Agenda item

(1)       Simon Curd from the Environment Agency gave a presentation. The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic agenda papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Curd said that his presentation was an update on flood risk rather than an assessment of future flood risk.  He said that there were currently some 85.5k homes and businesses in Kent at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea.   These figures did not take account of the presence of flood defences.  There were currently over 9,700 flood risk assets in Kent, including defences, structures, pumping stations and culverts, which benefited 40,000 homes and businesses.

(3)       Mr Curd said that Kent had been allocated the third highest amount (£189m over the next five years) in grants to deliver capital projects to reduce flood risk in England (behind Yorkshire and Lincolnshire). Over 60% of this figure came from Flood Defence Grant (FDGiA).  Kent was a big winner for investment in Flood and Coastal Risk Erosion Management (FCRM) capital projects. The Environment Agency was a significant infrastructure provider, protecting critical infrastructure and preventing millions of pounds worth of flood damage across the county. These projects were expected to reduce flood risk and coastal erosion to more than 27,000 homes. Under the government’s partnership funding rules, however, many of these projects required external contributions in order that they could go ahead. Without these contributions, the allocated government funding would be redistributed across the country. In terms of outcome measurements, Mr Curd said these were predominantly evaluated in terms of homes protected.

(4)       Mr Curd continued by considering some of the bigger schemes in Kent. The Great Stour Flood Alleviation Scheme was currently in its early stages of development. The Environment Agency was working in Partnership with KCC and Canterbury CC to reduce the risk of flooding from the Great Stour to communities between Ashford and Fordwich, including Canterbury.  This would enable the protection of nearly 500 properties and 90 businesses. The scheme had a good cost benefit ratio but would still require a further £2.7m in partnership funding.   

(5)       Mr Curd went on to say that most of the schemes associated with the Folkestone to Cliff End Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy had now been completed.  The Lydd Ranges Scheme was the last one that needed to be completed.  Although there had been some problems and discussions in respect of this scheme, it was anticipated that a planning application would be submitted very shortly. 

(6)        Mr Curd said that the Middle Medway Flood Resilience Scheme had been developed in response to numerous flooding incidents, culminating in the floods of 2013/14.  It was installing Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures to protect a number of houses. Phase 1 had seen the installation of PFR measures to 28 properties.   Another 281 properties had been offered the full survey in early 2018, 247 of which had taken up the offer and were having the measures installed.  The latest phase would see the scoping taking place for those properties that were unsuitable for PFR.   It might be possible to build small walls around the properties or to take other measures in partnership with KCC Highways.

(7)       Mr Curd described Mill Farm Natural Flood Management on the River Beult as a project managed by KCC to provide a natural water storage area beneficial to the Beult catchment and biodiversity.

(8)       Mr Curd said that the Leigh Expansion and Hildenborough Embankment Scheme was in effect two projects that had to take place simultaneously in order to avoid any negative flooding impact.  The Leigh Expansion project would increase capacity and reduce risk to some 1500 properties by increasing storage levels in the Leigh Flood Storage Area from 5.5m m³ to 9m m³.   The Hildenborough scheme would bring benefit to the low-level residential areas of Hildenborough by preventing water from the River Medway reaching beyond its banks.   This was another partnership project involving KCC and Tonbridge and Malling BC which been supported by a bid to the South East Local Enterprise Partnership.  

(9)       Mr Curd asked the Committee to note that this project would not only protect homes but also businesses and create growth and business benefits.  Consequently, a bid was made for a contribution from the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) Local Growth Fund to provide some of the partnership funding. 

(10)     Mr Curd said that the Medway Flood Partnership had been created at the end of 2017. It brought together the wide variety of organisations that undertook flood risk management in the catchment in order to coordinate their work.    This enabled the partners to ensure that they avoided duplication or adversely affecting others’ work.   An example of this was that all the maintenance plans had been pulled together so that everyone could see what needed to be done and which of the partners was responsible for it. 

(11)     Mr Curd summarised the main points of his presentation by saying that Kent was a big winner for government investment on capital projects; partnership funding was needed to unlock government funding for FDCRM projects; partnership was key to success and innovation; and that incorporating Natural Flood Management into schemes could help to deliver more and wider benefits. Surface water would be one of the greater and increasing flood risks in the future.

(12)     Finally, he asked the Committee to give its support to the schemes whilst impressing the importance of this work upon their constituents and areas not just in terms of property protection, but also because of their wider benefits for growth and natural habitats.  

(13)     Mr Rayner asked whether a decision had yet been made as to where the barrier for the Hildenborough scheme was to be located.  Mr Curd replied that the Environment Agency had some idea where the embankment was to be sited. The original intention had been to place it in the school grounds.  There was still some design work to be completed and discussions had not yet been held with the intended landowners.  He was therefore not able to inform the Committee of its exact location.  The embankment did not need to be as high or as long as originally thought.  He added that there would be a drop-in session in Hildenborough during November. 

(14)     Mrs Doyle said that one of the problems in the Canterbury City Council administrative area were the bournes (seasonal rivers) which could cause serious flooding. On the last occasion that this had occurred, some of the residents had hired diggers and diverted the water away from their own land. She asked whether the Environment Agency agreed with such unilateral action.  Mr Curd replied that it was the riparian landowner who had responsibility to take water and pass it on.  He did not agree with people taking matters into their own hands by taking diggers to ditches.  This could have significant and unforeseen knock-on effects.  

(15)     Mr Howard Rogers said that when the Leigh Barrier project had started life, it had not only included Leigh and Hildenborough, but also some embankment work in East Peckham to protect the industrial estate. As costs had begun to escalate, the work around East Peckham had been reduced in scope. Mr Curd replied that the Leigh and East Peckham projects had always been completely separate.  The SELEP bid had been put together by Tonbridge and Malling BC to include East Peckham, Leigh and Hildenborough.    It had been done that way to enable the project’s potential for economic growth to be demonstrated.  The cost of the East Peckham project had been high, resulting in a significant funding gap.  Although some firms in the industrial estate had been prepared to part fund work in a small part of it these contributions were not sufficient to fund the whole scheme.  The Environment Agency had subsequently considered an alternative scheme to protect some of the residential areas.  An outline business case was being developed whilst funding was still being sought.  Unfortunately, the change in scope might result in the loss of a proportion of the LEP funding. 

(16)     Mr Rayner noted the reduced requirement for the height and length of the Hildenborough Bund and said that this would presumably reduce the cost from that originally put forward.   He asked whether some of the savings from that scheme could be used in East Peckham.  Mr Curd replied that this would not be possible because it was not permissible to transfer money from one scheme to another.  He added that, although it was assumed that the eventual cost of the Hildenborough scheme would be less than originally estimated, it was still too early to be certain that this was the case. 

(17)     The Chairman asked whether the Environment Agency could produce maps that showed sea defences to complement those that did not.  Mr Curd agreed that this might be possible as the Environment Agency did possess this information.

(18)     RESOLVED that Mr Curd be thanked for his presentation and that the Environment Agency be invited to attend the same meeting as the Met Office in 2019 once the revised UK Climate Projections have been published.