Agenda and minutes

Prior to the meeting, some Members of the Committee had participated in a site visit to the Sandwich Flood Defences which had been arranged by the Environment Agency.  

(1)       Mr Vye asked in respect of Minute 12 (4) what mechanisms were in place to ensure that Members’ views on the priorities within the list of drainage schemes were taken into account.  He suggested that this question could be considered at a future meeting.

(2)       RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2014 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)             Mr Paul Kent from Southern Water gave a presentation on Southern Water’s response to the Winter 2013/14 floods. The accompanying slides have been incorporated with the agenda papers on the County Council’s website:

(2)       Mr Kent’s presentation covered Southern Water’s role in flood management, the impact of the 2013/14 flooding, general improvements such as flood alleviation schemes, infiltration reduction and total care plans. He also addressed Southern Water’s role in the coming Winter, bearing in mind that the water levels were already higher than they had been at this point in 2013.

(3)       Mr Kent said that Southern Water engaged with Lead Local Authorities such as KCC, the District Councils, the IDBs, the Environment Agency and local communities in order to develop holistic solutions to flooding problems instead of working in isolation as had been the case in the past.  An example of close work with community organisations was that undertaken with the Stour and Nailbourne River Management Group. Southern Water also participated actively as a member of the steering group on flood and coastal erosion projects and was involved in Surface Water Management Plans.

(4)       Mr Kent moved on to consideration of the Winter 2013/14 floods which had first impacted with the St Jude storm event of 28 October 2014 through tidal flooding, particularly in the Dover area where the sea wall had been breached.  As the Winter progressed, the problems faced by Southern Water were the same ones faced by local authorities. There had been power outages as a result of trees and cables falling down, pluvial and fluvial flooding, tidal flooding.

(5)       By far the biggest issue had been that of groundwater flooding, particularly at Nailbourne and Petham.  This had been a very protracted process which had started in the New Year and, in some cases, lasted into May.  The problems created by groundwater filling the sewage system were usually alleviated through the use of tankers.  There was only a limited number of tankers that could be used in the South East (some 120 in total), and they were limited by the volume that they could take out of the sewer.  This meant that over pumping needed to take place in order to alleviate sewage discharge.

(6)       Mr Kent said that the response had been 24 hours a day at a peak cost of £150k per day.  It had involved 330 staff and the total cost to Southern Water had been in the region of £15 – 20m.  This money had come out of existing budgets rather than being charged to existing customers.

(7)       Mr Kent went on to give some examples of issues that Southern Water had tackled.  He said that one of the key priorities was to address those areas that were known to flood (particularly internally). These were delivered following a cost benefit analysis to those properties where the cost of protection was lower than that of the damage caused to them.  In the five year period from 2010 to 2015  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

(1)          The Chairman informed the Committee of correspondence from Mrs Brown, Chairman of Yalding PC giving her apologies for the meeting. She had written to say that the Flood Warning Areas had been launched, the communities were all working together,  the Flood Warden scheme had been launched (Yalding PC had its own bespoke system). She, like a number of other Parish Councillors had acquired a power solar-powered mobile phone charger.  Personal Emergency Plans were now being encouraged in addition to the Community Plans.

(2)       Mr Crick referred to the report to Cabinet on 13 October 2014 (Appendix 1) which was an update to the more detailed report which had been endorsed by Cabinet on 7 July 2014.

(3)       Mr Crick said that a series of internal and partnership debriefs had been carried out and that management structures had been established to implement the recommendations.  KCC itself has set up a cross-directorate Corporate Resilience Steering Group (which he chaired).  The object was to ensure that sufficient staff were available, trained and placed on a rota to cover any flooding emergency.   The Kent Resilience Forum (KRF) had established a Pan-Kent Flood Group chaired by the EA.   The very recent KRF seminar in East Malling had covered a whole range of issues which would be taken forward by the Kent Resilience Team.

(4)       The Chairman said that he had attended the seminar. He agreed that it had been very rewarding and that it had imparted a great of information. He asked how this information was to be disseminated to those who had not attended.  Mr Crick replied that this would be one of the tasks of the KRF.

(5)        Mr Flannery confirmed that every partner agency had been represented at the seminar.  Each of the partners would be expected to ensure that it communicated the information internally.  

(6)       Mr Crick went on to say that there had been comprehensive reviews of the existing emergency plans, followed by their republication.  A number of training sessions and exercises had been held during the year and 15,000 copies of the newly-published booklet “What should I do in an emergency?”  had been distributed. Updated information was now available on all the partner websites.  A series of “flood fairs” had been held across the County and a far greater number of people were now signed up to the EA’s “Flood Warnings Direct.”  The rise had been very significant, seeing an increase from 25 to 90% in flood risk areas.

(7)       Mr Crick went on to say that KCC, Maidstone BC and Tonbridge and Malling BC had contributed funding to a feasibility and design study for a Leigh flooding storage area.  This scheme was being progressed with the support of the EA. 

(8)       Dr Eddy referred to Recommendation 9. He noted that work was being progressed “over the coming months” and asked which months were being referred to.  He also asked in respect of Recommendation 16 how much the bid for European Funding was for and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

(1)       Mr Harwood reported that the Kent Resilience Forum had formed a Task and Finish Group to produce an Evacuation of Animals Emergency Plan, using a document produced by Somerset CC as its template. The Plan was due for completion by the end of December 2014.

(2)       Mr Harwood agreed to send Members of the Committee a copy of the Somerset document and the Kentish draft once it was finalised.  

(3)       Mr Flaherty confirmed that Kent Fire and Rescue had sufficient specialist equipment to enable its Water Resource Teams to fulfil the provisions set out in the Plan.

(4)       RESOLVED that the establishment of the Kent Resilience Forum Evacuation of Animals Task and Finish Group be noted together with the timetable for the production of the emergency plan.

(1)       Mr Harwood provided updated figures.  Since publication of the report, the number of EA flood alerts had risen from 30 to 38.  1 warning had now been issued.  The figure for yellow Severe Weather Alerts and Warnings had gone up from 10 to 11.  The Thames Barrier had now been closed on 4 occasions for test and operational purposes.  The total of flooding related incidents reported to the KCC Emergency Planning Duty Officer had risen from 18 to 21.  The updated figures in the report demonstrated that groundwater levels were as high as they had been six weeks later in the calendar year of 2013.  This meant that a smaller storm event than had occurred the previous winter would lead to the same level of emergency. It was therefore essential that vigilance was retained.

(2)       In response to comments from Mr Bowles, Mr Harwood said that the figure of 21 flooding related incidents reports to the KCC Emergency Planning Duty Officer only took account of those where there had been significant consequences such as water ingress into properties or even evacuations, requiring multi-agency input. The overall figure for less serious flooding incidents reported to KCC as a whole would, of course, be considerably higher.  

(3)       RESOLVED that the level of alerts and operational response since the last meeting of the Committee be noted with concern, together with the need to maintain vigilance.

(1)       Mr Nunn reported that the EA had let a contract for tree works along the Great Stour between Fordwich and Sandwich at a cost of some £340k.  Work was due to commence shortly following investigation of environmental concerns in respect of bats and explanatory meetings with local stakeholders.

(2)       Mr Nunn then said that as a result of local concerns, research was taking place into historic water levels in the area.  This research had indicated that the base flows were significantly higher than the EA would have hoped for at this time of the year.  This meant that the risk of flooding was greater even than it had been at the same time in 2013.

(3)       Mr Nunn added that some £3-4m of the additional £7m allocated by the Government had been spent on the Great Stour catchment area in 2014. 

(4)       Mr Vickery-Jones said that one of the biggest reasons for obstruction was the tide coming in. He suggested that the Sandwich area would benefit from the creation of a lagoon to return wastewater until the appropriate time came for its release.  Mr Nunn replied that excess water in the Sandwich area was managed at Stonar Cut, which meant that a lot of the fluvial flow was not going through Sandwich at all.  This had been operated 4 times since the winter floods when it had been in operation on 143 occasions.

(5)       RESOLVED that the report be noted.

10 March 2015

20 July 2015

16 November 2015

The Committee agreed the following meeting dates:-

Tuesday, 10 March 2015;

Monday, 20 July 2015;

Monday, 16 November 2015.

These meetings would commence at 2.00 pm.