Agenda item

1.    Mr Harrison, Chairman of the Kent Flood Risk Management Committee, introduced the Annual Report of the Committee.  Paragraph 9 contained the conclusions of the Committee which stated that it had carried out its scrutiny function with diligence and enthusiasm.  Its Members had participated fully and their views, as set out in the Minutes, were conveyed to the relevant agencies for their information.  Efforts had been made to involve the 12 Kent Districts in the Kent Flood Risk Management Committee. 

2.    Mr Harwood, Senior Resilience Officer with the KCC Resilience and Emergencies Unit, explained that the Committee took its oversight duties very seriously, a further report addressing the winter floods was due to be submitted to Corporate Board on 23 June and to Cabinet on 7 July.  KCCs emergency response through the Autumn/Winter 2013/14 did not only deal with the impact of flooding, but also significant storm damage including disruption to transport systems and the loss of utilities to tens of thousands of households.  On January 15^th the Flood Risk Management Committee held an extra-ordinary meeting to receive key agency updates and capture any major issues while they were still fresh in the minds of elected Members from KCC and Kent Districts.

3.    Mr Tant, Flood Risk Manager, explained that he was involved in the strategic planning for flood risk management, including preparation for winter 2014. 

4.    Mr Harrison explained that an extraordinary meeting of the Kent Flood Risk Management Committee had been held after the floods of winter 2013, concerns had been raised that there was no mention of the welfare of livestock, vacating premises etc. 

5.    The Chairman explained that in Sevenoaks West there had been no overall authority on the ground, there was a need for authority to be able to co-ordinate the next steps in the recovery process following the flooding.

6.    Mr Harwood commented that in some areas there had been difficulties with drivers removing temporary highway signage and creating damaging bow waves when driving their vehicles through flooded residential areas.  The Council had worked closely with the police and used the resources available to ensure any problems were resolved as quickly as possible.  Mobilisation and response during the early stages of the winter storms had undoubtedly been a challenge but responding agencies soon ensured an ordered and structured approach. This included better communication with affected communities and farmers / livestock managers.  

7.    A Member commented that there had been very good feedback on KCC’s response to the flooding problems of winter 2013/14, issues to focus on for the future included long-term maintenance and management of watercourse and flood-plains, and interventions to protect livestock from flooding.  Mr Harrison would take these comments on board but referred Scrutiny Committee Members to the Flood Risk Management Committees Terms of Reference contained within the report which set out what the Committee was and was not responsible for. 

8.     A Member explained that it was possible for KCC to use its influence in holding to account and expressing views.  It was considered that there was a lack of capacity in surface water drainage pipes and it was hoped that the Cabinet report would deal with issues such as the clearing and replacement of pipes.  The Member asked whether there was a plan to produce an information pack for the public to explain who should be contacted in particular circumstances, for example Parish Councils were willing to assist in disseminating information if it was required.  Mr Harrison explained that ground water flooding occurred when the aquifers were full, it was important to look at the overall picture with differing problems depending on local circumstances. 

9.    Mr Harwood explained that the Environment Agency used an effective flood alert system in areas threatened by fluvial and coastal flooding but that warning systems in areas vulnerable to the far less predictable phenomenon of ground water/surface water flooding were far less developed.  It was confirmed that the Cabinet report would seek to address community resilience and the role of parish councils to ensure a more resilient county.  A template existed for a Parish Community Resilience Plan which was available from the KCC Resilience and Emergencies Unit.  Mr Tant explained that KCC had limited powers, in response to an earlier question he confirmed that it was possible to ensure the pipes were maintained but not always that their size was increased, different situations required different strategies.  In response to a comment from Mr. Harrison, Mr Harwood gave a practical example of sustainable urban drainage technology at a new retail development in Maidstone, at Eclipse Park near J7 of the M20, which had incorporated sustainable urban drainage. This technology had not only prevented flooding on site all through a very wet winter construction phase, but had also prevented historic problems with off-site flooding on the adjacent Bearsted Road dual carriageway re-occurring.

10. A number of Members praised the report from the Flood Risk Management Committee, and suggested areas where additional risks might be found.  It was felt that ensuring that the Flood Risk Management Committee took on board the comments made might help alleviate future problems.  Mr Harrison explained that as well as the Flood Risk Management Committee, there was also a Regional Flood Defence Committee.  Through the suggestions of the Scrutiny Committee the Flood Risk Management Committee would invite representatives from Kent Highways Services to a future meeting. 

11. A Member referred to experiences in Holland, most of which was under sea level, where flood risk management was clearly very well managed.  Members asked whether the Flood Risk Management Committee had received an update or feedback from the discussions between the Environment Agency and representatives from Holland, this had not been received.  Another Member commented on the funding put into flood defences in the Netherlands, which was considered to be significantly higher than in the United Kingdom. 

12. In response to a question about de-silting vs dredging Mr Tant explained that de-silting was the removal of silt without engineering implications and dredging applied to navigable rivers and harbours to ensure that a channel was maintained. 

13. Mr Harrison explained to Members that he had recently undertaken a trip up the River Great Stour, there was a lack of maintenance on the river which was locally perceived as resulting in slow flows and a greater potential for tide-locking and surface water events in surrounding areas .  Mr. Harrison stated that he believed that some de-silting would allow the local catchments  to drain more efficiently. 

14. Referring to the limited powers of the Committee a Member commented that KCC had powers of persuasion; the recommendations put forward by the Flooding Select Committee addressed future planning. 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee:

15.  Thank Mr Harrison, Mr Harwood, Mr Tant and Mr Tait for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions and for their excellent report.

16. Look forward to a report back from the Kent Flood Risk Management Committee in 12 months’ time.