Part 3 – Protection of land drainage, flood defence, water resources and fisheries
357.Paragraph 1 provides that the arrangements set out in this Part of the Schedule are to apply unless the nominated undertaker and the Environment Agency (“the Agency”) agree to vary them. The Agency is the body established under the Environment Act 1995 which has statutory responsibility for flood defence and land drainage, water resources and fisheries. By virtue of the definitions in this paragraph these arrangements apply to protect watercourses (except public sewers) and any drainage work, which is defined as a watercourse, including any flood plain, or any land drainage, flood defence or tidal monitoring work. The provisions apply to any specified work, defined as any work or operation authorised by the Act which is likely to affect any drainage work or the flow, purity or quality of water in a watercourse or other surface waters or ground water to cause obstruction to fish or damage to any fishery, or affect conservation, distribution or use of water resources.
358.Paragraphs 2 and 3 provide for the Agency to approve plans of any specified works and in approving plans to be able to make reasonable requirements (including requiring the nominated undertaker to construct protective works at its own cost). Approval of plans under these provisions is not to be unreasonably withheld.
359.Paragraph 4 deals with the construction of the specified works (and any protective works). It provides in particular for these to be constructed to the Agency’s reasonable satisfaction, for the Agency to have the right to inspect the construction and to require alteration or removal of the works where they have not been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this Part.
360.Paragraph 5 provides for the flood defence works constructed under the powers of the Act to be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Agency and paragraph 6 requires the nominated undertaker to make good any impairment to the efficiency of drainage works for flood defence purposes or any other damage.
361.Paragraph 7 requires the nominated undertaker to take all reasonably practicable measures to prevent interruption of the free passage of fish in any fishery and contains provision for the nominated undertaker to prevent or make good damage to fisheries (a fishery is defined as any waters containing fish and the fish within or migrating to or from such waters and the spawn, spawning grounds or food of such fish).
362.Paragraph 8 contains a general indemnity for the Agency in respect of claims against it arising from the construction of the specified works in respect of the Agency’s functions protected by this Part.
363.Paragraph 11 avoids duplication of consents by providing that an approval or consent given under this Part is to be treated as a consent for the purpose of the various provisions listed in that paragraph. Section 5 of the Metropolis Management (Thames River Prevention of Floods) Amendment Act 1879 would otherwise require consent for the execution of flood works in River Thames, section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991 would require approval of structures in, over or under watercourses and Part 2 of the Water Resources Act would require a licence for impounding of water. It also disapplies the requirement under section 30 of that Act to give notice of proposals to construct boreholes for abstraction of water in connection with underground works.
364.Paragraph 12 addresses disputes arising under this Part. Matters affecting the amount of compensation payable are referred to arbitration (which would then be governed by the provisions of section 54 of the Act). In any other case, unless the parties agree to arbitration, the dispute is determined by a person appointed by the appropriate Ministers who must have regard to any matters specified by the appropriate Ministers on making the appointment. The appropriate Ministers for this purpose are the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs acting jointly. The reason for this distinction is that it is considered that disputes as to compensation will not relate to matters of policy and there is no need for the appropriate Ministers to be involved in the resolution of such disputes.
