The Committee considered the arrangements for signing off two Service Level Agreements (SLA)s associated with the River Thames Scheme (RTS).  These SLAs needed to be signed off at the earliest opportunity so that work could progress on the Development Consent Order (DCO) to meet the planned timetables and permit the recruitment of staff to the coordination role to be carried out by Runnymede Borough Council. The Committee’s agreement was sought to delegating the signature of both SLAs to the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of Runnymede Borough Council in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Management Committee. 

The RTS was being delivered by the Environment Agency (EA) and Surrey County Council (SCC) (both the EA and SCC were jointly referred to as “the Applicant”) in partnership with Runnymede Borough Council and various other organisations which were noted by the Committee.  The SLAs between the Applicant and the Local Planning Authority (the Applicant SLA) and between the 4 key local planning authorities (the Inter Authority SLA) in respect of the River Thames Scheme (RTS) were almost finalised.  The SLAs would define the contractual relationship between the parties, the structure which the pre-application consultation would follow, the support which the Applicant would provide to the Consulting Local Authorities and the role of Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) as the Coordinating Authority for Surrey County Council (SCC), Spelthorne (SBC), Elmbridge (EBC) and Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) in their capacity as statutory consultees.

The River Thames between Egham and Teddington was one of the largest areas of undefended developed floodplain in England.  There was a history of flooding in the area over the past 100 years with major floods occurring in 1947, 1968, 2003 and 2014.

UK climate change projections forecasted that the problem of flooding would worsen over time.  The estimated impact of a major flood in this area was currently estimated at £1 billion.  Due to the impact of climate change this could be doubled by 2055. More than 11,000 homes and 1,600 businesses would benefit from reduced flood risk and rail, power and water networks would be more resilient. The River Thames Scheme (RTS) flood relief scheme would consist of two new flood channels through the Boroughs of Runnymede and Spelthorne in Surrey.  There would also be increased capacity at the weirs in Sunbury, Molesey and Teddington and the Desborough Cut.  The RTS would ensure that there was no increased flood risk to any community in the area and was also projected to contribute to a vibrant local economy, to enhance the social and environmental value of the river and to create new green spaces and recreation opportunities.

The direct planning implications of the RTS were confined to 4 key Planning Authorities: RBC, SBC, EBC and SCC.  Approval of the outline business case had been given by HM Treasury in Spring 2021.  Final business case approval would follow when the Scheme received DCO consent. The DCO was a particular process which could be used for obtaining permission for a development categorised as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).  The Government had directed that the RTS be treated as a NSIP in December 2020 and the current estimate for completion of the Project was 2030. The DCO automatically removed the need to obtain several separate consents, including planning permission and was designed to be a much quicker process than applying for these separately.

The RTS was unusualin regard to the DCO Application as the project Applicant (EA and SCC) and the 4 key planning authorities were all partners in the RTS and contributors to the capital costs.  In addition, all parties were statutory consultees under the DCO process. This complexity created the requirement to establish an internal ‘glass wall’ within the Project Applicant side and within the key local authority partners contributing to the capital cost of the RTS in order to maintain the independence and integrity of the key Planning Authorities.  It had been agreed that the complexity of the consultation and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the interparty relationships required the creation of a Secretariat to manage this operation.  RBC had been chosen to host this function as the Borough was the Coordinating Authority, was the location of the largest channel section and was expected to experience the majority of the impacts of the Scheme.

There were two SLAs currently being finalised. The Applicant SLA related to the proposed RTS and was between the Applicant and the 4 key Planning authorities.  This SLA addressed the funding mechanism for the independent consultant supporting the 4 key planning authorities, as well as the internal delineations to ensure that the planning advice provided was demonstrably independent from the Applicant.  This SLA also identified RBC as the Co-ordinating Authority for the DCO process and the host for the Secretariat.  The costs of the Secretariat would be met by the Applicant. The draft Applicant SLA at Appendix ‘D’ to the report was noted by the Committee.

The other SLA was the Inter Authority SLA between the 4 key planning authorities (RBC, EBC, SBC and SCC).  This addressed RBC’s role as the Coordinating Authority on behalf of EBC, SBC and SCC for the management of the independent consultant in assessing the DCO information in detail on behalf of the collective planning authorities, facilitating and managing the transfer of information from the Applicant’s consultant and returning the responses from the 4 key local planning authorities. The Inter Authority SLA would also cover those aspects of the DCO process which the Applicant had not agreed to pay for, but which would be required by the local planning authorities in fulfilment of their statutory duties and would consist mainly of Legal Counsel costs.  In large part the Inter Authority SLA would mirror the Applicant SLA.

The Committee noted that the Council had a statutory duty to make a Planning response to the RTS proposals and that it had the Planning resource to make this response.  The staffing requirements for the Secretariat would be clarified when the SLAS were finalised and the Council would seek further resources from the EA for the work of the Secretariat if further resources were required.  The Committee would receive regular reports about the progress of the RTS.

The RTS was an opportunity to provide greater protection to residents and businesses in the Borough against major flooding.  The Committee noted that it was vital that RBC maintained its commitment to the RTS in order to maximise the primary and secondary benefits which would be delivered by its construction. The Committee approved the arrangements for the execution of the SLAs as set out in the resolution below.  The SLAs provided security of funding for the RBC Planning Authority to be fully involved within the DCO process and enabled it to submit detailed responses to ensure that the RTS was fit for purpose. The SLAs also defined and confirmed the role of RBC as the Coordinating Authority and host to the Secretariat and secured the funding for this function.

Resolved that –

the RTS Applicant SLA be approved in principle and authority be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Applicant SLA and the Inter Authority SLA in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Management Committee.