Other public bodies · Environmental regulator. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.
Reports
4
Naming this recipient
Published responses
100%
Found for named reports
Concerns addressed
6
Across all linked responses
Stated actions
22
Described in responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports naming this recipient by issue year.
Evidence profile
Report topics
Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.
100%published responses found
22stated actions described
Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.
Concerns and recipient responses
Statements from Environment Agency linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Derby and Derbyshire
Concerns raised1
Lack of flood defences at Tapton Terrace
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.8
Action
Carry out updated modelling in 2026 to support Derbyshire County Council’s study of the flood-risk benefits of removing Crow Lane Bridge.
Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Continue winter maintenance walkovers of the river channel at Tapton Terrace and take action on identified vegetation-management needs.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Lead appraisal of the River Hipper Flood Alleviation Scheme to assess upstream floodwater storage and potential flood-risk reduction.
Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Replaced and launched the more advanced, user-focused and resilient ‘Get flood warnings’ service on GOV.UK.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Conducted river-channel surveys in 2024 to compare the Tapton Terrace channel profile with earlier surveys and inform flood-risk management.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Commence a Strategic Outline Case study in 2026 to reassess technically feasible, environmentally acceptable and cost-beneficial flood-defence options at Tapton Terrace.
Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Continue improving Flood Warning Service systems and processes, including working with communities to increase warning-service sign-up rates.
Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Action
Continue working with flood-risk partners to develop natural flood-management and storage schemes upstream within the River Rother catchment.
Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 September 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.3
Position
Compulsory purchase of Tapton Terrace properties cannot be undertaken because no feasible flood scheme requires their removal.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Based on 2024 surveys, dredging the river channel would not provide flood-risk benefit to Tapton Terrace.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Flood defence options cannot currently be delivered because appraisal rules and increased construction costs make them unaffordable.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
Lack of a physical barrier preventing access to the hazardous bottom of the weir
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Install a temporary downstream boom while reviewing options for the site, including possible weir removal.
Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 February 2024.
Action
Review all site options, including removal of the legacy weir.
Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 February 2024.
Berkshire
Concerns raised2
Failure to apply a comparable safety approach to non-tidal waters
Failure to ensure adequate safety measures at the site
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Conduct public-safety risk assessments for owned or occupied assets, considering use, weather, bank holidays and water characteristics, and take empowered reasonably practicable risk-reduction steps.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Action
Support and follow National Water Safety Forum guidance on managing safety at inland water sites.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Action
Regularly inspect owned or occupied assets and review public-safety risk assessments at suitable intervals to maintain appropriate risk controls.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.5
Position
Established legislation and case law concerning public safety apply to both tidal and non-tidal waters; no statutory framework is absent.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Central government, including the Cabinet Office and Defra, is responsible for policy decisions on inland and coastal water safety.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The Environment Agency has very limited capacity to introduce safety measures for swimmers entering the water at Cockmarsh Field.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
The National Trust, as landowner controlling access, has responsibility for site safety measures such as warning signs and rescue devices.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The site is not owned or occupied by the Environment Agency, whose role there is limited to navigation authority functions.
Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Staffordshire South
Concerns raised3
Failure to dispatch Derbyshire officers immediately in urgent situations occurring on or close to the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border
Extreme risk associated with travelling along the weir and descending the salmon chute
Insufficient warning signage at the weir and salmon chute
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations