 of the respondents disagreed.

Figure 5.104: Did consultees agree that the FRMP delivered multiple benefits for flood risk management and in the wider water environment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 8
Partially 22
Not at all 5
Don't know 3
Not answered 12

The following points were made:

  • the need for a holistic and integrated approach to reduce flooding, increase climate resilience, protect habitats, and enhance biodiversity and water quality
  • more detail was requested about how the objectives will be met and how they will align with other strategies
  • natural flood management methods could be used to meet the objectives.
  • the challenges urban environments pose, with high flood risk and competing demands for land

Question 9: considering the likely impacts of climate change

Most respondents agreed either partially or totally. However, three of those who answered the question disagreed.

Figure 5.105: Did consultees agree that the FRMP considered the impacts of flood risk associated with climate change?

Response Number of responses
Totally 10
Partially 22
Not at all 3
Don't know 4
Not answered 11

Some of the topics covered in the responses included:

  • there were concerns about the recent increase in flooding events and impacts as well as the increase of proposed developments on the floodplain
  • the need for communities to become more flood resilient
  • working with nature and making space for water could help to address the effects of climate change
  • the need for risk management authorities to work together in a joined-up way to resolve issues and address flood risk

Questions 10 to 11: using flood plan explorer

Most consultees found using the flood plan explorer ok or easy, although thirteen of them found it not easy.

Figure 5.106: How easy did consultees find using the flood plan explorer to find measures?

Response Number of responses
Easy 4
It was ok 22
Not easy 13
Don't know 2
Not answered 9

Question 12: finding FRMP information

A significant number of respondents did not answer this question. Most of those who did find what they were looking.

Figure 5.107: How was consultees' experience in finding information within the FRMP and flood plan explorer?

Response Number of responses
I found what I was looking far 6
I found most of what I was looking for 17
I did not find much of what I was looking for 10
I did not find anything I was looking for 5
Not answered 12

Issues raised included:

  • there was a lot of information, and it was difficult to navigate at times
  • there was a lack of detail on local issues
  • there was a suggestion of adding an economic analysis and improvements to the flood plan explorer as the measures are implemented

Question 13: supporting the delivery of FRMPs

Some of the points respondents made included:

  • working with landowners and communities is very important as they have local knowledge to understand the potential impacts
  • there is a need for baseline information on the different sources of flooding and detailed information on certain habitats and species
  • an overall support of the goals, aspirations and delivery of the Thames FRMP through close partnerships working
  • the issues raised included concerns over funding levels, the lack of focus on river erosion control, the impact of paving over gardens

Questions 14 to 16: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)

The consultees who responded to the question had mixed views regarding the conclusions of the SEA. Some of the issues raised included:

  • reservations on the methodology and the high volume of information
  • there was a suggestion to produce a further summary of the non-technical summary and the need for further assessments closer to the implementation of the measure
  • it was difficult to consider just flood risk without bearing in mind water abstractions. Drought and water should be considered as a whole
  • other issues raised were the lack of references to estuarine and coastal habitat restoration, the benefits rivers can bring, impacts on flora, fauna, and funding

Figure 5.108: Did consultees agree with the conclusions of the environmental assessment?

Response Number of responses
Totally 7
Partially 13
Not at all 2
Don't know 12
Not answered 16

Figure 5.109: Did consultees think any other significant environmental effects, either positive or negative, should be considered in the FRMP?

Response Number of responses
Yes 14
No 7
Don't know 13
Not answered 16

Figure 5.110: Did consultees think that there are further opportunities in the FRMP to enhance positive or mitigate negative environmental effects?

Response Number of responses
Yes 22
No 5
Don't know 8
Not answered 15

6. Next steps

We are continuing to analyse responses as we identify actions to take as result of the consultation. After this we will publish a document that describes how we acted on your responses ('You Said, We Did') and finalise the plans for publication in Autumn 2022.

We will keep you informed as we progress the writing of the final plans, and will provide updates on the Draft Flood Risk Management Plans page on GOV.UK.

Back to top