Minutes:
(1) Mr Mark Douch (Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Risk Manager – Kent and East Sussex) began his presentation by explaining the vulnerability of the County of Kent to the risk of flooding. The County was bounded by a large stretch of coastline and contained an above average number of river systems. Troughs of low pressure building up over Scotland led to rising sea levels off the east coast which resulted in a “North Sea Surge.” Another risk was posed by the large waves created in the huge stretches of the Atlantic Ocean to the South West of England.
(2) Mr Douch also explained the risk of fluvial flooding such as had occurred south of Canterbury in October 2000. Here the water levels had built up slowly through long periods of persistent rainfall. Eventually the drainage system had been overwhelmed, leading to a long period of sustained flooding.
(3) Mr Douch then set out the principal areas of responsibility. These were:-
a) Environment Agency: Main river systems and sea defences.
b) Local Authorities: Ordinary water courses (over 1000 kms in Kent) and coastal protection (e.g.cliffs).
c) Internal drainage Boards: Identified water courses and ordinary water courses in Drainage areas.
(4) The Environment Agency had responsibility for mapping and development and also provided a Flood Risk Warning service. This had diversified from a point 15 years earlier when the traditional loud hailer had been the only means for communicating a Warning. Modern communication methods now included the internet, e.mails, texting, phoning as well as the traditional loud hailer when appropriate. There were three levels of Warning: “Flood Watch”, “Flood Warning” and “Severe Flood Warning.” The timescales varied in that Coastal Flooding Warnings could be given 12 hours beforehand whereas Fluvial Flooding was far more difficult to predict.
(5) The Environment Agency was also responsible for building defences. The cost at Whitstable had been £60m. They also built demountable flood defences (e.g. Sandwich) and undertook river maintenance at an overall cost of @ £10m per year.
(6) Mr Douch moved on to the three Kentish Internal Drainage Boards (Upper and Lower Medway, Great Stour and Romney Marsh). These consisted of elected Members (about 28 in number) who were directly elected local landowners and/or District Council Members. They were funded by a local levy. They had their own by-laws, carried out enforcement activity, paid a levy to the Environment Agency for capital schemes and acted as statutory planning consultees.
(7) The Local Authorities carried out maintenance and enforcement. They acted as the planning authority and now took the lead role in local partnerships. In two-tier local authority areas, the 1st Tier authority undertook the strategic overview whilst the 2nd Tier authorities led on the technical side.
(8) Mr Douch then described the role of the water companies. They took responsibility for critical infrastructure (i.e. the security of the water supply, foul water, surface water and drainage.) One of the recommendations of the Pitt Review had been the identification of fragile areas. These could not be publicly identified for security and commercial reasons, but this information was held by the Police.
(9) There were three levels of strategic control in the event of a crisis. These were named “Gold”, “Silver” and “Bronze”. All three levels fed into COBRA (the Government agency). Strategic Gold crises occurred very rarely – the last incident had been in 2000. In this eventually, resources were managed across an entire area. The Police identified the main area for protection and all agencies supported this goal. Even the Military could become involved.
(10) Strategic Silver crises were regional involving (amongst others) the Police, Fire and Rescue, Local Authorities, Water and Phone Companies. The last Silver crisis had occurred in Hastings in the summer of 2009.
(11) Strategic Bronze crises occurred almost daily at a local level.
(12) In response to a question, Mr Douch said that the Environment Agency’s Capital programme could be viewed on its website. There were now clear criteria in place for determining which projects needed to be prioritised. These took into account cost, the number of people to be protected and the lifetime of the protective measure proposed. The effectiveness of the project was monitored by Defra upon completion. In Kent, 97% of flood protection assets were assessed as being of good or better standard.
(13) Mr Douch informed the Committee that the work of the Environment Agency had changed over the past 10 years. There had been no prioritisation of work at that time and an attempt had been made to accomplish everything. This had led to an over-emphasis on land drainage. Now its work was properly targeted to achieve the most important results within the constraints of the resources on offer.
(14) RESOLVED that Mr Douch be thanked for his presentation and that his offer to provide copies of the presentation slides be accepted.