Agenda item

(Item 4 – report of Mr David Brazier, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment and Mike Austerberry, Corporate Director of Enterprise and Environment)

Cabinet received a report, the purpose of which was to present to Members for agreement the draft Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Kent County Council.

The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment, Mr Brazier, introduced the report, he referred in particular to the following:

(i)        That the production of a Local Flood Risk Strategy was a statutory requirement of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.  In addition the act required that KCC conduct preliminary flood risk assessments.

(ii)       That this work had been conducted and further to those requirements a standing committee had been established to monitor and report on progress, and a Flood Risk Manager for KCC, Max Tant, had been appointed.

(iii)      The report detailed more fully the work carried out to date and put forward the draft strategy for approval.  He reported that the strategy included information regarding the relationship between KCC and other bodies with responsibilities in the area of Flood Management, actions to be taken in the event of an incident of serious flooding.

Director of Planning and Environment, Paul Crick and Flood Risk Manager, Max Tant were both in attendance to speak to the item.

In response to a question from the Leader, Paul Crick confirmed that the responsibilities of the Council in this area were confined to flood risk in relation to surface, ground and ordinary watercourses.  The role of the Council in these areas was to co-ordinate the various agencies involved in order that statutory responsibilities were met.  He reported that he was the Chairman of the Group to which Mr Brazier had previously referred and that its members had been fully involved in the creation and development of the strategy being considered.

He reminded Members that flooding continued from the sea and main rivers to be the responsibility of the Environment Agency. 

He further reported:

(i)        That the proposed decision had been considered by the Environment, Highways and Waste Cabinet Committee and had been favourably received.  The Committee had requested that yearly update reports be received.

(ii)       That more detailed action plans formed part of the strategy and all parties were keen to advance the work contained within them.

(iii)      That a robust strategy was crucial to the good management of water in Kent.  In particular in ensuring that work in one area does not negatively impact on another area.  Work to establish such risks had been identified within the strategy.

Flood Risk Manager, Max Tant, described the action plans in more detail.  He described the three areas for action and these are set out below:

(i)        KCC delivered County level actions.  This would involve the creation and embedding of strategies and policies by which a co-ordinated response could be adopted and maintained.

(ii)       Other responsible body actions.  Identified actions for which KCC is not responsible for delivery but which it would encourage other bodies to take in order that wider goals might be achieved.

(iii)      Local actions – practical, local action to address risk already identified by investigations to date.

In response to question from the Leader regarding powers of enforcement to Landowners, Max Tant described the powers that the Council has inherited under the Flood and Water management Act 2010 and reported that these included the power to request Landowners to achieve certain standards deemed as acceptable by the councils and also powers to enforce request not actioned.   However he reminded members that some areas in Kent would continue to be the responsibility of the Internal Drainage Boards, not KCC.

Leader of the Council, Mr Carter, suggested that officers consider the production, in partnership with other responsible bodies, of a guide to good land management and the prevention of flooding.

Cabinet Member for Commercial and Traded Services, Mr Sweetland congratulated officers on a well-written and comprehensive report.  Following questions put by Mr Sweetland regarding likelihood and extent of risk, Max Tant responded as follows:

(i)        That flood risk was often described in terms of a return period such as the one used here.  It measures risk based on the number of times it could be expected that a flood of such severity would occur.  When the duties now inherited were first announced, Defra undertook some national scale mapping of surface water flood risks using the return period of 1 in 200 years.  Max Tant expressed caution regarding the findings in relation to the work that KCC would try to achieve, he believed that in terms of road and surface water a return period of 1 in 30 years was more realistic and more practical. 

(ii)       However it was interesting to note the results of the Defra study and it had found that in Kent 76,000 properties would be at risk in the event of a 1 in 200 year flood, placing Kent at the top of the risk list for all authorities in England, behind Essex with approximately 54,000.

The Leader, Mr Carter reminded Cabinet that Kent was likely to be higher in any flood risk table owing to its large population and requested that Max Tant conduct work to establish the risk as a percentage of the population.

In response to a question from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement, Mr Simmonds, regarding river flooding, associated sewerage issues and requirements on Southern Water, Max Tant reported that the council had no specific powers over water companies but had inherited a scrutiny role under the 2010 act previously mentioned.  This would allow the council to require Water companies to attend meetings to account for their actions but did not allow for any sanctions, such powers were situated with OFWAT.  However he further reported that, in relation to the Nailbourne Valley to which Mr Simmonds had particularly referred, KCC was represented on a new multi agency action group established at the request of Southern Water.

In response to a question from Mr Carter seeking to establish whether additional funding had been provided to carry out the additional responsibilities Max Tant reported that monies had been distributed by Defra based on potential risk to the authority.  Kent County Council would receive £750,000 a year for two further years, including this year.

The Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Mr Dance, congratulated Max Tant on the quality of the report.  He raised the issue of funding and further to the question from the Leader sought to ascertain whether the funding would be sufficient for required works to be undertaken.  In particular he referred to the dredging of the River Stour which had greatly improved the ability of the river to cope with rain but had not been undertaken recently.  Max Tant reported that the River Stour was a main river and remained a responsibility of the Environment Agency, other than a scrutiny role the council had no powers in this area.  To address the financial element of the question, he reported that the programme was adjusted according to the funds.  Investigation and understanding of risk had been the main priority as there had been little work done to date.  On identifying work to be done, grants would be sought from the Defra funding pot.  These may require partner funding.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate and Democratic Services, Mr Cooke, commented on the correlation between new development, particularly in rural areas and the potential for increased flash flooding.  Max Tant concurred.  This issue he reported was being managed by utilising sustainable drainage.  Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act, when commenced, would include a duty to approve all new drainage.  This responsibility may lie with the Council in the future but had not yet been agreed.  The decision regarding sustainable drainage for developments would run parallel to the Planning approval system and would require a separate approval.

Mr Carter reminded Cabinet that although the winter had been wet, incidences of flooding had been minimal and congratulated those agencies involved in delivering this result.  He welcomed the report and hoped that it would lead to further improvements over the coming year.

It was RESOLVED: