Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tant reported that Government Guidance on the Act was still awaited. Parts of the Act had come into force on 1 October 2010. Other provisions were due to begin on 1 April 2011.

(2)       The Act included the creation of Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs)  to lead on local flood risk from surface water run off, groundwater or ordinary water courses (as opposed to main rivers).  Lead Local Flood Authorities were defined in the Act as Unitary Authorities or (in two-tier counties) County Councils.  The LLFAs had come into being on 1 October 2010.

(3)        There was no set definition of an “ordinary water course” and it was considered likely that some main rivers would be re-classified as such. 

(4)       Mr Tant explained that the Act had also created Risk Management Authorities (RMAs consisting of the Environment Agency, district councils, internal drainage boards, highways and water companies).  These RMAs had a legal duty to act in accordance with the LLFA’s Flood Risk Management Strategy – although in the case of the water companies, the only duty upon them was to act with regard to the local Strategy. The LLFAs were empowered to scrutinise the RMAs to ensure that they were carrying out their responsibilities and acting in accordance with the Local Strategy. 

(5)       Mr Tant explained that an LLFA would not be legally responsible for flooding provided that the Strategy worked to the level that it had been designed for.

(6)       Kent had the greatest number of homes at risk of flooding within the South East.  There were approximately 64,000 such homes within the County. By way of comparison, Hampshire had 61,000, Hertfordshire 60,000, Surrey 52,000 and Essex 48,000.   Funding by DEFRA would eventually take account of these statistics.

(7)       There had been four flooding events in Kent during the recent summer months. One of these had been caused by 10 mm of rain.

(8)       Mr Tant informed the Committee that the Kent Flood Partnership (jointly chaired by KCC and Medway Council) had been formed at officer level involving all of the RMAs in Kent.  Its first meeting had been held on 5 October 2010.  One of its tasks would be to draft the Local Strategy. 

(9)       In response to a question, Mr Tant said that Flood Investigations would only take place when none of the agencies took responsibility.

(10)     Mr Tant replied to a question by the Chairman by saying that one of the tasks of the LLFAs was to maintain a list of structures and features that affected flooding or coastal erosion.  Once identified, the owners would need the permission of the LLFA to alter them. It was anticipated that the Government Guidance would eventually define what was needed and what form an assessment of them should take. There could potentially be a large number of enforcement issues, mainly in land drainage areas.

(11)     The Chairman asked for a list of the Internal Drainage Boards together with their Chairmen and Lead Officers. 

(12)     The Chairman said that there might be a need to redraft the Committee’s terms of reference in the light of the responsibilities that were being described in the report.

(13)     Mr Tant said that SUDS potentially placed the largest burden on the County Council. The LLFA would be required to establish a SUDS Approval Board once this part of the Act came into force. Applications involving drainage would need to be considered by this Board at the same time as the Planning Authority. No development would be able to proceed until both bodies had granted approval. DEFRA was currently drafting guidance for SUDS.

(14)     Mr Tant said that there were some 4,500 major and minor planning applications within Kent each year that had drainage implications.  In future, these would require engineers to assess their drainage implications and provide a decision.  If the drainage system was sustainable and served more than one property, the SUDS Approval Board would be obliged to adopt it. Once adopted, they would also need to be inspected and maintained.  The financial implications would hopefully be covered by the application and inspection fees.  There was currently no provision for maintenance of SUDS to be reimbursed. A DEFRA Select Committee was currently consulting on fees and charges for SUDS. A minimum of four or five non-senior staff might be needed to carry out the approval work. However, the extent of the resources required would depend on the guidance on SUDS to be published by DEFRA. 

(15)     The Flood Risk Regulations were a Statutory Instrument written in response to the 2003-04 flooding events in Europe (including the Rhine and Danube rivers).  The LLFAs were obliged to deliver their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) highlighting areas of significant risk from local flooding by June 2011.  DEFRA had provided £30,000 to KCC to undertake this work.  Kent’s draft PFRA would be considered by Cabinet on 4 April 2011 and by the County Council on 23 May 2011.

(16)     Mr Tant said that the definition of a significant flood risk area was still being considered by DEFRA and the Environment Agency. France had identified three such areas nationally. It was likely that there would be more than that in Kent alone.

(17)     Mr Tant informed the Committee that he had produced a draft report to the Kent and Medway Leaders and Chief Executives Committee. This report recommended that a District Council representative should be invited to take up membership on the Flood Risk Management Committee and that a standing invitation should be sent to all Kent District Councils and Medway Council to attend its meetings. 

(18)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)               the report be received and that Mr Tant be thanked for his presentation;

(b)               a further report be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee once the capacity assessment is complete and the allocation of funding for flood management in Kent is confirmed by central government;

(c)               the draft Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment be submitted to a  future meeting of the Committee prior to submission to Cabinet;

(d)               no objection be raised if the Kent Leaders and Chief Executives Committee recommends that a representative from the District Authorities be invited to serve on the Flood Risk Management Committee; and

(e)               consideration be given to re-drafting the Committee’s Terms of Reference for approval by the County Council in the light of the implications for Kent of the Flood and Water Act 2010.