Agenda item

(1)          Mr Martin Twyman from the Little Stour and Nailbourne River Management Group gave a presentation that was accompanied by photographs which appear on the KCC website on the agenda for this meeting. He said that the Management Group comprised 11 Parish Councils from Lyminge to Stourmouth, the Canterbury region to Sandwich Great Stour as well as many farmers and landowners who had once again been affected by the recent floods. He added that he was also putting forward views held by many other parishioners.

(2)       Mr Twyman thanked Ian Nunn and Andrew Pearse and their teams from the Environment Agency as well as various councils. He wished especially to thank Ted Edwards from Canterbury CC. He also thanked  other organisations, the Army and the many local volunteers. He said that without everyone pulling together the situation would have been far worse.

(3).      Mr Twyman continued by saying that the Management Group had attended a similar meeting after the floods in 2001.  Similar warnings and events had been repeated on this occasion.  The Nailbourne had started flowing in mid January as it normally did. This was the sixth time this had happened since 2000. This had caused 5 major sewage infiltrations and had led to disgraceful replications of the events of previous years. It was stressful and not acceptable to the local residents in this day and age.  These stresses included overpumping by Southern Water into the watercourses, sewage into properties, a continual fleet of lorries thoughout the entire 24 hours of the day (although they were doing a necessary job), many road closures and businesses being put out of action. Southern Water had on three occasions undertaken major repairs (some successfully) but these events kept on occurring. It only needed the Nailbourne to flow to find the leakages and breaks. The pumping station at Bekesbourne was again in a terrible state, with the major watercourse blockage through the underpass of the railway line. The villages surrounding Bridge had taken the brunt, and Bridge High Street looked like a war zone.

(4)       Mr Twyman then said that consideration needed to be given to a holding area or reservoir in the Upper Nailbourne valley and to the construction of the Broad Oak reservoir, to cope with the fairly regular events of water availability and future water requirements. The Management Group considered that the Nailbourne had three different section. These were Lyminge to Barham; Barham to Littlebourne; and Littlebourne to Seaton. There were many pinch points along each of these sections.

(5).      The Environment Agency had constructed the relief channel around Littlebourne and Wickhambreaux after the flooding of 2001. This had been a saviour as it had been successful in avoiding house flooding,  and the Action Group was grateful to them and the landowners. There was, however, a major pinch point between Wickham and Ickham Lane as the underpass was not big enough. Major services ran in the road and 5 major pumps had taken the pinch point pressures off the 4 mill sluice structures, which had only just coped. If there had been just two more days of rain there would have been some major flooding.  More rain had fallen than ever before, and the Nailbourne flow had risen to 4.5m³ per second as against the previous flow of 3.8 m³ per second.

(6).      Mr Twyman said that he had arranged a boat trip on the Great Stour with Roy Newing, the local MP, Ted Edwards and Paul Marshall (from the Environment Agency) and the local press in mid December. They had reported that the river was in poor condition and silted up.  They had not been able to reach Fordwich from Grove Ferry as the river was not navigable due to fallen trees. The river flow had been less than 50% (although the EA had not agreed with this assessment). The Management Group had immediately warned that there could be serious consequences if river maintenance was not carried out. This warning had duly been borne out.

(7)       Mr Twyman said that the Great Stour took flow from the Weald, Ashford, Canterbury, Sturry, Fordwich, with all their housing, businesses, roads and ground works, and that there would be many more of these to consider in the future. Canterbury itself had not suffered too greatly on this occasion. From there downwards the river access could not be seen, and hardly any maintenance had been carried out for many years. The river was silted up. There were major blockages. Major tree surgery was required. The necessary work was not being carried out for Health & Safety reasons or due to red tape.

(8)       Mr Twyman continued by saying that when the NRA had merged into what became the Environment Agency, landowners had been replaced by different representatives. As a result, biodiversity had become a major influence, and consequently, river maintenance had ceased to be a priority. Local knowledge and advice were no longer considered and various people with over 50 years’ experience had been ignored.  The IDB was now in agreement with the Management Group and was carrying out its regular maintenance. The events of the last few months had once again been bad for wildlife, nature, the SSSI and for Natural England. A lot of money and hard work had been wasted.

(9)       Mr Twyman then said that due to severe blockages, the Great Stour had overtopped for 200 metres and flooded over 1,000 acres of valuable farm land and crops in the Grove and Plucks Gutter area alone. This area would be under water for at least another two months.        

(10)     Mr Twyman continued by saying that he believed the Environment Agency would now have to change its priorities and concentrate on managing waterways, getting water away for flood protection far earlier than it currently did, and running the Sandwich Cut for more hours. It should also become far less bureaucratic - a view shared by a number of ground staff. The EA needed to look after people, livelihoods, property, businesses, insurance and costs rather than bureaucratic EC Rules and other environmental schemes. He agreed that such schemes did have value, but it was more important to base decisions on common sense, taking full account of people’s views.

(11)     Mr Twyman summed up his presentation by saying that the Government was putting funding money aside for environmental schemes. The Management Group had sent letters to the Prime Minister, Mr Pickles and other key people. Farmers were seeing part of their Single Farm Payment being deducted to part fund them.  This money now needed to be channelled into managing flood protection, waterways and the countryside. If regular maintenance continued to be neglected, it would cost far more to put everything right.  Everyone needed to be positive and look after Kent’s country, rivers, properties and residents. He therefore asked for Kent County Council’s support in finding the necessary funds.  This would ensure that the county was properly prepared to cope with the next weather event.

(12)     Mr Vickery-Jones said that he had attended a meeting organised by the EA at Plucks Gutter.  He said that the EA representative at that meeting had tended to express their priorities in the manner described by Mr Twyman.

(13)     Mrs Stockell said that she had attended a number of Flood Group meetings including one with the local MP and the Leader of the Council. One of the problems that had been discussed had been that farmers were no longer being required to carry out necessary maintenance work such as ditching.  As a consequence, rivers and streams were silting up and ponds were being filled in. These concerns were being taken forward.  

(14)     Mr Nunn said that he understood the concerns that were being expressed. Some 18 months earlier, the EA had commissioned a survey of the Stour. This had been part of a programme of collating evidence to prove that silt levels were building up.  What was now needed was for the EA, other interested parties such as the Action Group and the public to discuss the best way forward.  There were areas where silt was clearly building up in the channel. However, he was not in a position to categorically say what impact this was having on the flooding. A second survey had been carried out in October 2013. The results had very recently been released but the analysis had not been completed.  He offered to share it widely once this was done.  Mr Nunn then said that the 1960s had seen a great deal of concentration on land drainage and food security.  In his view, food security was not now a high priority for the Government.

(15)     Mr Hills said that the interpretation of wildlife and habitat regulations was currently putting people at the bottom of the pile. This, in turn led to the damage to the very thing that environmentalists wanted to protect.  He added that he had recently attended a conference chaired by Lord Smith, in his capacity as Chair of the Engagement Group Romney Marsh.  Lord Smith had stated that every case needed to be treated on its merits.  This answer had been very encouraging as it indicated that the Environment Agency was slowly moving in the direction of putting the needs of the community first.

(16)     Mr Tapp said that, in his view, the Environment Agency had too wide a remit.  He suggested that the Minister should be lobbied to separate Flood Defence from the rest of the Agency’s work.  This would enable the Flood Defence function to stand alone, develop its own priorities and fight its own corner.  He then said that one of the problems arising from the Stour not being properly maintained was that the water came out just upstream of Grove Ferry and then spread across the Marshes doing a tremendous amount of damage to wildlife and farming interests, and then needing to be pumped back in again.  Some 50 years earlier, the Government had categorised the River Stour as “self-cleansing.”  Since then, two new catchment areas had been built up, reducing the speed of the waterflow so that the river no longer fitted that category.  During the 1970s, there had been a number of droughts, which had raised silt levels.  Environmentalists had then added to this problem by seeking to protect the species that were growing on the silt. 

(17)     Mr Tapp then said that between Sandwich and Fordwich the tidal river was somewhere between 15 and 20k.  There was no fall on that river at all. Only a minimal obstruction would be needed to hold the flow up. There were a number of points along this stretch which needed de-silting (rather than dredging) in order that the water could flow out.

(18)     Mr Vickery-Jones noted that the Netherlands was spending £4 billion on flood defence as opposed to the £0.5 billion spent by the UK.  This led him to the conclusion that the real problem was lack of funding.  This was exacerbated by EU Directives on the local environment, diverting funds from the areas where they were most needed.

(19)     The Chairman noted that a number of local officer level meetings were taking place. He asked that the Committee be kept informed so that best practice could be widely disseminated.

(20)     Dr Eddy thanked the Environment Agency for its work on flood defences in Deal and Sandwich.  Although these had not been completed, they had stood up remarkably well to the storm surge. There had been groundwater flooding in Deal (particularly in Canute Road). This had been caused by the inadequate size of the soakaways and the fact that land and sea level were at the same height so that groundwater had nowhere to escape to.  These problems had been exacerbated by the decision of Dover DC to turn an area of grassland into a car park. As a result more now water flooded the road than had previously been the case. 

(21)     Mr Muckle said that Dartford BC had a lot of praise and no criticism for the various agencies’ work in what had been an area relatively unaffected by the flood. The exception had been KCC Highways for the way in which it had managed the situation at Bob Dunn Way.  He had been highly critical about its lack of preparedness at a meeting of the BC’s Scrutiny Committee, particularly as the water level of the lake abutting the road was at the highest level he could remember.  The only reason the road remained clear was that water was being constantly pumped away. The Fast Track route had also been flooded, so that the buses had to make their trips through water.  The groundwater levels remained high, as did that of the River Thames.

(22)     Mr Muckle then said that the problem was not just one of lack of money. There was also a great difference of opinion on how the money that was made available should be used.  A decision needed to be taken on the correct course of action and fully implemented thereafter.

(23)     Mr Lewin said that KCC’s Emergency Planning should be thanked for its response to the crisis.  The impact on Swale (at Faversham and Conyer) had been caused by coastal rather than fluvial flooding.  He then referred to the closure of the Thames Barrier and said that its impact downriver needed to be discussed in detail on another occasion.   He then said that the constant rain had impacted road surfaces and also asked for consideration of the best way to access funds from the Bellwin Scheme of emergency financial assistance.

(24)     Mr Tant confirmed said that funding under the Bellwin Scheme had previously required the Local Authority to provide the first £3.3m of funding. This threshold had recently been reduced by the Government in the light of the flooding. It would nevertheless remain a significant financial commitment from the County Council.

(25)     On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman thanked the Little Stour and Nailbourne River Management Group for all its work and also expressed the Committee’s condolences for all those affected by the floods.  He thanked the Management Group for the open invitation to Members of the Committee to attend its meetings.

(26)     RESOLVED that Mr Twyman be thanked for his presentation and that the accompanying photographs be sent to all Members of the Committee and posted on the KCC website.