Flood and Coastal Erosion Committee meeting: 19 February 2025: Minutes

Committee Present:

Martin Buckle (MB)    Chair
Darren Thomas (DT)    Pembrokeshire County Council
Paul Blackman (PB)    Wallingford Hydro Solutions
Anne-Marie Moon (AMM)    JBA Consulting
Mike Wellington (MW)    Waterco
Geraint Edwards (GE)    Conwy County Borough Council    
Paul Williams (PW)     NFU Cymru
Dominic Scott (DS)    Dwr Cymru – Welsh Water
Robin Campbell (RC)    Arup  
Natalie Haines (NH)    Mott MacDonald
Karen Potter (KP)    Open University
Jean-Francois Dulong (JFD)    Welsh Local Government Association
Catherine Wilson (CW)            Cardiff University
Jeremy Parr (JP)                Natural Resources Wales
Andrew Stone (AS)    Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council

Welsh Government:

Clare Fernandes (CF)            
Lowri Norrington-Davies (LND)        
Rosie Quinn (RQ)
Tracy Goode (TG)
Jon Fudge (JF)

Other Speakers

Samantha Kenyon (SK)    Glanllyn Farm, Elwy Valley, Denbighshire  (Nature Friendly Farming Network)
Alastair Ross    (AR)                Association of British Insurers.
Jonathan Kassian                Flood Re
Stephen Brooks (SB)            National Infrastructure Commission Wales
Helen Armstrong (HA)            National Infrastructure Commission Wales
David James     (DJ)                Welsh Local Government Association

Apologies:

None. 

The Chair confirmed no apologies received and introductions were made.

RC as an employee of Arup, I would like flag declaration of interest relating to Agenda Item 15 Climate Conversations Research - Engaging Communities and Resilient Infrastructure - National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NICW), as Arup is supporting NICW on this work.

MB noted the minutes and matters arising; minutes from the last meeting were reviewed and approved without any objections. 

Action updates:

Updates were provided on actions from the last meeting, including the scheduling of a meeting with regional group chairs and the publication of the Welsh climate resilience strategy.

Outstanding Actions:

1. CF need to check if Terms of Reference (ToR) on UK Task Force are available. – not yet available
2. CF need to share Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Beaver Policy biodiversity team confirmed not yet agreed by NRW.  
3. DJ – Town & county planning associated liaising and engaging with head of planning to review. Completed
4. Update on Local Strategies to be provide by DJ
5. LND to issue DEFRA S19 Review when available
6. WG confirmed the PFR report could not to be shared, and it would remain an internal WG publication - Completed

The Chair made the following announcements:

5.1.    I would like to update the Committee on the meetings and events that I have attended since our last meeting.  

5.2.    In December, I met with the Deputy First Minister to share our Annual Report and our response to the report on flood resilience prepared by NICW. We also discussed recent flooding events and the Welsh Government’s Environmental Sustainability Skills and Capacity Review, and I provided an update on our Work Programme.

5.3.    Also in December, I attended the quarterly meeting with the Chairs of the English Regional Flood and Coastal Committees. The meeting received an update on Storm Bert, on the new government’s devolution agenda in England, and on its approach to funding programmes. The next meeting takes place in March.

5.4.    In December, I also met with the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park Authority to get an update on its work on catchment planning, and to explore the role of our national parks in flood risk management.
 
5.5.    In January, I met with the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum and the Severn Estuary Partnership to discuss the Committee’s support requirements for its Sub-Committees.

5.6.    Also in January I met with Flood Re in preparation for the item on today’s agenda.

5.7.    In January and February, I attended meetings of the Flood and Coastal Risk Programme Board. At the January meeting, the Board agreed changes to its terms of reference to extend its role to include oversight of the Resources Improvement Programme proposed in our Resources Report, with meetings being extended to provide additional capacity. At the latest meeting of the Board last week, we reviewed progress on the current year’s programme, and considered proposals for the coming year. The Board has agreed to hold an extra meeting in March to review the implications of the NICW report for its role and work programme.

5.8.    During February, I have also attended two meetings with Natural Resources Wales. The first was one of my periodic update meetings with the chair of their Flood Risk Management Committee. The second was to discuss the forthcoming Section 18 reporting and review process.

5.9.    Looking ahead, in March, with colleagues from the Resources Sub-Committee, I will be meeting with the Deputy First Minister to discuss the Welsh Government’s Environmental Sustainability Skills and Capacity Review, and options for moving forward on FCERM, including elements of our Resources Report.

5.10.    Also looking ahead, as colleagues will be aware, this is the last meeting on the Committee for Darren Thomas. Darren is leaving his post with Pembrokeshire County Council for a new role with Milford Haven Port Authority. Darren has been with this Committee since its first meeting in June 2019. He has served on the Resources Sub-Committee since in 2020, and has chaired the Section 19 Sub-Committee since its inception last year. He has made a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee, and he will definitely be a hard act to follow.

DT thanked the chair and committee members for the kind words and said it had been a tremendous privilege to sit on the committee. Noted a regional representative needed to be sought and he had been sounding out relevant individuals.

Southwest (SW) Wales Flood Risk Management Group. 

Very successful last regional meeting with wider discussion to see what could be achieved in wider supporting coastal and FCEC subgroups.  More thought needs to be undertaken in how different regional groups work or could work better on a National level. Suggested roles and responsibilities may need looking at to support a more standardised approach. 

North Wales Group

GE was unable to attend last North meeting handing over to DS to provide feedback.

DS last meeting was held on16th January with 15 in attendance. DS has stepped down as chair and Rob Williams of Gwynedd has taken over. The group in general feel there is good engagement with FCEC, however the subcommittee work and central activities could be better connected. Praise for general WG engagement relating to programme funding via individual dialog and on specific schemes. There is a feeling they could be better involved in more strategic direction for forward planning. Concern was raised over turnover of staff and leadership in WG but reflected on the value Keith Ivens brought and the input and technical support whilst on secondment. 

The group question whether having more technical support would actually promote longevity of staff in WG. Difference in resource across LAs noted as a concern. North Wales Regional Group SuDS Guidance hoped to be completed and adopted in the summer of 2025. 

Clarity on the time scales requested for Local Strategies and how FCEC Sub Committee information could be better shared 

Moving forward Gwynedd will take the secretariat which should provide a good foundation to support better information. 

Southeast Group (SE)

AS 15th January met, discussed general national issues similar to North Wales, the group would like to appreciate how they can engage with wider group. The lack of resource and priorities on a local level means in general they could not engage more with FCEC subcommittees.

Small scale funding changes very welcomed as is the flexibility offered. 

It was suggested that better resourced authorities could possibly work collaboratively in an emergency to be mobilised for major emergency incidents response. 

The group also took an opportunity to discuss the National Asset Database (NAD) and Policy / Legislative recommendation for a Section 21 National Asset Register. In general, the group felt the Section 21 register should possibly be utilised providing more transparency to inform a true NAD.  The concern over quality of information and need to improve dialog by RMAs was very much recognised for future improvements.

AS has now stepped down after 12 years as chair of Southeast group, and Owain Griffiths will act as an interim until the group formally vote.

RC the constant changes in authorities appear to add to wider sharing issues, how can we share information between groups more efficiently. Are there any opportunities or collaborative tools that could be used to better encourage knowledge transfer.

AS strongly feels it’s often the same individuals who are attending but don’t have the time to digest the sheer level of information, specifically when they are often the only individual in an authority. Could there be an opportunity to utilise a younger generation initiative to support more dynamic transfer via better technological ideology.

DC reiterated having to think about better practices like producing a manageable summary briefing note, condensed reference information providing chunk sized knowledge tailored to different audiences.

DT again reiterated long-term consideration needed for better sharing of notes and how using early career individuals could support more innovative thinking. 

JFD also suggested the point made about chief officers bringing a summary from the regional work groups together as a standard – Action for DJ.

MB noted he would report back to the next resource subcommittee meeting relating to the dialog had with regional groups and also agreed that the National Meeting was very welcome and useful. During the regional dialogue it was agreed that the recommendations within the NICW report would be better discussed in the next regional meeting following WG response.

JFD asked all regional representatives if there had there been a discussion about revenue across the regions, are they all still receiving the 225K?  Action on JFD to email chairs of regional groups.

Samantha Kenyon.  SK provided a detailed presentation.  

Questions / discussion:

Chair thanked SK for a very inspiring presentation and welcomed questions.

Q. CW impressed by the scheme in general but very much the herbal leys methodology in improving soil structure, this type of work is crucial and support is needed for farmers to understand the benefits of storing water in soil. What’s evident is that if traditional pasture is managed correctly it can be key to success. Is this methodology being quantified or has it been in Wales? A – SK not confirmed data not been quantified on these projects and it was agreed that they would discuss further off-line.

Q. JP again would like to reiterate how he found himself agreeing with the recommendations and asked how do we unlock in delivering this at scale in Wales, what were her views on the SFS? A. Is in conversation and firmly believe schemes like this are best facilitated by individuals from farming background, this encourages knowledge transfer promoting examples that have evidence of working.

MW wanted to note spending rules often add additional complexities and hinder more innovative solutions, as an example, flood funding doesn’t allow support of responses to river erosion.

DS again reiterating JP comments, well recognised that there are a suite of options available but there isn’t enough resource to undertake the engagement. Should more catchment approaches and solutions go to third parties like the River Trusts to promote?

PB interested on views towards the SFS as it received a negative reaction? SK as a farmer yes, we would like to see it, but feel Farming Connect would be better used to facilitate more collaborative thinking. Still much concern on how or what the SFS will look like, good to hear DFM speaking which holds hope.

PC – what’s been said here today resonates, it must be looked at much wider, as nature friendly farming capital schemes also open concern as they have no revenue or maintenance funding.  The scheme seems to have good benefits, the biggest challenge will be in the design so that every farmer in Wales has an opportunity, or how will it achieve catchment nature-based solutions.

Clare Fernandes / Jon Fudge

JF provided an update on TAN15 direction prior to publication. Essentially the technical advice note is virtually ready for publication. 

The 2nd consultation held in 2023 was incredibly helpful in supporting changes to bring more consistency in operation alongside other policy areas. The TAN 15 continues to adopt a risk-based approach, likelihood against the impact. Flood Map for Planning underpins all of this work, the zones and risk continues to underpin policy. Vulnerability of areas is key, and the Flood Consequence Assessments are key to align needs.

What has changed was the proposal to introduce Community Resilience Plans, on listening to the responses planning policy completely reconsidered the approach. There will now be much wider emphasis on local authority core strategies and LDP development will need to be considered. 

Having listened to the potential confusion around the different types of development that were permissible in different flood zones, there is tension between allowing places to adapt / change and regenerate in light of science telling us about risk. One of the things that we've done is to differentiate between new development and redevelopment.

New development is defined as development taking place on greenfield sites as defined in Planning Policy Wales, whereas redevelopment is about the replacement of existing.

Summarise what it means for each zone:

Zone 1

There's little change to the what's permissible, all types of development for all vulnerabilities are generally permissible in zone one obviously informed by the development plan, which was itself informed by the flood consequences assessment.

Zone 2

The risk increases, the LDP must be used in conjunction with any decisions, being demonstrably necessary.  Any new highly vulnerable development would only be acceptable on allocated sites.
And applications for redevelopment would need to show how they are core to delivering the strategy of an LDP.

Zone 3

This is where the greatest restrictions take place, no new highly vulnerable development. Local Development plans must not allocate greenfield land for any vulnerability other than national or energy security. Any applications will need ministerial notification, with a requirement for a Ministerial approval of any proposed deviations from this policy.

Publication is aimed at 31st March, to come into effect at least 21 days later.

There is a little wriggle room, LDPs must be developed in recognition of the policy. LAs must take into consideration risk associated and informed by flood consequences assessments. If they choose not to, they must be publicly accountable. On publication the Development Advice Maps will be removed, and the Flood Map for Planning will be key. 

MB provided invite to JF to attend FCEC in May on the publication.

CF agreed to provide her written update via the chat.  

9.1 Alastair Ross, Assistant Director and Head of Public Policy (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Association of British Insurers (ABI).

It’s important to understand the role of insurance for homes, covering flood risk where premiums pay for the claims, it’s obviously risk reflected, depending on the cost to repair. Flood risk from all sources is considered since FloodRe, prior there were agreements relating to how insurance should respond via the “Statement of Principles”. This was based on insurance companies agreeing to pay if the government continued to defend. It appeared over time there wasn’t a level playing field hence FloodRe being introduced. FloodRe’s Build Back Better (BBB) is a huge improvement which is supporting future resilience, a massive improvement to the original payment to just repair.

AR gave thanks for sharing the report with ABI and confirmed they would respond.

9.2 Flood Re – Johnathan Kassian, Head of Research, Flood Re.

JK provided an explanation of what communities’ experience would have been prior to the scheme and explained the differential was massive. Now typically individuals can obtain 15 plus quotes, which is a significant change to what was previously available. Where a property is eligible, they will be able to get insurance. The new BBB is still low on uptake, Property Flood Resilience (PFR) is still new and only 30% currently taking up the option.

In Wales 20,000+ properties ceded to FloodRe, roughly 900 claims since scheme inception. Only 19 claims to date have opted to take BBB, there will be a project to understand why uptake is low. 

In Wales premiums and availability for higher flood risk higher zones were very much in line with UK but typically pay about 55% higher than the market average. Average combined policy is about £400 but if you have a claim its likely to add a 3rd taking to £700/800. Only one property tracked out of 1,400 has not been offered insurance. Evidently if individuals use comparison sites there is insurance. 

In Wales our defence data is not as good as England, which can affect insurance companies wanting to support. The implementation of Schedule 3 is seen to be good, however like BBB / PFR until there is data being collected in a systematic and robust way its difficult to measure what its achieving in protection. Big questions about how you standardise practises when SuDs and likewise as there is no body for PFR. Often house owners not keen on PFR as they perceive it reduces the government requirement to defend. 

The average cost of repair was £70K in 2023, with a recent £1.15 billion value of flood defences to homes, evidence defences really matter, but evidently a cost someone must pick up. Globally climate change damage and costs are enormous, compared this is something we have not really seen in UK. 

In responding to the paper – it must be to affordability to cover the risk of £70K damage. Should we not question are these common challenges or unique, is more research required to work collaboratively. 

Questions / discussion:

KP –We introduced FloodRe to improve insurance affordability if properties are not insured why not, what are the barriers, and it would be good to work jointly to understand. Is there an over reliance on FloodRe for properties excluded post 2009, are the criteria still relevant? Not just flood defences needed but how are we going to insure properties that are still being built on floodplains.

Q. KP - what is expected with FloodRe post 2039, and how to tackle limitations to the current scheme? 

A. AR - It was expected there should be policy changes, increased investment in defences or personal resilience. However, there are active conversations ongoing, and we must recognise what is being achieved. What’s happening globally isn’t working, but FloodRe is holding up compared to other countries. BBB will also be helping to bring down the physical risk, the idea was that if FloodRe didn’t exist the homeowner would need to have made or built their property to the necessary level of resilience. Work is ongoing with planners to consider improved building standards and this needs to really be more rigid, flexibility only makes wider problems.

Q. AS – Storm Bert WG offered grants, this gave the LA an opportunity to ask what insurance they had and why ¾ didn’t have insurance, they claim this was as they had flooded prior. Could hubs be set up to support flood regions to understand what is available? A:

•  AR confirmed very complex issues, however we and WG / NRW and our forums do an excellent job in promoting community resilience. He questioned are the insurance industry recognised as an honest voice and are ABI the best organisation to communicate.
• JK must remember what did happen was insurance would go up 10 or 12 times the original premium, since FloodRe this is hugely improved, obviously understand the reality in some of these communities but this is outside the scheme.

Q. RC – wanted to emphasise the major issue is the lack of awareness of FloodRe and engagement, working across both England / Wales its evidently worse in Wales. A. AR it’s not the consumer but the professionals that need to have the awareness. It may be more appropriate to ensure construction industry have better awareness.  

Q. NH asked how do ABI / FloodRe work with conveyancing solicitors, how is house purchasing being improved? A. AR understand the need to work collaboratively but it’s not something that ABI could undertake. A. JK – FloodRe see performance certificates as a possible route to further improving homeowners’ awareness, and we must recognise often homeowners don’t want to recognise there is an issue. 

KP noted encouraging to hear these ongoing conversations and awareness of wider challenges, the recognition of targeted communication to better communicate would be welcome.

Welsh Government Consultation – To confirm the Committee Response

Questions / discussion:

Chair introduced this item, asking that this consultation response, which had already been submitted to meet the deadline, be confirmed. This was agreed. 

He noted that it was interesting picking up this in the context of the earlier TAN 15 discussion, and how this will feed in. Performance monitoring and reporting is an issue raised consistently. Key issue, will TAN 15 be making a difference?

NH noted the consultation was very focused on planning authorities and not wider consultees, but clearly these wider conversations will need to continue.

MB / RC asked CF if WG were aware of any intention for capacity building linked with the TAN15 launch? A- CF confirmed she’s not had conversations with planning, though that’s not to say they are not happening. If there’s an appetite to a have a wider conversation, it would be useful to schedule a session. JF will also be invited to May committee.

JFD cited his discussion with DJ, including the need for training for members, which will be followed up.

Action:  CF to liaise with WG Planning for answer on capacity building.

To consider the report of the Chair on the update of the Work Programme.

Chair MB noted a few of the more significant changes in the document specifically in relation to the FloodRe / Skills & Capacity work further highlighted with an aim of reporting back further in May.

Attention was brought to Annex 1 project plan and to ensure appraisals are conducted in preparation of the annual report with reappointment / recruitment occurring prior to the end of 25/26.

The report was agreed.

12.1 Membership – To consider appointments to Sub-Committees

Short report, update on DT leaving, MW formally joining Resource Subcommittee and AMM joining the Section 19 Subcommittee with PB taking a new role as chair. The report was agreed.

12.2     Minutes – To receive the minutes and updates from the following meetings:

12.2.1 Policy & Legislation Sub-Committee 05.11.24, 30.01.25.

AS – Sub-committee continues to progress changes, number of recommendations that overlap and therefore considering an additional paper. TAN15 proposal will only be able to be progressed once published, the group will continue to work with insurance and PFR. Subcommittee keeping a watching eye on the S19 work as this was an overlap in both reporting areas. The Sub-committee recognise the concern relating to the NICW report and legislative needs, but will leave this area until WG have responded. 

JP what is the update from Law Commission work, MB confirmed the FCEC is still in dialog but aware of the NICW report and implications of the recommendations. NICW report opens much wider consideration and until WG have announced their response discussions with the Law Commission will not be taken forward.

12.2.2 Resources Sub-Committee 06.01.25.

Concentrated on the preparation of Skills and Capacity workshop being held in March with the DFM. Recruited Louise Duff Wrexham University for the workshop bringing wider academic view on issues.

Using the wider FCEC conclusions but also drawing on the skills and capacity review that's been undertaken by WG Alison Kitchener team looking into the issues in more detail.

12.2.3 Research Sub-Committee 05.02.25.

Detailed minutes as provided to the group offer information on how Wales identifies its research needs and delivery. The Sub-Committee don’t necessarily see its role as long-term, may be better placed in wider mechanisms that already exist. Recently invited Simon Baldwin to confirm the Joint programme remit and wider research council work alongside PhD placements. The Sub-~Committee would be keen to work closer with Simon and team to advocate better future working.

Would like to invite Welsh Water to learn how they engage from better research.

RC would like to advocate the portal work and raised the need to ensure possibly the joint research isn’t missing Wales specific work. EA often have wider research occurring but worth asking how this is all shared for the common good. 

MB asked JP his thoughts on the issues raised in relation to insurance industry indicating there was lack of research available to support better understanding and data available on defences in Wales. JP & LND both confirmed they were surprised at this question and felt NRW mapping team worked closely with the sector to provide robust data.

LND suggested waiting until FloodRe / ABI had formally responded to the insurance issue consultation paper and utilise this information to work collaboratively with DEFRA.

12.2.4 Section 19 Sub-Committee 06.02.25.

PB will now lead as new chair, it’s a challenging programme and the group need really to see the DEFRA draft report which TG is due to supply. This document combined with the work undertaken by Prof Elwyn Evans and wider LA expertise will support future work.

Ongoing discussion but would a standard template be useful to support better working and shape future direction. NRW delivered a paper on their requirements relating to the S19. Noted a tight turn around for completion of the first draft report which is due in November. 

JFD made clear buy-in from LAs is crucial, not just the flood officers but leaders. Suggested it may be worth considering a task working group to take this forward bringing in wider nominated regional groups members. 

AS noted, he needs to be involved, specifically with the Prof Elwyn Evans report, occasionally too much detail brings wider problems. It may be worth keeping more to the legislation which is identifying the lead authority and not providing too much detail. 

MB commented on the support Severn Estuary Partnership currently provide to the subgroup, that will now change to the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum relating to both the Research and Section 19 Sub-Committees. 

This was agreed.

Jeremy Parr, Natural Resources Wales; and Andrew Stone, Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council.

Overview provided of wider storm reflections noting the flood forecasting and warnings, wider challenges need to be recognised specifically when impact is significant, but likelihood is low and how to communicate risk. 

Presentations shared and recoded.

Questions / discussion:

Q. RC relating to the level of Met Office radar station coverage in Wales. A. JP coverage is an issue in some locations as is ageing infrastructure, conversations are ongoing to improve continuously.

Q. PW - very dated system, given new technology similar to the LoRaWAN would using systems like this not provide more clarity? A. JP Use of River / Sea level information is extensively used and gets the biggest hits on NRW pages. However, NRW very much recognise there is still much territory where more could be possibly achieved.

Commissioners Stephen Brooks and Helen Armstrong, National Infrastructure Commission for Wales.

Presentation on the project looking at the long term needs, draft report should be received by end of March.

Questions / discussion:

Q. KP – Are you looking at the potential for a more formal or statutory mechanisms so that communities can get involved with decision making? A. SB in sectors where perhaps there is a greater degree of regulation / legislative or policy coherence doesn’t necessarily solve all. Perhaps just having guidance to make clearer best practices can achieve more clarity.

Q - JFD - concern as to the Energy section planning and local strategy.  A.SB all sectors have been consulted, but this sector is unclear and initially less confidence.

Q. JP – recognition that RMAs need to do more but how can it be achieved? A. SB most barriers tend to be non-technical things like funding. Often statutory risk managers feel they need to have the answers, but this work can be better informed via very small investment but with local community groups or agencies that want to be supporting work not opposing.

LND from a WG Policy perspective we are very interested to hear the results of the Fairbourne engagement you are about to undertake. We in Flood have been funding this community to achieve exactly what has been discussed in this meeting, therefore their views on community engagement are key to future thinking. 

AMM the Wales Coastal Groups Forum, asked how organisations  were making sure that SMPs were going to be considered in LDPs.  It may have been covered for flood risk, but it's still unclear for erosion. MB suggested raising during our next meeting with JF WG Planning on TAN15.

Wednesday 21st May 2025,
The Guildhall, 
Swansea 
SA1 4PE