Agenda item

(1)       The Chairman explained that the original intention had been to enable the Committee Members to comment individually on the pre-consultation draft before publication in September. As the timetable had slipped, this was an excellent opportunity for the Committee as a whole to discuss it at a strategic level.

(2)       Mr Tant agreed that in future colour maps would be provided in hard copy to Members of the Committee rather than the black and white version of them which Democratic Services was able to provide from its budget.

(3)       Mr Tant introduced the report by saying that the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy aimed to provide a framework to manage local flood risks from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses.  Rivers and coastal flooding remained the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

(4)       Mr Tant then set out the objectives for the Local Strategy. These were:-

(i)                 Improving the understanding of the risks of flooding from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses in Kent;

(ii)               Reducing the impact of flooding on people and businesses in Kent;

(iii)             Ensuring that development in Kent takes account of flood risk issues and plans to effectively manage any impacts.;

(iv)              Providing clear information and guidance on the role of the public sector and individuals in flood risk management in Kent and how those roles will be delivered and how authorities will work together to manage flood risk; and

(v)                Ensuring that emergency plans and responses to flood incidents in Kent are effective and that communities understand the risks and their role in an emergency.

(5)       Mr Tant said that the objectives, which were set out in Section 4 of the Draft Strategy informed the rest of the document, leading to the actions set out in Section 9 (Next Steps).  Once published, the Strategy would be the subject of its first review three years later. Thereafter, it would be regularly reviewed on a less frequent basis.

(6)       Mr Tant then informed the Committee that it was intended to publish the first draft during the week commencing 26 November 2012. The consultation period would be 10 weeks, ending in February 2013.

(7)       The Chairman invited Members to comment on the pre-consultation draft at a strategic level. These comments are set out below.

(a)       There should be a specific reference to highways flooding in the document.  This would send out a clear message that this was an important matter that would be monitored through the recording tool described in Section 5.5.

(b)       A flooding hot spot map should be produced for Kent. Reference should then be made to it if it proved impractical to include it in the Strategy.

(c)        There needed to be a greater acknowledgement of the collaborative work being undertaken with the neighbouring authorities of Medway, East Sussex and Surrey.  

(d)       A specific reference to the effects of changes in agricultural practices as these had a palpable effect on drainage issues through greater surface water run off from fields.  It was important to evidence that this issue was understood.  Greater detail could be provided at a later stage.

(e)       Section 2.1.3 should include a specific mention of the responsibilities of people who lived on higher ground to take measures to prevent, reduce or slow down the rate at which surface water ran off from their properties; causing flooding problems for those who lived on the lower ground.

(f)         There was a possibility that national SUDS legislation would not be enacted in the next few years.  This possibility should be prepared for by taking steps to ensure that they were maintained.  In this context, it was important to make clear that the actual distinction between river and surface water was not always obvious and that co-operative work with the Environment Agency was essential.

(g)       The Strategy needed to state that the Committee rejected a silo mentality in favour of a broad overview.  In the light of climate change and related factors, there would be a whole range of overlapping risks.

(h)        There should be more detail of the role of the parish councils both in respect of their role as flood managers and in monitoring.  This was particularly important as much that occurred was not specifically part of the development control regime.

(i)         Section 6 should include recognition that there was a potential for a conflict between the role of the planning and flood management authorities in respect of the regeneration projects that were taking place at disused wharves.

(j)         Climate change and its effects was likely to create flood risks throughout the year.  The reference to winter flooding in Section 2.2 should therefore be complemented by including a reference to possible heavier rains in the summer months.

(k)        It would be necessary for the Committee to consider in detail what its response should be as a consultant and partner to the issues of surface water run off and the under-capacity of highways drainage systems in areas such as Ashford and Canterbury.  The Strategy could make mention that this work would be taking place.

(l)         An important risk from surface water run off was its ability to spread foul water.

(8)       Members also commented that the draft Strategy went a long way towards addressing the problems caused by the lack of communication between the various agencies that had been identified by the County Council during the previous decade.  It was also important to accept the need for more innovative working as SUDS were not the only answer in terms of drainage and heavy rain. 

(9)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)               Mr Tant be thanked for his work in producing the draft Strategy; and

(b)               the comments set out in paragraph (7) above be noted for possible incorporation into the final version of the Draft.