Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tant gave a presentation to accompany his report. The slides are contained in the on-line agenda papers. 

(2)       Mr Tant went on to identify the other bodies involved in flooding within the County of Kent. These included the Emergency Services, the Parish and District Councils, neighbouring Authorities, the four Internal Drainage Boards (Lower Medway, Upper Medway, River Stour, Romney Marsh), two sewerage undertakers (Thames Water and Southern Water), the water companies, and the Environment Agency. Mr Tant also identified three standing committees with a flood risk management role (the LGA Inland Flood Risk Management Group, The LGA Coastal Special Interest Group, and the EFRA Committee).

(3)       The County Council’s role as the Lead Local Flood Authority was to provide a Local Strategy to manage local flood risk (flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses); to investigate flooding; to regulate ordinary watercourses (i.e. not main rivers); to maintain a register of structures and features; and to promote sustainable drainage systems (SuDs).

(4)       Mr Tant said that KCC would assume responsibility for the approval and adoption of SuDS once the necessary parliamentary order had been confirmed.  DEFRA was currently considering how and when this should happen, as there were a number of complex issues that still needed to be resolved before this could be done.  DEFRA’s target date was April 2014, but it was by no means certain that this would be achieved.

(5)       Mr Vickery-Jones asked what weight the Lead Local Flood Authority carried with the various planning authorities and whether a local planning authority could designate “reserved areas” which would carry weight with a Planning Inspector when a developer appealed against a planning decision.  Mr Tant replied that the Lead Local Flood Authority was not a statutory consultee. This meant that Planning Authorities did not have to take account of their advice. He also considered that it might be feasible to designate areas as unsuitable for housing within a Local Plan on flood risk grounds, so long as sufficient evidence could be provided.

(6)       Mr Tant identified the areas of greatest flood risk from coastal and fluvial flooding in the County as the Low Weald, Thames Estuary and Romney Marsh.   He also explained that some 76,000 homes in Kent were potentially at risk from surface water flooding, which compared to the figure of 54,000 in the second-most at risk county of Essex. 

(7)       KCC had carried out Surface Water Management Plans.  These were studies of local flooding flood risk within the County.  They could be high-level evidence gathering studies or in-depth studies which included modelling of the local flood risk infrastructure. Work on these studies was currently being carried out in Margate, Whitstable and Folkestone.

(8)       Mr Tant next turned to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.  The County Council was required to develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management.  Its objectives were to improve the understanding of the risks from local flooding; to reduce the impact of flooding; to ensure that development took account of flood risk; to provide clear information and guidance on the role of risk management authorities; and to ensure that emergency plans and responses to flood incidents were effective. 

(9)       In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr Tant said that although the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was required by Law to detail a number of functions and actions, not all of them were relevant in each of the Local Flood Risk areas.   Kent’s Local Strategy would be reviewed in May 2014, one year after its adoption.

(10)     Mr Rogers asked why the map in the Local Strategy identified Paddock Wood as being at risk from flooding but did not do the same for Yalding and East Peckham. Mr Tant replied that this was because the Paddock Wood suffered from persistent local flooding whilst the risk to Yalding and East Peckham came from the main river.  The Local Strategy dealt with local flooding, whilst other plans prepared by the Environment Agency covered fluvial and coastal flooding.

(11)     Mr Vickery-Jones noted that 90% of Kent’s water supply came from aquifers rather than reservoirs and asked whether there was a correlation between those areas at risk of flooding and aquifers.  Mr Tant replied that the cause tended to vary from area to area.  Groundwater flooding usually occurred after prolonged wet weather, whereas surface water flooding was usually caused by short, intense rainfall.

(12)     RESOLVED that the report be noted following full consideration of its contents.