This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda and minutes
  • Agenda and minutes

    Venue: Council Chamber, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone. View directions

    Contact: Andrew Tait  03000 416749

    Media

    Items
    No. Item

    1.

    Minutes of the meeting on 17 November 2014 pdf icon PDF 130 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Vye asked in respect of Minute 17 (23) whether a list of planned improvements by Southern Water could also be provided.  Mr Tant replied that he would request this information from Southern Water.  He asked the Committee to bear in mind that the water companies were just starting their new five year improvement programmes and that OFWAT had become less prescriptive about the order in which they needed to be undertaken and that the information provided might, in consequence, be less comprehensive than Members would wish.

     

    (2)       RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2014 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

    2.

    Kent Resilience Forum Pan-Kent Flood Group pdf icon PDF 158 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Harwood said that the Kent Resilience Forum had been set up in response to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which required Local resilience Forums to be established for key emergency planning partners and stakeholders to enhance planning and response for major emergencies within their operational areas. 

     

    (2)       Mr Harwood continued that the Kent Resilience Forum had recently established the Pan Kent Flood Group whose role was to ensure the implementation of all the outstanding actions arising out of the 2013/14 winter events and enhance local preparedness for flood emergencies. 

     

    (3)        A key piece of work for the Group would be around coastal flooding planning and response.  Kent had some 350 miles of coastline, and the South East was actually gradually sinking as a result of sea level rise linked to a warming planet and the geological phenomenon of glacio hydro-isostatic rebound. Part of the value of the Pan Kent Flood Group would be to act as a catalyst and advocate for the flooding agenda across the other groups which made up the Kent Resilience Forum. 

     

    (4)       The Chairman referred to a letter from Dan Rogerson MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management which advised local authorities to put their draft flood risk management strategies out for public consultation by the end of March 2015.  He noted that a number of Lead Local Flood Authorities had yet to publish their strategies and stressed the role of elected Members in ensuring that this happened in their authorities.

     

    (5)       Mr Harwood responded to a question from Dr Eddy by saying that the Pan Kent Flood Group was currently meeting monthly because of the significant workload and that an update report would be presented to future meetings of the Committee as a standing item.

     

    (6)     RESOLVED that the establishment of the Kent Resilience Forum Pan Kent Flood Group be noted and that progress reports be tabled at future meetings of the Committee.  

    3.

    Drainage Consultee Role pdf icon PDF 116 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Tant introduced the report by saying that the Flood and Water Management Act contained a Schedule which proposed to make KCC a drainage approval body, having the role of approving and potentially adopting drainage schemes from new developments.  This role would have sat alongside the planning application process.

     

    (2)       Mr Tant went on to say that Defra had found it very challenging to bring about full implementation of this role due to concerns over how the adoption role would sit alongside planning and how long-term maintenance would be funded. 

     

    (3)       In consequence, Defra had decided to consider different options to resolve the SuDS issue.In October 2014, Defra and DCLG had issued a consultation on an alternative approach.  This involved strengthening the planning regime around SuDS in terms of maintenance and enforcement.

     

    (4)       Mr Tant referred to KCC’s response document which supported the general direction of the proposal but did not consider that it would achieve any improvement to current SuDS provision, particularly in respect of maintenance.  The consultation document had envisaged that maintenance of SuDS would be a planning condition subject to perpetual enforcement (which would be at odds with the existing enforcement regime).

     

    (5)       DCLG had followed this with another consultation in December 2014.  This had included making Lead Local Flood Authorities statutory consultees within the planning regime for surface water on major developments.  This proposal was supported by KCC even though it was still considered that the proposal itself would not improve the type of SuDS or their long term maintenance.  

     

    (6)       Mr Tant then said that KCC also had significant reservations about the New Burdens Assessment which set out what DCLG believed it would cost to implement and the revenue it would give to support it.  It was considered that the amount of time needed to fulfil this role was being significantly underestimated and also because there was no assessment in the document of the additional burden that would be placed on planning authorities.  One issue that had not been considered was that drainage details would often not be part of the original submission for a major planning application but would be submitted later as details in respect of a planning condition.  The time required to undertake the enforcement role had also not been included. 

     

    (7)       Mr Tant added that the DCLG consultation period had now closed.  To date there had been no update from DCLG (even though it had been hoped that this would be published in time for oral communication to the Committee).  It was now expected on 20 March.

     

    (8)       The Chairman commented that it had taken at least six years to reach this point and that maintenance remained a major issue.  He referred to the visit to the SuDS scheme at Singleton Hill in Ashford that the Committee had undertaken in March 2014, where the scheme itself had been excellent but had clearly suffered as a consequence of multiple bodies having responsibility for different parts of it.   

     

    (9)       Mr Rogers said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

    4.

    Environment Agency and Met Office Alerts and Warnings and KCC flood response activity since the last meeting. pdf icon PDF 102 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Harwood drew the Committee’s attention to the variance between the Alerts and Warnings recorded in the past few months and those received during the corresponding period in the previous year.  In 2013/14 (November to March) there had been 41 warnings and 5 severe warnings whereas this year there had been 9 warnings and no severe warnings.  The comparison was even greater when the figures for Met Office Severe Weather Flood Alerts and Warnings were set against one another.  There had been just 10 since the last meeting compared to 87 in 2013/14.  The Thames Barrier had been closed on 4 occasions since the last meeting as opposed to 49 times in the corresponding period in 2013/14.  A total of 11 significant flooding related emergencies had been reported to the 24/7 KCC Emergency Planning Duty Officer since the last meeting.  The figure for 2013/14 had been 66.

     

    (2)       Mr Flaherty said that Kent Fire and Rescue had invested a considerable amount of time and work in communities, resilience and equipment and this had resulted in improved response to those events that had occurred.  He confirmed that his service had also seen a far lower level of flood-related activity than during the previous year. 

     

    (3)       Mrs Brown reported that Yalding had not even had to deal with water on the road during the winter.   The only issue that her parish had taken up with the Environment Agency was that warnings had been given at a very early stage.   These warnings were, by their nature, not accurate enough. It would be preferable if the warnings were given once it became clear that an event was actually going to occur.   She was pleased with the revisions made to the warning zones as this now meant that warnings could be given to those actually affected rather than to an entire stretch of river.

     

    (4)       Mr Curd (Environment Agency) said that there had been some difficulties with the warning system in the Medway catchment area. Owing to the size of the warning zones, a number of communities had received warnings when it had not been appropriate for them to do so. As a result (and following consultation with the communities) these warning zones had been reorganised by increasing their number and reducing their size.  Work was still being undertaken on identification and confirmation of the correct trigger levels.

     

    (5)       Mr Vickery-Jones informed the Committee of Mr Ted Edwards’ imminent retirement after many years as Canterbury CC’s Engineering Manager.   The Committee formally expressed its appreciation for his outstanding service and wished him a very happy retirement.  

     

    (6)       Mr Hills said that on 30 September 2014 Kent had seen the highest tide levels in 25 years (11 tides over 8 metres).  It was therefore critical (particularly in the Romney Marsh area) that the EA and IDB carried out the re-cutting to a high standard this year. It was essential to avoid complacency.

     

    (7)       RESOLVED that:-

     

    (a)             the level of alerts received since the last meeting of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

    5.

    Oral Update by the Environment Agency on Flood Risk Mitigation in Faversham

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Curd said that 22 properties and 2 businesses in Faversham had been badly affected by the North Sea tidal surge of December 2013.  The EA had been working with KCC, Swale BC and the local residents Association to develop a scheme that would help protect these properties.  He was pleased to be able to confirm that sufficient funding contributions had been secured for the scheme to be taken forward. He thanked Mr Bowles for his assistance in this matter and added that he had been informed shortly before the meeting that Faversham TC would also be making a financial contribution.

     

    (2)       Mr Curd continued that the design of the scheme had been passed to the East Kent Engineering Partnership.  The detailed design and cost estimates for the works were expected by the end of March 2015 and construction was expected to commence during the summer months.

     

    (3)       Mr Bowles thanked Mr Curd and Mark Douch as well as the EA generally for the pro-active way in which they had helped bring the scheme into fruition.  He also acknowledged the contribution made by Mr Balfour at the meeting where funding had been secured.

     

    (4)       RESOLVED that the report be noted. 

     

    6.

    CPRE Flood Conference 2015 - Oral report by Paul Flaherty (Kent Fire and Rescue)

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Flaherty informed the meeting that he had recently become the Resilience Director for the Channel Tunnel.  He then reported on the recent CPRE Flood Conference. He said that it had engaged itself in issues such as Planning and building on Flood Plains and some of the measures that needed to be considered in the light of the need for housing.   There had been a number of high level speakers such as Damien Green (MP for Ashford) and Helen Grant (MP for Maidstone and the Weald).  The Conference had been well received and well attended but had taken place in isolation from many of the agencies that had carried out work in the County.

     

    (2)       Mr Flaherty went on to update the Committee on other significant events that had recently taken place. Exercise Wade had been held on 9 December 2014 at the Tonbridge and Malling Council Offices.  This had been a Resilience Forum table top exercise to try out all the changes that had been made to the various Plans and procedures as a result of the previous winter’s experience. Following this exercise, both the Pan-Kent response and the Recovery Plan were being reviewed. 

     

    (3)       A joint seminar had been funded by Defra for the East Kent Flooding Groups.  This involved the Resilience Forums from Kent and Essex working together to discuss East Coast flooding.  The outcome of this seminar was that it would lead to closer working between the two Resilience Forums. Examples of this would be joint training, joint exercising and harmonisation of procedures. 

     

    (4)       Mr Flaherty then said that the Kent resilience Team had drafted an Animal Evacuation and Shelter Plan which was currently going through the consultation stage within the Kent Resilience Forum.  It was expected to be operational by the time of the next meeting of the Committee in July 2015.

     

    (5)       Mr Vickery-Jones said he had attended the South East Architects presentation.  This had mainly focussed on anti-social behaviour but had also discussed designing out flooding.  He added that he had attended the CPRE Conference and had been left asking the question why there was no great emphasis on designing properties to withstand flooding issues.  He believed that the best solution for new development was to design it to be flood-resistant rather than by seeking to build perimeter defences that would require a long term maintenance commitment.  This was particularly important given Canterbury CC’s recent experiences where Planning Inspectors had overturned the Council’s refusal of developments on flood plains.

     

    (6)       Mr Pearman said that in the Kent Fire and Rescue Service had performed an absolutely invaluable task in Edenbridge during the 2013/14 flooding events.  Although the river had not overflowed, the town had been flooded by standing water.  This effort had been hindered because the Edenbridge Depot had undergone a staffing crisis making it impossible for anyone to be deployed from there.  If there had been severe weather in 2014/15, the Edenbridge Unit would not have been operational.  He said that no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.