Minutes:
(1) Mr Ian Nunn from the Environment Agency began his presentation by saying that the flood events over the recent winter months had been worse than those of 2000. It had rained incessantly over the entire period. He believed that Kent was the area of the UK most at risk from flooding and that the recent events bore this out. There had been widespread flooding across the County, including a high number of affected properties.
(2) Mr Nunn went on to say that the Flood Incident Room had been open for some 50 days and had only closed at the start of the previous week. Everyone concerned had worked very hard for long periods and he thanked the Committee for having already unofficially thanked all staff for everything that they had done.
(3) Mr Nunn briefly explained that most people registered to receive Flood Warnings rather than Flood Alerts (which called for people to stay alert and vigilant). Often, they were not prepared for the emergency when the Flood Warning came. Fortunately, there had been no risk to life which would have necessitated a Severe Flood Warning.
(4) There had initially been a massive coastal event, which had seen water levels rise higher than they had in 1953 (particularly in places such as Dover and Rye), making it a straightforward decision to close the Thames Barrier. This had been essential to avoid London flooding, but had resulted in significant damage to Kent’s tidal defences. Repairs to these were ongoing. Those at Sandwich and Jurys Gap were almost repaired at a cost of some £1.5m to date.
(5) The coastal event had been followed by very heavy rainfall. Between 23 December and 5 January the total rainfall had been some 500% of the usual average for that period. The months of October, December, January and February had all seen rainfall well above the normal average.
(6) Mr Nunn said that the key was “warning, informing and preparing”. The highest priority was to get information out to the highest number of people at risk. Operationally, the EA sought to prepare its assets and to link up with its partners in order to ensure that its response was as effective as possible.
(7) Over 1,000 properties had been flooded over the period in question whilst some 40,000 had been protected by the flood defences.
(8) Mr Nunn continued by saying that over 12,000 Flood Alerts, Flood Warnings and Severe Flood Warnings had been issued during the coastal flooding period. Thirteen percentent had been unsuccessful. Some 18,000 had been issued in January and February, of which 15% had been unsuccessful. 26,000 Groundwater alerts had been issued in the same period.
(9) The main reasons for Flood Warnings being unsuccessful were people picking up the phone and not listening to the entire message; unobtainable numbers; ringing with no answer; dialled but no ring; and engaged. A great deal of work would need to be undertaken to ensure that as many of the unsuccessful warnings as possible were rectified in the future.
(10) Mr Bird suggested that some people put down the phone immediately because they had already been contacted. He added that he personally had received 4 messages in 10 minutes. Mr Nunn replied that the Environment Agency would be visiting a number of people to gather their views as to why the warnings had not been successful in their case.
(11) Aldington Reservoir had been completely full and Hothfield (which some Committee Members had visited that morning) had been 80% full. Their channels and embankments had been designed to overspill and there had been no imminent danger. Full monitoring of all the data had taken place with officers visiting the reservoirs twice daily.
(12) The Chairman asked whether it would be possible to retain some 40% of the fresh water in the reservoirs in order to replenish aquifers at times when they dried up. This same water could also be released if a flood was imminent. Mr Nunn replied that there was no combined flood protection and water storage reservoir in the county. The problem would be designing the reservoir to hold the required amount of water as well as the amount of water from the potential flood. This would certainly not be impossible.
(13) Mr Nunn showed some pictures of affected areas including the Stour Mouth pump which had worked non-stop for 1,600 hours. He then said that the Medway had been badly affected just before Christmas, particularly in Tonbridge and Yalding. Leigh water storage area had held 25,000³ metres of water. It had been the largest flood water storage area in Europe at the time it had been constructed. The barrier had been operated to allow peak flow for a very short period at some 160m³ per second.
(14) It had also become clear shortly before Christmas that the groundwater levels were rising significantly. Accordingly, a groundwater risk map had been produced to identify those areas where the risk was rising or reducing. There remained a significant risk, particularly in the North Downs area.
(15) Mr Nunn commented that there had been excellent multi-agency partnership working at Nailbourne, including tremendous support from the community. The main issue here was that Southern Water was still discharging some of its sewage into the watercourses.
(16) The Environment Agency was now gathering as much data as possible, including river gauging, damage to assets (the Government had made some money available for asset repair, areas where assets needed to be improved or where new ones were needed. The Government wanted to produce a state of the nation report in April. The Army (200 engineers in the UK) had been employed to walk the entire watercourse, with 15 military personnel inspecting some 12,000 assets on the coast and rivers in Kent and the South London.
(17) Mr Nunn concluded his presentation by saying that overall, the Environment Agency’s co-ordination with its partners had worked really well. Everyone had been aware of their roles and knew what they needed to do. Work on assets and removal of blockages was projected to continue into October. Far more Flood Ambassadors had been sent out than in 2000. This had worked out well on occasions but less well on others. Groundwater risk would also continue to be monitored for a number of months. The view was that spring had arrived earlier than usual and that this would help because the plants and trees would draw moisture from the ground and reduce groundwater levels further. It was therefore considered that the most likely end of the groundwater risk would be May 2014.
(18) The Chairman thanked Mr Nunn for his presentation. He recognised that there had been hostile public reaction to the Environment Agency but that this was mainly an expression of understandable frustration which was to be expected, but did not give a true picture of the amount and quality of the work that had been undertaken. He suggested that some of the difficulties experienced had been the result of the pre-flood power failures and suggested that future presentations could explain this.
(19) Mr Hills said that parts of the Romney Marsh area had experienced the highest water levels ever and were slowly going under water. Pumps had been brought in but had not worked (largely because of the power failures) and the maintenance schedules had not been able to cope. He suggested that the lessons to be learned were that there needed to be more knowledge of the maintenance systems and that storage pumps needed to be held in reserve for a flood event. Mr Nunn replied that this area had largely been affected due to the failure at Jurys Gap in October (which was now being repaired at a cost of some £800k). Because water could not be discharged through the outfall. The repairs could not start all the time that water was seeping under the sea wall and during the period of intense rain. The other problem had been the inability to bring pumps in to the area due to the decision of East Sussex CC not to permit closure of the road. Water and sewage levels in the Lydd area had now been considerably reduced.
(19) Mr Nunn commented on the power outage problems. The first of these had lasted several weeks. Following discussions between the Environment Agency and UK Power Networks, a number of power failures had been responded to by UK Power Networks very much more speedily.
(20) Mr Rogers thanked the Environment Agency for the brave way in which they had spoken to the public. The public meetings at Hildenborough and Yalding had been very useful, particularly in the ability of the EA to respond to public anger with facts and figures. The angriest people were those who had initially been flooded by sewage. The Environment Agency and the water companies needed to work closely together to reduce this particular aspect of flooding events.
(21) Mrs Stockell asked questions on behalf of her Yalding constituents. The residents did not consider that the warnings had been adequate. They were sceptical about the EA’s ability to operate a national flood warning system in the future. She stressed the need for the data to be complete and accurate in order that the necessary measures could be funded and undertaken.
(22) Mr Baker asked whether the Environment Agency had examined the system in operation in Rotterdam. Mr Nunn replied that some of his colleagues had visited the Netherlands shortly before Christmas in order to observe an exercise involving the public in a village that had installed its own flood defence system. A reciprocal visit had been arranged with some Dutch engineers and discussions were taking place to see if it was feasible to carry out some joint project work.
(23) Mr Bird asked whether it would be possible to invite Southern Water to the next meeting so that they could describe the work they were undertaking to make their sewage systems more resilient. The Chairman agreed that to this request.
(24) Mr Bird said that there was still some confusion over flood warnings. No serious warnings had been received in Yalding when the Medway was overflowing (the Environment Agency had agreed that a severe flood warning should have been issued), whilst such warnings had been issued on many occasions along the entire course of the Thames, which had not had any worse events than Yalding had experienced. However, since Christmas he had received a number of unnecessary warnings, including one in respect of the River Teise. Too much information could become counter-productive and people were losing confidence in the system. He believed that a very comprehensive survey was needed to fully justify the cost of the programme of improvements that were needed.
(25) Mr Edwards said that multi-agency work had been undertaken in respect of the Nailbourne (which was still flooding). A suggested programme of minor improvements had been made. The deadline for bids to the Environment Agency for 2015/16 had been brought forward from May to March, which meant that the improvements to the Nailbourne could not take place until 2016/17. Furthermore the bidding schedule had become very much more complex with some 350 columns needing to be filled in. The previous year’s schedule had only had 56 columns.
(26) The Chairman asked Mr Edwards to provide him with the pertinent information so that he could raise this issue at the EA Regional Flood Defence Committee.
(27) Mr Tapp said that the public remained confused over the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies in respect of flood warnings, alerts and defence. This led them to blame bodies that were not responsible and also promoted the view that there was official confusion over what should be done. He suggested that KCC would be the ideal body to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various partners. This should be done both on the website and through other media outlets.
(28) Mr Tant said that the KCC website already explained these matters. Work was now taking place to provide an interactive tool which would enable people to identify the nature of their problem and then direct them to the appropriate organisation. The challenge was to get people to read the relevant pages.
(29) Mr Nunn said that the Environment Agency had previously carried flood awareness work but that this had largely ceased as it had needed to prioritise in the light of reductions in Government funding. Nevertheless, the EA was committed to attending as many public meetings as possible.
(30) RESOLVED that:-
(a) Mr Nunn be thanked for his presentation; and
(b) The Committee’s heartfelt thanks be recorded to all the agencies and individuals involved in mitigating the recent flooding event be thanked for their dedicated and excellent work.