Research and analysis

Shoreline management plans independent peer review

Published 30 January 2024

Applies to England

1. Foreword

Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) are an important tool for helping to plan for and manage flood and coastal erosion risks. They are developed by coastal groups . They outline agreed management approaches for dealing with coastal flooding and erosion along each stretch of the English coast. SMPs are world leading in their approach to strategic planning for coastal adaptation looking forward to 100 years and beyond.

SMPs have recently been refreshed with updated action plans. This follows several years of collaborative work between the Environment Agency and coastal groups. It is therefore the right time to carry out an independent peer review of the SMPs. This will encourage continuous improvement of these living plans as they head into the next long term planning cycle from 2025 to 2055.

The peer review has provided an objective view of:

• how the refreshed SMPs are helping to achieve the ambitions of the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy
• how SMPs could be strengthened to make them fit for 2025 and beyond

The Environment Agency initiated and led the review process undertaken by a panel of independent experts.

We would like to thank the committed and knowledgeable independent peer review panel members:

• Alan Frampton - Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
• Andy Shore - Coastal practitioner, Environment Agency
• Ian Devereux - Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Coastal (RFCC) appointee and former Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council environment portfolio holder
• Jaap Flikweert - Royal Haskoning DHV and RFCC appointee
• Paul Sayers - Sayers and Partners
• Richard Dawson - Newcastle University and Climate Change Committee

Thanks to Alex Cutler and Andy Eden in the Environment Agency for their support producing this report on the behalf of the peer review panel. 

Julie Foley

Director of Flood Risk Strategy and National Adaptation, Environment Agency and Chair of the peer review panel

2. Executive summary

The Environment Agency has a strategic overview role for the management of all sources of flooding and coastal change in England, including coastal erosion. It also has overall assurance for SMPs developed locally.

In recent years, great progress has been made as part of the SMP refresh project. This has confirmed that SMPs continue to provide a sustainable long-term plan for England’s coast.

In this context, the Environment Agency commissioned an independent peer review of SMPs and their associated action plans. The peer review provides an objective view of:

• how the refreshed SMPs are helping to achieve the ambitions of the National FCERM Strategy
• how SMPs could be strengthened to make them fit for 2025 and beyond

The peer review was undertaken between April 2023 and August 2023. It is recognised that SMPs are living plans and so will be continually updated by coastal groups.

The peer review process considered 5 themes:

• governance
• deliverability
• planning and development
• investment
• environment

The main observations of each theme are shown below.

2.1 Governance – leadership and governance to implement SMP management approaches and action plans

Many SMPs have strong governance in place, with clear oversight from coastal groups. There are good practice examples of transparent governance structures and engagement of coastal elected member portfolio holders. These structures and engagement make sure there is a local democratic mandate. However, the review found that some SMPs could be strengthened by securing greater political membership and community buy-in for their action plans.

2.2 Deliverability – policy into action - assurance of the implementation of SMP management approaches

Some SMPs showed how action plans are supporting good management approaches through clear tracking and auditing of actions. However, there was also room for improvement in others.

There is also an opportunity to improve how climate triggers points and adaptation pathways inform the transition between different SMP management approaches across epochs. Epochs are long term planning periods.

2.3 Planning and development – guiding local planning decisions and policy

Evidence shows that many SMPs are effectively guiding local planning decisions and development policies. However, other SMPs still need to have greater influence on local plans and other strategic planning documents. This includes identifying where Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMAs) could be established.

The review also identified missed opportunities for better links between SMPs and other strategic plans.

These strategic plans include: 

• marine plans 
• River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)

There should also be better engagement with local infrastructure providers.

2.4 Investment – guiding FCERM investment and activities

There should be greater clarity on how the management approaches in SMPs inform coastal investment choices. This applies to both the Environment Agency and coast protection authorities. There were examples where SMPs have been part of the project business case justification for major coastal projects.

However, the review suggested SMPs could be clearer about:

• how they are guiding current FCERM investments
• how they are guiding the next generation of coastal projects

The review identified the value of developing long-term investment plans to fulfil the commitments set out in the SMP action plans

2.5 Environment – local ambitions to protect and restore the natural environment

Many SMPs showed strong evidence of their contribution to wider environmental objectives.

This includes forging close partnership working with:

• local environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• Historic England
• National Trust
• Natural England

The review found SMPs could be strengthened through better long-term planning for the protection of the natural environment. This includes intertidal habitat and restoration. 

2.6 Findings of the collective review of SMPs

The peer review panel identified recommendations for further work to help:

• strengthen SMPs collectively across England
• progress the National FCERM Strategy ambitions

These recommendations include:

• better embedding climate adaptation planning into SMPs
• providing national guidance on how to use climate change scenarios to trigger changes in SMP management approaches between epochs
• explaining how SMPs and other local FCERM strategies or strategic plans align to make sure they are all working towards the same vision and strategic objectives
• making sure pipeline planning for the next FCERM investment programme is informed by the updated SMPs
• exploring how to strengthen national planning policy so that local planning authorities must account for SMPs when updating their strategic local plans
• developing clear guidance on how different infrastructure providers should be better involved in SMPs and SMP action plans
• making sure that the next Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme (HCRP) better supports achieving the SMP management approaches and action plans
• improving engagement with local communities and elected members to secure greater understanding of and support for SMPs
• developing training and guidance to support coastal groups, SMP management groups and coast protection authorities to develop the skills and capabilities they need
• supporting the sharing of best practice and information across coastal groups to extract and better capture learning and knowledge
• committing to ongoing review and continuous improvement of SMPs

The Environment Agency will review the priorities for its ongoing work with coastal groups on SMPs. It will do this once the SMP refresh project is completed and the new SMP Explorer has launched in early 2024. This will help to support the continuous improvement and strengthening of SMPs.

3. Context and background

3.1 The English coastline

England has around 6,000km of open coast. This provides a dynamic and exciting place for everyone who lives, works and plays there. It is a complex environment and how it is managed can have lasting impacts spanning hundreds of years.

Approximately 1.8 million homes are at risk of sea flooding and erosion in England. Significant investment is underway to better protect coastal communities from flooding.

In summary:

• coastal schemes account for approximately £1.3 billion of the £5.2 billion flood and coastal erosion capital investment programme for 2021 to 2027
• about 250 coastal erosion and sea flooding projects will aim to better protect over 100,000 properties as well as critical infrastructure on our coastline
• half of these schemes involve construction or refurbishment of physical engineered defences, the majority in combination with beach management - the remaining schemes are solely beach management approaches

The coastline is also impacted by coastal erosion. Coastal erosion is a natural and longstanding process. England’s coast has some of the fastest eroding coastline in Europe. In places like North Norfolk, around 1.7 metres of coastline is lost every year depending on storm tides.

Approximately 700 properties in England are vulnerable to coastal erosion between 2010 and 2030. A further 2,000 properties may become vulnerable by 2060. Without the interventions proposed in the SMPs, numbers could increase to approximately 28,000 in 50 years.

Habitats across our coastline are also constantly changing. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, England has lost around 85% of its coastal habitats. This is reflected internationally where many protected intertidal habitats are expected to be lost due to coastal squeeze in future years. The loss of such habitats will impact populations of invertebrates and wintering birds.

Enhancing the health and connectivity of estuaries and coasts is a priority for both government and the Environment Agency. This can be done by restoring:

• saltmarsh
• seagrass
• oyster reef habitats

4. The Environment Agency’s role

The Environment Agency has a strategic overview role for the management of all sources of flooding and coastal change in England, including coastal erosion. This is distinct from its day-to-day operational responsibilities. It is the lead operational authority for managing the risk of flooding from estuaries and the sea. Coast protection authorities, the coastal local authorities, are the lead operating authorities for managing the risk from coastal erosion.

The Environment Agency’s coastal overview role makes sure coastal management investments and activities on the coast are coordinated and managed effectively.

The role includes oversight of the seven non-statutory coastal groups in England.

These voluntary groups are made up of:

• the Environment Agency
• coast protection authorities
• Natural England
• the Marine Management Organisation
• others with an interest in coastal management

Coastal groups are responsible for producing SMPs.

The Environment Agency is responsible for producing the National Coastal Erosion Risk Map (NCERM). NCERM was first published in 2011 using the best available evidence from local authorities and other coastal monitoring data.

NCERM is available as open data:

• to coastal decision makers and the public on data.gov.uk
• through the check coastal erosion management in your area digital service on gov.uk.

The Environment Agency is now updating the full NCERM dataset based on:

• a further ten years of coastal monitoring data
• latest climate change evidence
• coastal geomorphology information from coastal leads in local authorities

The update will include:

• coastal erosion predictions for England through this century
• an updated assessment of residential and non-residential properties at risk

The updated NCERM will be published later in 2024. It will be used by coastal risk management authorities and the Environment Agency to inform coastal management investment and local planning decisions.

The Environment Agency also oversees the HCRP. It develops pipelines of projects to meet legal obligations under the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017.

The HCRP aims to compensate for:

• direct loss or damage to protected sites under this legislation for their internationally important wildlife
• longer-term ‘coastal squeeze’ where flood defences at protected sites may prevent intertidal habitats adjusting naturally as sea levels rise

The HCRP covers both:

• freshwater habitats
• intertidal habitats

Overall, the HCRP has kept pace with losses at internationally protected sites and projected losses. This has happened within the first 20-year planning horizon (2005 to 2025) of SMPs and FCERM strategies in most parts of England.

As of March 2023, the HCRP has created:

• 1,601 hectares of intertidal habitats
• 468 hectares of freshwater grazing marsh
• 292 hectares of other coastal habitats

The framework for the Environment Agency’s work on coastal change is set out in the statutory National FCERM Strategy. The associated Strategy Roadmap to 2026 sets out its short-term actions with partners.

5. Background and state of play of SMPs

SMPs cover the English coast. They are considered world leading in their approach to planning for coastal management and adaptation to 2100 and beyond.

SMPs are not statutory plans. They are used:

• to guide FCERM investment decisions on the coast
• by local authority planners to designate CCMAs
• to inform local plans and development decisions

The first SMPs were developed in the early 1990s by coastal local authorities. In 2006 Defra provided guidance to produce a more strategic set of SMPs. These had to be approved by the Environment Agency.

Coastal groups were established on a more strategic footing by Defra. They bring together important partners in coastal flood and erosion risk management. They are chaired by coastal authorities or the Environment Agency. Coastal groups developed 20 SMPs between 2006 and 2012 covering the English coast and cross-border plans with Wales.

A map of the 20 SMPs that cover the English coastline can be found on SMP Explorer

SMPs set out sustainable management approaches for each stretch of coast through this century.

These management approaches are:

• hold the line - maintain or upgrade protection from flooding or erosion by holding the shoreline in broadly the same position
• advance the line - actively move shoreline defences significantly seawards
• managed realignment - change the position of the shoreline in a controlled way, such as by slowing erosion or creating areas of habitat to help manage flooding
• no active intervention - maintain or encourage a more natural coastline, which may involve discussing adaptation to the risk from flooding or erosion

The management approaches required for each section of coast are defined from the year 2005. They cover the:

• short term - 0 to 20 years
• medium term - 20 to 50 years
• long term - 50 to 100 years

The first epoch period ends in 2025. The next epoch period runs to 2055.

Management approaches for each section of coast are based on site-specific evidence about coastal processes and land use.

They are based on the following data:

• scientific
• social
• economic
• environmental

Management approaches are:

• developed in consultation with local communities and others with an interest in coastal management - this includes Defra agencies such as Natural England
• then formally approved by local authorities through their democratically elected councils

The overall SMP is approved and assured by the Environment Agency.

The National FCERM Strategy commits to making sure coastal groups:

• review their SMPs and update their action plans
• where appropriate, update SMP management approaches to better reflect adaptive approaches (adaptation to climate change) to manage coastal change by 2025

The timing of this commitment broadly aligns with the transition point for moving from the short to medium-term management approaches set out in current SMPs.

6. SMP refresh and the new SMP Explorer

Between 2019 and 2023, the Environment Agency led a project to refresh the 20 English and cross-border SMPs with coastal groups.

This work focused on making sure SMPs:

• remain fit for purpose
• meet the needs of coastal managers and planners,
• can be more easily understood by coastal communities

Through the SMP refresh project coastal groups aim to better explain the management approaches adopted for each section of the coast.

The Environment Agency commissioned health checks for each of the 20 SMPs. These:

• set out the improvements required for each SMP - including where SMP management approaches need to be reviewed or changed
• are used by coastal groups to update their SMP action plans - this makes sure they more explicitly demonstrate how management approaches will be achieved

The SMP refresh project was completed at the end of 2023.

It will inform subsequent work by coastal groups to:

• implement their updated SMP action plans
• formalise planned changes to their SMP management approaches

The Environment Agency will continue to monitor and oversee this next phase of SMP development work.

SMPs are currently published on coastal group websites, generally linked to coastal local authority websites. This can make them difficult to keep up to date.

The Environment Agency will publish a digital SMP Explorer tool in early 2024. This will bring SMP management approaches to life through map-based data visualisation.

The tool will:

• make SMP information and action plans clearer and more accessible
• display the latest coastal risk information provided by NCERM
• make SMPs more dynamic and make it easier for coastal groups to keep them up-to-date
• help local planners find the information they need more easily
• improve the Environment Agency’s ability to monitor SMP implementation progress

7. The Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme

The Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme (CTAP) is one of the programmes within the wider £200m Flood and Coastal Innovation programmes which run until 2027. CTAP is a catalyst for innovative action to support the most vulnerable coastal communities to adapt to coastal erosion risks. It will help transition away from areas of the coast that cannot be defended in the long term.

The learning from CTAP will inform future:

• government policy
• funding choices

The learning will be shared with other coastal areas to benefit more communities in the future.

In March 2022 two local authorities were chosen for the first phase of CTAP:

• North Norfolk
• East Riding of Yorkshire

These locations were selected as 84% of the country’s private properties at risk of coastal erosion in next 20 years are located there. In September 2023, a second phase of smaller pilot areas were also selected in Dorset and Cornwall.

8. SMP Peer Review

8.1 Aims and scope of the SMP peer review

The Environment Agency has undertaken an independent peer review of the SMP refresh project outputs, under our strategic overview role on the coast. The peer review report lies outside the scope of the SMP refresh project. However, it is informed by the outputs of that project.

The SMP refresh documents used for this review are listed in Appendix 1. The Environment Agency recognises the valuable work completed by SMP groups as part of the SMP refresh project.

With the first SMP epoch coming to an end in 2025, the Environment Agency carried out a light touch review of actions being implemented by SMPs. This was to support continuous improvement of SMPs and to make sure they are fit for purpose as they enter the next epoch (2025 to 2055).

The purpose of the SMP peer review was to publish an objective view on:

• the degree to which the refreshed SMPs are translating the ambitions of the National FCERM Strategy into action on the ground at the coast
• how SMPs could be strengthened, with recommendations to support continuous improvement by 2025 (the start of next epoch) and beyond

The peer review was undertaken between April 2023 and August 2023. It was chaired by the Environment Agency’s FCERM Director for Strategy and National Adaptation. The peer review panel comprised six representatives with extensive experience in working on SMPs.

The panel included:

• a local authority elected member
• a local authority flood and coastal risk expert
• Environment Agency flood and coastal risk experts
• an external coastal risk expert
• academics

The panel carried out a light touch assessment of the refreshed SMP documents. SMP documents were reviewed against 5 themes to assess their maturity. There was a strong focus on identifying areas for improvement and good practice. This has helped the Environment Agency understand how to work together with coastal groups to strengthen SMPs collectively.

9. Peer review framework

9.1 Review themes for the individual SMPs

The Environment Agency and the peer review panel agreed the design of the review process together. The panel assessed the maturity of SMPs using a maturity model. This covered 5 themes against 3 levels of maturity. This approach allowed the SMPs to be scored using a consistent framework across a range of criteria.

The maturity matrix assessed individual SMPs against the themes and levels of maturity. These were:

• developing
• effective
• good

A breakdown of the information provided to the review panel is provided in Appendix 1. You can see the maturity matrix in Appendix 2.

The 5 maturity matrix themes were:

• governance
• deliverability
• planning and development
• investment
• environment

The questions asked against each theme are shown below.

Governance

To what extent does the SMP have the appropriate leadership and governance in place to implement its management objectives and action plans?

Deliverability – policy into action

To what extent does the SMP action plan support and provide assurance that the SMP management approaches will be implemented in practice?

Planning and development

To what extent does the SMP / SMP Action Plan provide evidence that it is guiding local planning decisions and policies effectively?

Investment

To what extent is the SMP guiding FCERM investment and activities?

Environment

To what extent is the SMP guiding local ambitions to protect and restore the natural environment?

10. Strategic questions for collectively assessing SMPs

The panel also identified the importance of considering how SMPs collectively are supporting the ambitions and strategic objectives in the National FCERM Strategy

The panel considered this through the focus of National FCERM Strategy’s main ambitions:

Ambition 1: Climate resilient places

How well are the updated SMPs helping places plan and adapt to flooding and coastal change over the period to 2100 and beyond, and supporting coastal communities to transition and adapt to a changing climate?

Ambition 2: Today’s growth and infrastructure resilient in tomorrow’s climate

How well are the updated SMPs influencing the decisions and investment choices of planning authorities, infrastructure providers and enhancing environmental protection and nature restoration?

Ambition 3: A nation ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change

How well are the updated SMPs supporting coastal communities at risk to be better ready to respond and take action to adapt to a changing coastline?

10.1 Review parameters

The review was undertaken between April 2023 and August 2023. It was based on available evidence from the SMP refresh project as of 17 April 2023. The Environment Agency recognises that some SMP refresh work was still ongoing when this review was undertaken. The panel’s scores and feedback are based primarily on information held by the Environment Agency as part of the SMP refresh process.

The peer review also used survey information from coastal groups on governance arrangements and planning. This provides a good overview for the basis of the review. However, there are limitations with this approach as the SMPs continue to improve in real time.

Members of the independent panel were chosen to have professional experience of working on the development of, delivering or contributing to SMPs. To avoid conflict of interest in the review process, the panel did not review SMPs where they have had prior personal or professional engagement.

11. Findings of the review of individual SMPs

11.1 Governance

Overall assessment: Effective

Within the overall assessment, 14 SMPs were assessed as effective and 6 SMPs were assessed as developing.

The panel made these judgements by benchmarking good governance against the following questions:

• Has a local SMP governance group been (re-)established and does it continue to be active currently?
• Does the governance group have clear terms of reference?
• Does the group include, involve or have clear links with local authority elected members, community leaders and those involved in development or regeneration planning?

Peer review overall comments

In some cases, the governance oversight for a SMP came from the coastal group. In other cases, a SMP group, which is a sub-group, reporting into the coastal group, had been formed. Many SMPs showed robust and effective governance arrangements. They had clear engagement with:

• local elected members
• coastal portfolio leads
• the local community

However, some SMPs still need to develop their governance structures and political member engagement. This will make sure there is greater local community buy-in for the SMP action plans.

GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDY

Southern Coastal Group (SCG) consists of:

• North Solent - SMP 13
• Isle of Wight - SMP 14
• Poole and Christchurch Bays - SMP 15

Good governance for these management groups is maintained by reporting back to coastal stakeholders on the:

• SCG
• Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coast (SCOPAC) forums.

This provides the SCG and SCOPAC with oversight and commitment to the SMP action plans.

The 3 SMP management groups are well-attended by:

• local authority coastal managers and planners
• the Environment Agency
• Natural England
• National Park Authorities
• National Trust
• Harbour Authorities
• the Channel Coastal Observatory
• the Marine Management Organisation

They have strong oversight of:

• planning
• coastal management and monitoring
• research and development
• habitat compensation
• funding bids

GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDY

North West Coastal Group (SMP 22):

The North West and North Wales Coastal Group is responsible for developing and carrying out their group business plan. It reports directly to the North West RFCC.

The coastal group includes a wide range of stakeholders representing:

• the public sector
• local interest groups
• conservation bodies
• academic institutions

There are strong links between the coastal group and the North West RFCC, with the committee supporting and funding the North West SMP coordinator post.

The coastal group chair, SMP coordinator and independent coastal representative report to the North West RFCC.

The coastal group has also established 5 SMP themed task groups that help to carry out their SMP objectives.

They are:

• infrastructure
• planning
• protected sites
• communications and engagement
• data and evidence

Areas for improvement

Clear and robust governance is essential to make sure SMPs are able to:

• make effective decisions
• achieve the SMP action plans

The panel highlighted the importance of SMPs being supported by clear and accessible governance structures and terms of reference. There should be a particular focus on setting out and maintaining who’s involved and what the decision-making processes are.

This would be particularly helpful where there is difficulty reaching consensus, or for managing conflict and challenge. This was identified as an area for improvement for 12 SMPs. Four of these need to take immediate action to clarify or establish their governance arrangements. 

The peer review panel also identified the value of:

• clarity of roles, responsibilities and links between working groups and sub-groups - recommended as useful for 4 SMPs
• improving and formalising sharing of knowledge, progress and decisions from SMP groups to reduce the risks associated with high staff turnover - a concern for 4 SMPs
• having greater engagement from elected members to make sure a local democratic mandate for SMP actions and a valuable link to local community views - a gap for 3 SMPs.

11.2 Deliverability – policy into action

Overall assessment: Developing

With the overall assessment, 12 SMPs were assessed as developing and 8 SMPs were assessed as effective.

The panel made this judgement by benchmarking good deliverability against the following questions:

• Does the SMP action plan provide confidence that the SMP management approaches will be achieved in practice?
• How have the issues identified by the 2020 health checks been addressed in the updated action plan? What action has been taken by the SMP group?
• Are the SMP actions both strategic (for example not tactical or too technical) and SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound)?
• What actions are being taken to make sure the SMP management approaches will be implemented in practice? This includes where the SMP management approach is identified as needing to change through the SMP refresh.
• Has the SMP action plan incorporated actions to manage the transition between one SMP management approach to another (across epochs) with consideration of funding/affordability and engagement?

Peer review overall comments

Some SMPs demonstrated how their action plans support carrying out the SMP management approaches in practice. For others, the SMP does not appear to be the primary reason for local action and results on the coast.

GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDY

SMP 17: Rame Head to Heartland Point

SMP 17 has a comprehensive action plan with clear accountabilities set out. This has allowed the SMP group to:

• invest in projects that achieve a hold the line management approach
• achieve a range of shorter term actions that enable a step towards longer term climate adaptation

This includes the development of good practice for the designation of CCMAs . This can be easily applied to other SMPs. The SMP group worked closely with strategic spatial planners to make sure the SMP informed Cornwall Council’s recently adopted Climate Emergency Development Plan Document.

The action plan is very good at:

• identifying triggers for adaptive management of the coast
• coordinating activity between the SW Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme and the SMP

It does this at both an SMP-wide and individual policy unit level. This means communities, partners and other stakeholders see a scientifically robust, evidence-led approach being applied.

The SMP also:

• proactively identifies opportunities for habitat compensation and restoration
• makes specific reference to Water Framework Directive and achievement of water quality outcomes

The action plan has recently been updated to include important areas for focus raised in the SMP health check.

This includes development of a comprehensive Coastal Resilience and Adaptation Strategy for the Isles of Scilly. This strategy will:

• address the community’s unique level of exposure to future climate change induced risk over the next 100 years
• consider how to maintain the outstanding international conservation, landscape, and heritage value of the Isles of Scilly

Areas for improvement

SMP action plans need to be SMART to effectively support achieving the SMP management approaches and transition between epochs.

The peer review found that it is not always clear how SMPs inform more localised plans, strategies or programmes of work on the coast. It is also not clear how these then inform the strategic level SMP. This includes locally specific FCERM strategies or programmes of work such as CTAP.

This means that not all coastal plans, strategies or programmes may be working towards the same strategic vision set by the SMP.

This was identified as an issue for 5 SMPs.

For 3 SMPs, the panel observed it was not clear what progress had or hadn’t been made since the SMP action plans were developed in 2011 and 2012. Capturing and recording progress on past actions in the updated action plans provides an audit trail and continuity of action.

Many SMPs were addressing the issues raised in the health check reports in their action plan. However, there is a lack of evidence of how climate trigger points and adaptation pathways inform the transition between different SMP management approaches across epochs.

It was acknowledged that consideration of trigger points and adaptation pathways is a relatively new area for SMPs.

11.3 Planning and Development

Overall assessment: Effective

Within the overall assessment, 10 SMPs were assessed as effective and 10 SMPs were assessed as developing.

The panel made these judgements by benchmarking good planning and development against the following questions:

• Is there evidence / examples of the SMP guiding local planning decisions on individual planning applications?
• Is there evidence / examples of the SMP influencing and informing the strategic local plan? This could include through informing the selection and application of CCMAs.
• Is there evidence the SMP is being used by other development partners, for example housing developers, infrastructure or utility providers?

Peer review overall comments

Half of SMPs had evidence that SMPs and action plans were guiding local planning decisions and development policies. However, the other half need more work to improve linkages with strategic local planning processes and documents. These could include the local plan and supplementary planning documents.

CCMAs are areas identified in local plans as likely to be affected by coastal change. For example, physical change to the shoreline through:

• erosion
• coastal landslip
• permanent inundation
• coastal accretion

The panel found some SMPs have strong links with the local planning system and identifying CCMAs. There were many examples where the SMP has supported greater engagement between coastal managers and planning officers, leading to the designation of CCMAs. However, there was little to no evidence of this for other SMPs. The panel identified a risk that some local plans could be missing opportunities to use CCMAs to limit inappropriate development in higher risk coastal areas.

GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDY

Coastal Adaptation Supplementary Planning Document for SMPs 5, 6, 7 and 8.

The organisations involved include:

• the Broads Authority
• East Suffolk Council
• Great Yarmouth Council
• North Norfolk council
• the Coastal Partnership East team

Together, they have adopted a Coastal Adaptation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2023).

This supports the local plan policy implementation for the coast from Holkham in North Norfolk to Felixstowe in East Suffolk. It explains how to interpret and implement planning policies supporting a managed approach to coastal erosion risk. This helps longer-term preparedness and vibrancy of communities.

It applies to:

• residents
• developers
• businesses
• landowners

It covers:

• development in CCMA
• rollback and relocation away from these areas
• enabling development - generating additional finance for rollback or relocation

The SPD is not formally part of the development plan and it does not change planning or shoreline management approaches. But it does provide guidance on implementing coastal planning policies and it will be a material consideration for planning decisions.

Areas for improvement

Better processes are needed to make sure SMP management approaches are included in local planning guidance and local plans. This will help to influence and inform local planning decisions. The panel identified some areas of good practice from individual SMPs worth sharing with other coastal groups. This included:

• the development of supplementary planning documents
• analysis of the role of SMPs in local plans
• focused SMP guidance for planners

The SMP refresh also identified the need for more proactive engagement with planning officers. This will make sure SMP management approaches are guiding local planning decisions both at planning application and strategic planning scales.

The panel also identified the benefits of SMPs being better joined up with other strategic plans for flood, coastal, water and marine matters. The value of making stronger links between SMPs, Marine Plans and RBMPs was noted as particularly important.

The panel identified the need for greater engagement with local development partners. There was evidence of best practice where water companies and national infrastructure providers are part of coastal groups and are central to developing shared actions. This was notably where there is high-risk posed to the safety and long-term viability of infrastructure assets.

However, the involvement of local partners in the SMP refresh was variable and inconsistent. This included:

• housing developers
• infrastructure and utility providers
• port authorities
• landowners

The panel acknowledged the challenges of getting infrastructure providers around the table. This is because they often do not need support or other funding to progress their own site-based resilience solutions. However, they highlighted the joint benefits that can be achieved where infrastructure providers are fully engaged in coastal group structures. This includes developing jointly funded or agreed activities or projects.

11.4 Investment

Overall assessment: Developing

Within the overall assessment 11 SMPs were assessed as developing and 9 SMPs were assessed as effective.

The panel made this judgement by benchmarking good investment against the following questions:

• Is there evidence or examples of how the SMP has guided FCERM activities and investments?
• Is there evidence or examples of projects identified for funding or already funded on the Environment Agency’s national FCERM capital investment programme that runs to 2027 or the local authority’s own investment programme?
• How is the SMP being used to influence the investment choices of other local partners, for example, infrastructure providers like highways, rail or telecommunications?

Peer review overall comments

The panel identified the need for greater clarity on how management approaches in SMPs are informing coastal investment choices.

There were examples where SMPs have formed part of the project business case justification for major coastal investments. However, in more than half the SMPs, it could be clearer how they are guiding current and future FCERM investments and activities.

GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDY

SMP 6 Kelling Hard to Lowestoft: The Norfolk Bacton scheme

The 2013 North Sea tidal surge resulted in a successful public private sector partnership for the scheme. This scheme provides improved protection from coastal flooding and erosion for:

• the Bacton Gas Terminal (a nationally significant infrastructure site)
• the vulnerable coastal villages of Bacton and Walcott

A range of stakeholders worked together to implement a technically innovative sand-based solution. The stakeholders included:

• Shell UK
• Perenco
• North Norfolk District Council
• Environment Agency
• consultants Royal Haskoning DHV

They used £20m funds from a variety of public and private sources, including from the Environment Agency’s FCERM investment programme. The sandscaping scheme is based on a Dutch concept. It aims to provide natural protection by improving beach levels that absorb wave energy before waves reach the cliff or defences. 

The successful collaboration received the British Construction Awards Best Innovative Project in 2019. The scheme is expected to have an operational life of around 20 years. Four years on, the scheme has performed well when tested by storm surges.

Areas for improvement

For SMPs to be effective in achieving their management approaches and action plans, they need to influence FCERM investment. This includes the investment activities of the Environment Agency and coast protection authorities.  

The panel did acknowledge that some local FCERM strategies for informing investment options and coastal projects have been completed since the SMPs were adopted. However, there was a mixed picture across all SMPs.

SMPs should also inform the next generation of coastal projects for the FCERM investment programme after 2027.

A further issue was the lack of evidence of long-term investment plans for achieving the commitments set out in the SMP action plans. This was highlighted as an area of improvement for 12 of the 20 SMPs. This point was also highlighted in SMP health check reports. The panel also identified the value of SMP Groups exploring alternative funding options, including green finance, for both near and long-term actions.

There was limited evidence of SMPs being used to influence the investment choices of other local partners. The few examples of this are highlighted in the planning and development section. The panel recognised that including infrastructure providers in SMP governance structures could support greater access to private sector funding contributions.

11.5 Environment

Overall assessment: Effective

Within the overall assessment, 12 SMPs were assessed as developing, 7 SMPs were assessed as effective and 1 SMP was assessed as good.

The panel made this judgement by benchmarking good environment against the following questions:

• Is there evidence or examples of how the SMP contributes to wider environmental objectives, for example net biodiversity or environmental net gain or net zero?
• Does the SMP have clear links with Environment Agency’s HCRP?
• Do the SMP actions involve working in partnership with environmental partners such as Natural England or local environmental NGOs?

Peer review overall comments

Many SMPs demonstrated strong evidence of contributing to wider environmental objectives.

This includes forging close partnership working with:

• local environmental NGOs
• Historic England
• National Trust
• Natural England

This was notable where they had investment plans for coastal habitat sites. However, the panel noted SMPs could be strengthened by including clearer long-term planning for protection of the natural environment. This includes protection of intertidal habitat and restoration of saltmarsh.

GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDY

SMP 18: Hartland Point to Anchor Head – Steart Managed Realignment scheme

There are over 200km of coastal defences around the Severn Estuary that benefit more than 100,000 homes and businesses. The SMP and the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy identified the need to maintain and improve most of these defences for the foreseeable future. This has an impact on internationally designated intertidal habitat that needs to be offset.

The Steart Managed Realignment scheme combines:

• a 150m breach in the existing tidal riverbanks of the River Parrett
• new set back flood banks
• the creation of a substantial area of compensatory habitat

Over 400ha of new intertidal and freshwater habitat have been created. The site is managed by Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT). Steart Marshes offers positive benefits to the local community, farming businesses and the wider area. Local community groups use the site for volunteering opportunities.

Since the creation of Steart Marshes, there has also been a major change in farming practices. These have moved from intensive agriculture to conservation management and ecological restoration.

Areas for improvement

The panel identified a lack of an explicit link between the Environment Agency’s HCRP and SMP action plans.

The primary purpose of SMPs is coastal flood and erosion risk management. However, SMPs also play an important role in positively supporting wider government objectives for:

• improved biodiversity
• habitat compensation and restoration

Much of the English coastline has important environmental designations, including:

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
• Special Protection Areas (SPA)

The panel noted there was limited explicit reference to the HCRP in many of the SMP Action plans. Some SMP action plans contained actions related to protecting and restoring the natural environment. However, they were often very broad and not specifically related to policy units or timeframes. Wider ambitions to achieve environmental net gain were also limited across many SMP action plans.

The panel also noted the importance of:

• proactive planning for habitat protection and compensation obligations
• early engagement with statutory agencies like Natural England

This was recommended as useful for 6 SMPs.

The panel also identified the value of having natural environment and/or environmental net gain objectives in the SMP action plans. Environmental enhancement opportunities were missing in 2 SMPs, and in others, opportunities were more implicit rather than explicit. Identifying and setting more explicit environmental and/or net gain objectives within SMP action plans would help SMPs to maximise wider nature protection and restoration benefits. This was recommended as useful for 4 SMPs.

12. Findings of the collective review of SMPs

The panel recommended further work to help strengthen SMPs collectively across England and progress the National FCERM Strategy ambitions.

The recommendations are not attributed to a specific organisation. The Environment Agency should consider suggestions for further work with coastal groups and government at the end of the SMP refresh project. Many of the suggestions will help SMPs as they move to their next epoch planning period.

12.1 Ambition 1: Climate Resilient Places

SMPs are the only comprehensive coastal planning tool covering the whole of the English coastline that contributes to the achievement of climate resilient places. SMPs have evolved into world leading examples of planning for coastal adaptation. The panel noted that there are limited international examples where a comparable strategic planning approach for coastal flood risk and erosion management is applied. In fact, other countries are emulating SMPs.

Overall, the review has shown SMPs are already helping coastal communities plan and adapt to flooding and coastal change up to 2100 and beyond. The SMP refresh has shown that SMPs continue to be important in helping coastal communities at risk plan and adapt in the face of a changing climate.

The review identified some nationwide areas for improvement.

12.2 Embedding climate adaptation planning

The adaptation pathways approach is a decision-making method. It helps practitioners and policy makers identify what actions can be taken now and in the future in the face of climate uncertainty. For practitioners and policy makers, this means remaining agile to:

• the latest climate science
• growth projections
• investment opportunities
• other changes to our natural environment

This means investment and action can be taken at the right time to provide the most benefit. A central component of SMPs is taking an adaptive approach to planning for a changing climate over 25-year planning periods to 2100 and beyond.

The National FCERM Strategy commits coastal groups to review their SMPs and update their action plans. It also commits coastal groups, where appropriate, to update SMP management approaches to better reflect adaptive approaches to managing coastal change by 2025.

The Environment Agency’s SMP health check reviewed the management approaches set for all 1,500 policy units. The health check recommended a need for a future change in management approach for about 103 locations. This change was mainly to consider a more climate adaptive approach. This generally means moving from a hold the line to a managed realignment management approach.

Many SMPs are not yet clear on how they will plan for changes in management approach required across epochs. The SMP refresh has brought this to the attention of many coastal groups.

The panel noted a lack of:

• clarity on climate triggers for transitioning to new or changed management approaches across epochs
• national technical guidance on how coastal groups should be using climate change scenarios in a consistent way to assist in adaptation pathway planning

It was also suggested SMPs should learn lessons from the Adaptation Pathways Programme (part of the wider Flood and Coastal Innovation Programme) pilots. These pilots are in the:

• Thames Estuary
• Humber Estuary
• River Severn

SMPs should look at how:

• the pilots are identifying appropriate climate scenarios
• different pathways are being assessed and compared
• ongoing monitoring of climate triggers will be tracked over time

12.3 Informing the FCERM investment programme

The Environment Agency’s current FCERM investment programme, which runs from 2021 to 2027, has significant investment in coastal protection projects. However, the line of sight and influence SMPs have had on the selection of projects in the current investment programme is not always clear.

The panel would like to see the refreshed SMPs better informing the next generation and pipeline of projects going into the FCERM investment programme after 2027. This may require changes in the government’s Partnership Funding policy rules, especially for coastal adaptation measures. 

12.4 Alignment with local FCERM strategies and other strategic planning

Many local FCERM strategies are being produced and updated across England. These usually carry out detailed work on climate adaptation approaches and significant consultation with stakeholders on local policy and funding options.

The panel identified a lack of consistency in the relationship between some of these local FCERM strategies and the SMPs. It is not always clear how new evidence and partner agreements resulting from local FCERM strategies are informing and changing existing SMPs. This means it can be unclear:

• who and what is leading important decisions on the coast
• whether local partners are all working towards the same vision and strategic objectives for their coastline

The panel also observed the alignment between some SMPs and other strategic plans, such as Marine Plans and RBMPs, could be clarified.

12.5 Recommendations for further work

Embedding climate adaptation planning

• provide clarity, for example via national guidance, on how adaptation pathway approaches can be better applied in SMPs
• provide national guidance on how to use climate change scenarios to trigger changes in SMP management approaches between epochs

Alignment with local FCERM strategies and other strategic planning

• provide clarity on how SMPs should be informed or changed by the evidence emerging from local FCERM strategies
• provide clarity on the alignment between SMPs and local FCERM strategies or strategic plans to make sure they are all working towards the same vision and strategic objectives

Informing the FCERM investment programme

• make sure pipeline planning for the next FCERM investment programme after 2027 is informed by the updated SMPs

12.6 Ambition 2: Today’s growth and infrastructure resilient in tomorrow’s climate

The awareness and understanding of SMPs amongst spatial planners has increased considerably. The panel found many good examples of SMPs having a clear influence on coastal planning applications and local plans. However, there were also missed opportunities to use SMPs to guide local planning decisions and policies more effectively. There could be greater sharing of information about future plans regarding development and evidence between coast protection authorities and planners in local planning authorities.

The review identified some nationwide areas for improvement.

12.7 Strengthen national planning policy on SMPs

Local planning authorities are expected to update their local plans every 5 years. There was a mixed picture across SMPs about the extent to which SMPs are guiding local planning decisions and policies. The panel suggested national planning policy could be strengthened to require local planning authorities to account for SMPs when preparing local plans. It is important that SMPs and local plans are updated to reflect the updated NCERM when it is published in 2024.

Strengthening the alignment between SMPs and local plans would support the designation of more CCMAs. This would help to make sure only appropriate development takes place in areas that could be at risk of coastal erosion.

12.8 Greater involvement of infrastructure providers

The involvement of different infrastructure providers in SMPs is variable around the country. The panel noted that there should be clear guidance on engagement expectations.

This should cover engagement with:

• water companies
• energy companies
• National Highways
• Network Rail
• port and harbour authorities

Infrastructure providers need to be more involved in coastal groups and the SMPs. If they are not there is a risk that the impacts of coastal change for important infrastructure will not be factored into their:

• long-term business planning
• investment choices
• risk management

12.9 Clear objectives for environmental protection and nature restoration

How much individual SMPs contribute to wider national and local ambitions to protect and restore the natural, and historic, environment varies.

The panel recommended that SMPs would benefit from:

• more explicit reference and join up with the HCRP
• having explicit natural environment and/or environmental net gain objectives

The current HCRP is fully committed and runs to 2027. The timescales for this is aligned with the current FCERM capital investment programme timings. The priorities for investment in the HCRP are agreed between the Environment Agency and Natural England. Looking ahead, SMPs should have a greater role in informing the pipeline of future projects under the HCRP after 2027.

An Environment Agency-led project to plan for the next HCRP is in development. This should make sure SMPs have the funding they need in future to invest in habitat compensation and restoration projects.

The panel also identified a role for SMPs to support partnership working that achieves wider natural and historic environment outcomes. These should go beyond statutory requirements including enabling net gain opportunity areas.

12.10 Recommendations for further work

Strengthen national planning policy on SMPs

• explore how to strengthen national planning policy to require local planning authorities to account for SMPs when updating their strategic local plans

Greater involvement of infrastructure providers

• develop clear guidance on how different infrastructure providers should be better involved in SMPs and SMP action plans

Clearer objectives for environmental protection and nature restoration

• explore how the next HCRP after 2027 could better align with achieving the the updated SMPs
• consider whether all SMPs should be required to have more explicit reference to protecting and restoring the natural and historic environment

12.11 Ambition 3: A nation ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change

A fundamental part of SMPs is supporting coastal communities at risk of coastal flooding and erosion. This helps them to be:

• better prepared
• ready to respond
• empowered to take action to adapt

However, it is not reasonable or practical to expect coastal groups to engage directly with every affected community. Therefore, it is important elected members are represented and engaged in the coastal groups and SMP groups. This allows them to represent the needs and voice of local communities in the SMP process.

The panel identified how many SMPs have good governance in place to make sure the right people and partners are involved. There were some positive examples of SMPs engaging with local community groups on their SMP action planning. However, not all coastal groups could demonstrate appropriate community engagement, including through local elected members.

The review identified some nationwide areas for improvement.

12.12 Greater community engagement and elected members

The panel highlighted that some SMP governance structures lacked appropriate leadership to implement their action plans. For some SMPs, governance oversight came from the coastal group. In other places SMP management groups or SMP sub-groups took this role. The panel highlighted the value of having close engagement between coastal groups and local elected members. The mandate local elected members have for securing buy-in and support from local communities was recognised as important.

The panel did not expect that local communities should be engaged in every SMP update or SMP action plan. However, it was suggested that direct community engagement may need to take place in areas where SMP management approaches or actions are potentially contentious. This is particularly important where there is a change in management approach from hold the line to something else. It was also observed that it would be beneficial for coastal groups to have better engagement with local elected members on RFCCs.

There is already well documented evidence that such engagement processes can refine and improve overall local approaches. This is particularly important where difficult choices need to be made, for example in Fairbourne in Wales.

Where coastal transition (roll back) is required or likely, it is very important that early and inclusive community engagement is undertaken. Building shared ownership with coastal communities at risk of coastal erosion and sea flooding is a significant strand of the CTAP.

The Environment Agency and coast protection authorities will be capturing and sharing the lessons learnt on community engagement throughout the duration of the CTAP.

This will be based on work with projects in:

• North Norfolk
• East Riding of Yorkshire
• Dorset
• Cornwall

The best practice should be shared to benefit all coastal groups.

12.13 Resourcing for coastal authorities and coastal groups

Coastal groups, coast protection authorities and the Environment Agency have put significant time and effort into the SMP refresh project. However, the SMP review has shown that many SMPs have constrained staff resources within coast protection authorities. This, combined with high rates of staff turnover, is affecting the ability of coastal groups to properly resource SMPs and engage with other partners.

The panel expressed concern about the formal status of SMPs, which remain non-statutory plans. This means that many coastal groups have constrained resources to make further improvements as SMPs are not regarded as a statutory duty. Retention and development of coastal management skills in local authorities is of particular concern. Long-term staff resourcing, skills and capabilities for supporting the ongoing implementation of SMPs should be reviewed. Models of new ways of working where lessons could be learnt include:

• Coastal Partners
• Coastal Partnership East

12.14 Knowledge management

The panel identified the need for coastal groups and SMP management groups to establish better arrangements to capture, record and share knowledge and experience. These arrangements should also better record key decisions and progress.

This responds to two aspects:

• to reduce the impact of high levels of staff turnover within coastal groups and coastal protection authorities
• to encourage sharing and collaboration of best practice and lessons learnt across the wider coastal sector

The panel reflected that generating guidance and tools for extraction and capturing of informal learning could help. This could include:

• facilitated workshops to resolve common challenges
• formal reporting mechanisms monitored by the coastal group
• the exploration of dedicated knowledge management platforms to capture resources, case studies and data for the wider coastal sector

12.15 Need for greater clarity on partner engagement and expectations

The panel highlighted that across all SMPs there was very limited involvement of infrastructure providers in the SMP process and coastal groups. Infrastructure providers include:

• water companies
• rail and highways
• ports and harbours

The review process identified some positive examples of infrastructure providers working with coastal groups on joint projects. However this was the exception rather than the rule.

The panel suggested there may be value in having a model template terms of reference for coastal groups. This could identify the most important partners that should be actively involved in developing SMP action plans. There could also be national best practice shared on working with different infrastructure providers.

12.16 Suggestions for further work

Greater community engagement and elected members

• review how coastal groups, SMP sub-groups and RFCCs could strengthen their engagement with local authority elected members to make sure there is community representation and buy-in to the SMP and SMP action plan

Resourcing for coastal authorities and coastal groups

• explore what training and guidance could be developed to support coastal groups, SMP management groups and coast protection authorities to develop the skills and capabilities they need to carry out SMPs

Knowledge management and sharing best practice

• explore options for developing national guidance and tools that support and enable coastal groups to extract and capture learning, knowledge and decisions

Need for greater clarity on partner engagement and expectations

• update the national terms of reference on the membership of coastal groups and develop a national terms of reference for SMP management groups to broaden their composition
• develop national best practice guidance on engagement with harder to reach partners like infrastructure providers

12.17 Overall suggestion: Undertaking regular reviews

At the end of the review process, the panel reflected on the benefits and positive outcomes of undertaking the independent peer review. Reviews should be seen as a healthy part of the SMP process as it provides an opportunity for learning and sharing best practice.

Regular review would be particularly beneficial as SMPs are living plans and undergo continual updating and refresh. Therefore, the panel suggested that regular peer review should continue to be part of the overall SMP process going forward.

13. Next steps

This review has provided an independent and objective view on how individual SMPs could be improved. It makes:

• recommendations for improvements so they remain fit for 2025 and beyond
• suggestions for further work to support SMPs collectively

The Environment Agency will review the priorities for its ongoing work with coastal groups on SMPs. It will do this after the completion of the SMP refresh project and the launch of the new SMP Explorer in early 2024. This will help to support the continuous improvement and strengthening of SMPs.

14. Appendix 1: SMP documents used to inform the review process

The assessment of each SMP was based upon reviewing the following documents for each SMP:

• SMP health check report - commissioned reports developed in Phase 1 of the SMP refresh process for each SMP. The reports give an overview of the items/actions for consideration during the SMP refresh project.

• SMP action plan - the revised SMP action plans for each SMP as of 14 April 2023. These revised Action plans include consideration of actions from the SMP health check reports and include details of how the SMP groups intend to take action to update current SMP management policies to the new SMP management approaches and SMP sub-categories.

• SMP action tracker - a spreadsheet that provides an overview of the SMP management approach for each SMP policy unit and the policy rational. This document enabled the review panel to cross check actions in the SMP action plan against the SMP management approach. 

• Technical review document - these were completed by the Environment Agency’s Resilient Coast Team for each SMP. They provide a high-level summary and commentary of the extent to which the actions and issues in the SMP health check report have been addressed by the SMP overall and in relation to the requirements of the SMP refresh Project.

• Additional materials – all SMPs were invited to provide additional information on the themes of governance, and planning and development actions via on online survey during April 2023.

15. Appendix 2: The maturity matrix framework

The maturity matrix framework used by the peer review panel is outline below. It sets out the detail on each of the 5 themes and guidance on assessment of the 3 levels of maturity.

15.1 Governance

Understanding of structure, accountability, controls, decision-making capability, status of procedures,  leadership and empowerment of individuals within the governance structure.

Q1. To what extent does the SMP have the appropriate leadership and governance in place to implement its management objectives and action plans.

To determine this, consider the state of organisational and partnership governance across the SMP, for example:

• Does the SMP have clear and appropriate leadership?
• Has a local SMP group been (re-)established and does it continue to be active currently?
• Does the governance group have a clear term of reference?
• Does the group include, involve, or have clear links with local authority elected members, community leaders and those involved in development/regeneration planning?

Developing (1 or 2)

• Informal structures with no clear leadership, responsibilities, membership or remit
• SMP group may not be (currently) active
• No terms of reference for the SMP group (either at coastal group level or separate SMP group governance terms)
• No links to local authority elected members, community leaders and those involved in development/regeneration planning

Effective (3 or 4)

• A formal governance structure with written strategic goals
• SMP group is active
• Clear terms of reference for the SMP group (either at coastal group level or separate SMP group governance terms)
• Limited links to local authority elected members, community leaders and those involved in development/regeneration planning

Good (5)

• Formal governance structure with written strategic goals and responsibilities for delivery
• SMP group is active
• Clear terms of reference for SMP governance group (either at coastal group level or separate SMP group governance terms)
• There is clear identification of actions and capacity within the partnership to deliver
• Local authority elected members, community leaders and those involved in development/regeneration planning are embedded as part of the SMP group
• In addition, we may observe evidence of empowered partners/ teams and a culture of continuous improvement applied

15.2 Deliverability – Policy to action

How does the SMP action plan support the SMP management approaches?

Q2. To what extent does the SMP action plan support and provide assurance that the SMP management approaches (agreed through the SMP refresh process) will be implemented in practice? Consider whether and how the SMP action plan supports delivery of the SMP  management approaches. Do the actions to deliver the SMP management approaches provide confidence that they will be delivered in practice?

• How have the issues identified by the 2020 health checks been addressed in the updated action plan? What action has been taken by the SMP group?
• Are the SMP actions both strategic (that is, not tactical/too technical) and SMART?
• What actions are being taken to ensure the SMP management approaches will be implemented in practice? This includes where the SMP management approach is identified as changing through the refresh. Does it include formally agreeing management approach changes and actions with elected members?
• Has the action plan incorporated actions to manage the transition between one SMP management approach to another (across epochs) with consideration of funding/affordability and engagement?

Developing (1 or 2)

• The issues identified in the 2020 health check have not been addressed in the updated action plans (i.e. the recommendations from the health checks have not been reflected in the list of updated SMP actions)
• SMP actions are present but they are tactical and do not reflect wider strategic drivers
• There is no evidence that SMP actions are SMART (for example, they are not strategic, measurable, actionable, realistic or timebound)
• There is no evidence of SMP actions that provide assurance that the refreshed SMP management approaches will be implemented in practice
• There is no evidence that the action plan incorporates actions to manage transition between one SMP management approach to another (across epochs)

Effective (3 or 4)

• The issues identified in the 2020 health check have been addressed in the updated action plans ( the recommendations from the health checks have been reflected in the list of updated SMP actions)
• SMP actions are present and do reflect wider strategic drivers
• There is evidence that SMP actions are SMART
• There is some evidence of SMP actions that provide assurance that the refreshed SMP management approaches will be implemented in practice
• The action plan incorporates actions to manage transition between one SMP management approach to another (across epochs)

Good (5)

• The issues identified in the 2020 health check have been addressed in the updated action plans (i.e. the recommendations from the health checks have been reflected in the list of updated SMP actions) and the SMPs groups are starting to deliver the updated actions
• SMP actions are present and reflect wider strategic drivers
• All SMP actions are SMART
• There is clear evidence of SMP actions that provide assurance that the refreshed SMP management approaches will be implemented in practice
• There is good evidence that changes to SMP management approaches have been formally agreed with elected members
• The action plan incorporates actions to manage transition between one SMP management approach to another (across epochs) with consideration of funding/affordability of actions and planned (and potentially delivered) engagement with affected stakeholders and communities

15.3 Planning and development

How does the SMP influence local planning decisions and policies?

Q3. To what extent does the SMP and  SMP action plan provide evidence that it is steering local planning decisions and policies effectively? Consider how influential the SMP has been on local planning decisions.

• Is there evidence or  examples of the SMP steering local planning decisions on individual planning applications?
• Is there evidence or  examples of the SMP influencing and informing the strategic local plan? For example including through informing the selection and application of CCMAs?
• Is there evidence the SMP is being used by other development partners? For example housing developers, infrastructure or utility providers

Developing (1 or 2)

• The SMP has no influence on local decisions
• SMPs are not considered in local plans and/ or supplementary planning documents and CCMAs are not defined in local planning policy

Effective (3 or 4)

• The SMP influences local decisions through informal and serendipitous relationships
• Informal arrangements exist and are being implemented by the local planning authority, to refer to and take account of SMP management approaches in local planning decisions, but no formal (statutory) local planning arrangements or levers exists. For example  stipulations in local planning decisions are ad-hoc, agreed on a case-by-case basis, but not backed up by specific policies in local development documents.

Good (5)

• Formal processes exist to embed the SMP policies and plans within local planning guidance and development plans  
• SMPs are fully considered within local plans and / or local development documents. Coastal policies are embedded within supplementary planning documents or equivalent
• Potential evidence includes definition of CCMAs or SMPs management approaches embedded in local plan and/ or supplementary planning documents

15.4 Investment

How do SMPs steer FCERM activities and investments effectively, but also the choices and alignment of investment by others?

Q4. To what extent is the SMP steering FCERM investment and activities? Consider how influential the SMP has been on local investment choices.

• Is there evidence or examples of how the SMP has steered FCERM activities and investments?
• Is there evidence or  examples of projects identified for funding or already funded on the Environment Agency’s national FCERM capital investment programme (that runs to 2027) or the local authority’s own investment programme?
• How is the SMP being used to influence the investment choices of other local partners? For example, infrastructure providers like highways, rail or telecommunications.

Developing (1 or 2)

• SMPs are not considered in the FCERM investment programme activities for the Environment Agency or coast protection authorities
• No funding sources are identified for delivery of FCERM activities or investments
• SMPs are not reflected in the investment plans of others (for example investment outside of FCERM GiA). For example  pipelines or investment portfolios of infrastructure providers, developers

Effective (3 or 4)

• SMPs and their action plans feed into and drive FCERM investment programme activities for the Environment Agency and coast protection authorities
• Single sources of funding for FCERM activities or investments have been identified but are not yet secured
• SMPs are not reflected in the investment plans of others (that is, investment outside of FCERM GiA) – for example pipelines or investment portfolios of infrastructure providers, developers

Good (5)

• SMPs and their action plans feed into and drive FCERM investment programme activities for the Environment Agency or coast protection authorities, as well as the investment plans of others
• There is also evidence of the outputs of others being used to update the SMPs. For example additional modelling, new strategies, completed FCERM schemes are used to update SMPs
• Multiple sources of funding to deliver SMP management approaches are identified and potentially secured

15.5 Environment

Are SMPs maximising environmental outcomes beyond flood and coastal erosion risks?

Q5. To what extent is the SMP steering and reflecting local ambitions to protect and restore natural environment, and maximise environmental outcomes beyond flood and coastal erosion risk? Consider how the SMP is informing and supporting wider environmental ambitions.

• Is there evidence or  examples of how the SMP contributes to wider environmental objectives? For example  net biodiversity or environmental net gain, net zero
• Does the SMP have clear links with Environment Agency’s Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme?
• Do the SMP actions involve working in partnership with environmental partners such as Natural England or local environmental NGOs?

Developing (1 or 2)

• No evidence that SMP management approaches or actions reflect wider environmental objectives
• SMP management approaches and actions do not reflect Environment Agency’s habitat compensation and restoration programme
• None or very limited evidence of connected working with other environmental partners

Effective (3 or 4)

• SMP management approaches reflect drivers and objectives of environmental partners
• SMP management approaches and actions reflect Environment Agency’s habitat compensation and restoration programme
• Other environmental partners are connected to the development of the SMP. For example environmental partners are engaged in the development of the SMP and actions

Good (5)

• SMP management approaches and actions reflect objectives of other environmental partners
• SMP management approaches and actions reflect and deliver Environment Agency’s habitat compensation and restoration programme
• Strong evidence of connected working with other environmental partners. For example  environmental partners are embedded within SMP governance structures or SMP actions are being delivered in partnership
• Objectives of environmental partners are reflected in the timing and choices of SMP actions