St Ives and Brownshill Staunch Sluices Information Page

Overview

Updates- November 2024

• Clarification on condition of both St Ives and Brownshill Staunch Sluices
• Brownshill Staunch Sluice has been allocated reconditioning funding for the next two financial years (2025-2026 and 2026-2027
• Moderation funding case for St Ives Staunch Sluice approved early September 2024
• More details below

The recent exceptionally wet winter, localised flooding and concerns about the condition of both the St Ives and the Brownshill Staunch sluices have prompted questions. 

The future of these structures is challenging and we are actively working to identify a long-term approach and available funding for the two structures, considering their primary purpose.

St Ives Staunch (photo below) -  consists of seven sluice gates with a lock gate situated alongside. All seven sluice gates are in poor condition. To manage the risk of the gates becoming stuck open, leaving us unable to maintain statutory water levels for navigation, four of the seven gates have been isolated in the closed position.

Brownshill Staunch Sluice (photo above) - located downstream of St Ives Sluice, is made up of three sluice gates with a lock gate situated alongside the structure.

All three sluice gates are in poor condition and two gates have been isolated in the closed position to manage the risk of the gates becoming stuck open, leaving us unable to maintain statutory water levels for navigation.

Public event

A public drop in event was held in St Ives in August 2024 to give the public a chance to hear the facts, find out about developments and speak with staff involved in this project. It also gave us a valuable insight into the local community’s view of these structures, their perceived role and opinions on their future.

A copy of the presentation is shared below and a frequently asked questions document (based on the points raised by visitors) will be shared soon.

As this project develops, a future event may be scheduled. Details of this will be published here as well as being shared directly

What have we done?

St Ives Sluice

We have assessed a range of information, including river modelling, costs, economic benefits, condition surveys of the asset and historical information. This has been used to understand both the role the sluice plays in managing flood risk and the viability of a potential project.

For all projects, we must demonstrate that capital investment is cost beneficial and value for money. This means the ratio of the benefits of a scheme outweigh the costs. The amount of funding we are eligible for is determined by a funding calculator which prioritises funding for projects which have the greatest benefit to people and the environment. The biggest factor in determining eligibility for funding is the risk of internal flooding to households.

We have used hydraulic modelling in the case of the St Ives Staunch Sluice to determine the impact the structure has on flood risk. We have modelled several operating scenarios:

• Scenario 1: All seven gates operational.
• Scenario 2: Four gates operational, three gates closed.
• Scenario 3: All seven gates closed.

The modelling indicates that in Scenario 2, whilst there is an impact on river levels, no additional properties are at risk of internal flooding. In Scenario 3, one additional property is at risk in the 20% AEP¹ and two additional properties are at risk in a larger 1% AEP event.

The modelling also indicates that the increase in river levels diminishes the further away from the sluice you go. Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 shows no impact on river levels 0.3km and 1km upstream respectively.

The output of the hydraulic modelling has also been supported by real world data collected over numerous years.

Overall, this evidence demonstrates that, based on the funding calculator we are required to use St Ives sluice, that provides limited flood risk benefit and is uneconomic. Under the current funding policy arrangements, a project would not therefore be eligible for government funding. The evidence also suggests that the current condition of St Ives Staunch Sluice is not having a significant impact on the risk of properties flooding.

Brownshill Staunch Sluice

Since our last update, we have reviewed the evidence we have available to us relating to Brownshill Staunch Sluice. This shows that Brownshill Sluice is cost-beneficial and eligible for government funding.

However, due to the current Partnership Funding Policy, the amount of funding it is eligible for is not sufficient to fully fund the project and therefore additional funding needs to be secured. Given the scale of the funding gap, we don’t believe we will be able to secure this from beneficiaries, so we are developing a case for moderation funding to support this structure. As with the St Ives Staunch Sluice, the case for moderation will be made on the grounds of the statutory requirement to maintain water levels for navigation.

We will be able to submit this bid in June 2025 and expect to receive an outcome in September 2025. If we’re successful, works to develop the business case, which will outline the least-cost option to solve the problem, would commence in October 2025.

Given that Brownshill Sluice is going to remain in poor condition for some time to come, we wanted to share the details of the modelling evidence we have to provide an understanding of the level of increased risk to the community.

For Brownshill Sluice, we have modelled a similar range of options, including the following operational scenarios:

• Scenario 1: All three gates operational

• Scenario 2: All three gates closed

• Scenario 3: All three gates replaced with a fixed weir

• Scenario 4: All three gates open and removed from flow

• Scenario 5: Creation of a bypass channel around the sluice

Comparison of modelled flood levels and property floor levels show 10 properties (4 residential and 6 commercial) are at risk of flooding in Scenario 1. This includes 1 property in the 20% AEP event, 1 property in the 5% AEP event, 1 property in the 1.33% AEP event and 1 property in the 0.5% AEP event.

Properties that are already protected up to a 0.5% AEP Standard of Protection are considered “low risk” and are not eligible for government funding. This is because eligibility is based on projects achieving specified outcomes and any proposed FCERM measures will not lead to a step change in risk.

Our data also shows that in Scenario 2, whilst there is an increase in river levels, no new additional properties are at risk of internal flooding. However, for 4 (3 residential and 1 commercial) of the 10 properties identified at risk during scenario 1, the onset of flooding would be expected to occur sooner if all three sluice gates failed closed.

We are also reviewing the modelled flood levels for Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 to determine the level of flood risk associated with these options before deciding on the scope of the funding request.

What are we doing?

We are developing a long-term investment strategy for St Ives and Brownshill sluices and a few of our other structures along the River Great Ouse. We are assessing a range of benefits and costs to determine the best funding approach and case to Treasury for additional funding.

In the meantime, we have made a case for Moderation funding for St Ives Sluice and a bid for Reconditioning funding for Brownshill Sluice. Moderation is a process where high priority legally required schemes and urgent works are assessed and funded before prioritising the main capital schemes. The cases are only submitted in exceptional circumstances where there is an over-riding requirement for works based on a statutory, legal or health and safety need. The cases are reviewed by an Environment Agency panel and may also face Defra scrutiny.

At the beginning of September, we had our moderation case for St Ives Sluice approved and are now in the initial project development phase before we then begin business case preparation for approval, which we anticipate will take approximately 9 months. Any project under the Moderation process has to follow the Cost-Effective economic approach for appraisal which will identify the least-cost option to solve the problem.

In February, we received confirmation of the reconditioning funding allocation for future years of the programme. We are pleased to confirm that Brownshill Staunch Sluice has been allocated reconditioning funding for the next two financial years (2025-2026 and 2026-2027). Reconditioning funding is used to restore assets to their required condition to ensure they provide the standard of service originally intended. The full scope of the works will now be determined and we will keep the community and stakeholders informed as the project progresses. 

Operationally, we are continuing our inspection regime at both structures to ensure they remain safe and to monitor their condition. This includes:

• Operational checks
• Visual asset inspections
• Mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, control and automation maintenance on operational elements
• Public safety risk assessment inspections
• Ongoing reviews of our contingency plans

 

What should you do?

Hotline Number 

If you are out and about, please report incidents to our hotline number -  0800 80 70 60. It's free and open 24 hours a day. Why not programme it into your phone? Incidents you should report include:

• damage to the natural environment,
• fish in distress,
• pollution,
• collapsed or badly damaged riverbanks and riverbeds
• unusual drops in river flow.

If you are concerned about the risk of flooding to your property, we advise you to:

1. Sign up to flooding warnings - Flood warnings give people valuable time to prepare for flooding – time that allows them to move themselves, their families and precious items to safety. Flood warnings save lives and enable the emergency services to prepare and help communities Sign up for flood warnings - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

2. Check your flood risk- Check the long-term flood risk for an area in England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

3. Insurance - Think about getting insurance to better protect your home or business against flooding. Check that flood cover is included as part of your buildings and contents insurance. It is always a good idea to shop around before buying insurance.

4. Create a personal flood plan – create checklists to help you prepare for flooding. Personal flood plan - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

5. Adapt your home or business to the risk of flooding – consider how to reduce how much flood water gets into your home and reduce the damage flooding can cause.

If you would like to request the St Ives Modelling Report, please e-mail Enquiries_EastAnglia@environment-agency.gov.uk

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are the St Ives and Brownshill staunch sluices in such poor condition?

The St Ives and Brownshill sluice structures are in poor condition in part because they are coming towards the end of their anticipated lifespan, but also due to insufficient funding to maintain them to target condition (see below points to further expand on this question).

 

Why isn’t there enough maintenance funding to maintain these structures?

Each year we bid for the funding we need for maintenance activities across the catchment, including maintenance of our assets. We generally do not receive the amount of funding we ask for.

To ensure the funding allocation we do receive is used in the most effective way, we have to prioritise. To do this each item of works is given a priority score based on several factors such as whether it’s a legal obligation, the activity type, and the number of properties at risk.

For the Flood Risk Management System that St Ives Staunch Sluice falls within (FR/02/S063) only the electric supply, eel pass maintenance and control of invasive species attracted funding.  This means all other work activities, including Engineering & Bridge Inspections, Rope and Seal Replacement, Operational Checks, Grass Control, Tree Works, stilling well flushing, embankment topographic surveys, weed control, PSRA works, vermin control, flood gate seal replacements, Operation & Safety improvements have not received funding and therefore could not be carried out.

Background info on funding received for 2024/25:

Nationally - £235.9m bid for, £120.3m received (£115.6m shortfall)

East Anglia - £32.6m bid for, £13.4m received (19.2m shortfall)

Great Ouse Catchment – £12.4m bid for, £4.9m received (£7.5m shortfall)

 

How is capital funding for flood risk managed?

There are certain rules we must follow to justify the investment of any public money.  These rules are set by the Treasury and for flood risk investment specifically, by Defra.

In order to evidence the value for money that an investment provides we undertake an economic appraisal of the works we are seeking to carry out. In the case of flood risk management, it is unusual for there to be a financial return on an investment so instead, benefits are considered in terms of the value of damages and economic losses avoided due to a reduction in flood risk resulting from the investment. We need to be able to evidence that the expected whole-life benefits of a project exceed the whole-life costs.

Where projects cannot demonstrate sufficient benefits using these criteria, we are not able to spend public money on the project.

If we can evidence that a project represents value for money, we then identify how much funding a project is eligible for from Government Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA). This is calculated in line with Defra’s Partnership Funding Policy. Under this policy, the amount of Grant in Aid funding available for a project is based on its qualifying benefits, expressed as flood and coastal erosion damages and losses avoided. Where a project isn’t eligible for enough FDGiA to fund the whole project, Partnership funding from other sources are needed to enable the project to be delivered. Further details on Partnership Funding Policy can be found here: Partnership funding for FCERM projects - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The overall amount of FDGiA is limited each year and projects are prioritised by the Environment Agency on a national basis. The categories used to prioritise project bids varies from year to year, depending upon a number of different factors and the current economic climate.

At present, the national prioritisation approach is based on the principles approved by the EA Board in 2020 and Defra’s Partnership Funding Policy. The current hierarchy for allocating funding is:

1. Approved urgent cases based on health and safety or statutory grounds and time bound partnership funding contributions
2. In construction by 1 April 2025 (sub ranked by adjusted partnership funding score high to low)
3. Remainder of programme ranked by adjusted partnership funding score (high to low)

Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) may then set local priorities with advice from other stakeholders including Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) and coastal groups, to secure additional investment from alternative sources to manage risks efficiently.

 

Isn’t the Environment Agency legally obligated to ensure these structures are operational?

All powers relating to flooding and land drainage are permissive. The Environment Agency has permissive powers (not a duty) to carry out flood and coastal risk management work and regulate the actions of other flood risk management authorities on main rivers and along the coast. Legal responsibility for main rivers lies with the landowners (referred to as the Riparian Owner). If the Environment Agency chooses not to exercise its powers to maintain a flood defence or watercourse, it is not liable to third parties for losses, sustained as a result.

Consequently, the Environment Agency is not legally required to maintain flood defences but can decide, as it sees fit, whether or not to carry out maintenance works and the nature of any works it carries out. Such decisions will be informed by government policy and assessment of flood risk, funding or environmental priorities.

In the area where the St Ives and Brownshill Staunch Sluices are situated, the Environment Agency does have a statutory requirement to maintain water level for navigation purposes.

 

The structure was previously funded by DEFRA/MAFF funding which came with conditions that the structure would be maintained for its lifetime, doesn’t this place a legal obligation on the Environment Agency now?

These structures have a long history, originally coming to be in the 16^th century, and have been funded through various routes and under various policies over the years. Historic investment in these structures may have entailed conditions around ongoing maintenance however the current policy supersedes any previous agreements. We must now operate within current policy and funding rules set by Government.

 

Am I at risk of being flooded?

You can check your flood risk at Check the long term flood risk for an area in England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

If you are at risk of flooding, you can:

• Sign up for the Flood Warning Service and learn how to prepare for a flood here: Flood alerts and warnings: what they are and what to do - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
• Learn about what to do after a flood here: What to do after a flood - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

While we undertake many different activities to reduce the risk of flooding we cannot eliminate the risk of all flooding. Alongside traditional flood defences, we need a broader range of activities to ensure we have climate resilient places. This includes avoiding inappropriate development in the floodplain, using nature-based solutions to slow the flow or store flood waters. It involves better preparing and responding to flood incidents through timely and effective forecasting, warning and evacuation.

Our data shows that the current condition of the St Ives Staunch Sluice, it not causing an increased risk of internal property flooding. We expect that this is the case for Brownshill Staunch Sluice too

 

How much impact does the condition of the structure have on flood risk?

Based on the evidence we have, we do not believe that the current condition of the St Ives Staunch Sluice increases the risk of internal property flooding.

We are currently reviewing the evidence relating to the Brownshill Staunch Sluice, but early indications are that the situation is likely to be the same.

 

How can we trust the modelling?

The river modelling has been carried out using the Environment Agency’s draft Lower Ouse Model. This model is the best available modelled data we hold for the St Ives area at present.

The Lower Ouse Model, and its suitability for informing the St Ives Staunch Sluice project, has been reviewed by our National Modelling Team. Their review concluded that the model is acceptable for it’s purpose, determining the economic viability of carrying out a project to repair the structure.

River modelling also only forms one part of project development. When determining whether a project is viable, we assess a range of information including river modelling, costs, economic benefits, asset condition surveys, threshold surveys, property flooded information, historic flood reports and photographs of past flooding. The outputs of the river modelling have been supported by records of historic flooding, giving us further confidence in its findings and assessment of flood risk.

 

Why aren’t the Environment Agency continuing to work to improve the modelling?

The modelling we have has been reviewed and is considered to be acceptable for its purpose. There will always be further improvements that could be made but, in this case, we do not expect that further work would produce significantly different results and therefore would not be a good use of further investment of public money.

 

How do I go about claiming compensation for the impact of high water levels?

We appreciate the stress and anxiety that flooding causes. However, the Environment Agency owes no duty, whether statutory or otherwise, to warn of floods or to prevent flooding and as such has no responsibility to compensate.

 

What are you doing to try and get these structures repaired?

We are investigating a number of difference angles which may enable us to carry out works on the St Ives and Brownshill Staunch Sluices, these include:

• investigating whether these two structures could be considered as special cases for investment given the legal obligation to maintain water levels for navigation,
• continuing to bid for maintenance funding, including for funding intended for larger scale repair works, and investigating a longer term approach which may support the use of navigation funding to support work on these structure.

Whilst we progress these options, we are continuing our inspection regime at both structures to ensure they remain safe and to monitor their condition.

 

Is it true that the Environment Agency want to change the structure from a sluice to a weir?

The Environment Agency has taken no decisions on the future of the St Ives or Brownshill structures.

Changing the sluice structures into fixed weirs would be one way of maintaining water levels for navigation with lower maintenance needs compared to sluice gates but we would need to carry out a full options appraisal to determine any future changes to the structures.  The type of funding and amount of funding we have available to us will impact on the options available to us too. 

 

Why has the primary purpose of the structure changed from FCRM to Navigation on Gov.uk?

We are always working to improve the data on our assets and this data is made public on .gov.uk. As a result of the latest data and evidence we now hold on these structure, we have updated the data to reflect that the primary purpose of the assets are navigation and the secondary purpose remains as flood risk.

This change has no impact on our ability to access FCRM funding, nor the rules around it.