Draft National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England

We can't be completely resilient to flooding and by using this it sounds as if that's possible. It's more like a nation ready and adaptable, ready to adapt to the natural environment!

Again how can we be resilient to flooding when our scheme only protect to a certain standard. Most schemes that I've seen so far are being developed to a 1:200 or 1:100 standard because the funding available will not support a 1:1,000 event. I imagine this is because the 1:1,000 event is very unlikely to happen. Communities will need to understand more about what our flood risk projects can and can't do, and why!

What do you mean by enhance? Will there be better funding for projects that consider climate change. With the greatest respect, what's the point of enhancing the guidance if project managers don't see a benefit in terms of funding. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

Will the RMAs have the resources and incentive to do this? Can we also look to do this from the other angle, i.e. what does the community think about it's flood risk and the health of the natural environment around them. Could we work with government to help businesses and local parishes incorporate this. e.g. businesses now have to make sure everyone has a pension. Shouldn't business and the community have to think about flood risk and the health of the environment around them.

Don't understand what Measure 1.2.1 means?

Make it easier to access and understand different sources of funding.

All well and good as long as we have the funding and resources to check that developers have incorporated our consultation comments and when the development has been built have they done what they said they would. Also bear in my mind that just because a development has incorporated flood risk, what standard of protection has been provided? If they say they are flood resilient, then maybe they should make it clear to what standard and the type of flooding. e.g. SUDS to cope with 1:20 event. No protection from fluvial/tidal flooding.

All well and good making this an aim but if the funding isn't there for environmental benefits it won't happen. We need to get better at understanding, and sharing our understanding, of how important the natural world is to us.

Don't understand what this means

And communities should understand more about what we can and cannot do when adapting to flood risk.

RMAs will need the resources to do this.

If we're doing this why can't we make natural capital and environmental protection part of the curriculum. Better yet, let's help them understand how it's all linked!

The EA and RMAs will need the financial resources to do this as well as their actual job.

1. Clear definition needed for terminology. e.g. what does resilient mean and what it doesn't mean.
2. Make it easier for people to understand their risk
3. Better understanding of the natural environment and how to represent it in our projects and work, so that it's not just houses we're protecting but the good quality environments we already have.
Let's have more interaction and links with wildlife organisations, and internal environmental teams, so benefiting the environment becomes business as usual with everything we do.