Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tant introduced the report by explaining that KCC as the Lead Local Flood Authority had a statutory duty to produce a Flood Risk Management Strategy.  Despite the implications of its title, this Strategy provided a high level strategy for local flood risk rather than an overview of all forms of flood risk in the Kentish Districts.  Local feedback had identified that there was a need to produce a document for each District that would provide a local overview.  This had been reinforced by the number of people who had contacted KCC during the flooding events asking for an explanation of what the particular flooding issues were in their communities, as well as how these issues were being tackled and who was responsible for ensuring that this was done. 

(2)       Mr Tant continued by saying that the Environment Agency had prepared some local documents entitled “Communities at Risk.”  These had been produced for two local areas in Kent and had mainly consisted of mapping data (including identification of properties which were at risk of flooding.  The information in these documents had been limited to flooding that was the responsibility of the EA to manage.

(3)       The intention behind the production of the “Flood Risk to Communities” documents was to cover all forms of flood risk, including areas covered by the EA, KCC, the sewage undertakers and the Highways Authority. The documents would also cover lines of responsibility during emergencies and any local plans produced to manage risk.  It aimed to provide an overview of all the local flooding issues, and signposting where further, more detailed information could be obtained.

(4)       Mr Tant’s report had included the final version of Flood Risk to Communities: Canterbury.  Two more such documents (Tonbridge and Malling and Maidstone) were in the process of being finalised.  He was now seeking feedback in terms of whether these documents were useful and helpful.  If the responses proved positive, he would aim to continue with this work until the whole county was covered.  He asked whether the Committee Members could give their comments on this basis rather than identifying any inaccuracies, which could be notified to him outside the meeting. 

(5)       The Chairman commented that he had personally found the document to be very helpful, as it had gathered all the necessary information into one easy-to-read document which answered all the questions that people might have.

(6)       Mr Bowles commented that he had found the information contained within the Canterbury document to be extremely interesting and that it would serve as a reference point for a great deal of work rather than being something that was read once and then forgotten.  He considered it essential that feedback was sought from outside the meeting as it was possible that Committee Members would have a different perspective than the public at large.

(7)       Mr Flaherty said that from Kent Fire and Rescue’s perspective the document was very useful as it informed the public in a straightforward manner about the all the local plans and strategies as well as who had responsibility for them. 

(8)       Mr Tant confirmed that consultation had already taken place with all the partner agencies and that it was now intended to seek the views of the District and Parish Councils before deciding whether to go any further.  It was currently only available in the agenda papers for this meeting, but would soon be made more public. 

(9)       Mr Vye suggested that the document could contain examples of best practice by, for example, explaining that a number of parishes had employed Flood Wardens and found their contributions very helpful.  Mr Tant replied that he agreed that Flood Wardens should be included in the document. He did not believe that this should involve going into a great deal of detail, but that it would be more appropriate to explain where good guidance on their role and usefulness could be found.

(10)     Mr Tant replied to a comment by Mr Parry by agreeing that there was a strong possibility that each District would be asking for a document for their area to be produced more quickly than was practical.   He added that the reason that Canterbury had been the first to be chosen was because of the severe flooding which had taken place in 2013/14 and because it was the only District to feature all forms of flood risk.  He informed the Committee that, if it was decided to go ahead, he expected that all the documents would be completed by the end of the financial year 2015/16.

(11)     Mr Pearman (Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment and Transportation) said that he considered the document to be excellent.  It would serve as the foundation for the Plan which would deliver the response to a flooding situation.  It was an opportunity to encourage the Districts to produce their Emergency Plans in response.  

(12)     Mr Pearman then referred to a new document produced by Kathryn Lewis (Drainage and Flood Manager) which dealt in detail with riparian responsibilities.  It would be useful if the Flood Risk to Communities documents could refer to it.

(13)     The Chairman suggested that some Flood Wardens could be invited to attend the next meeting in order to share their perspectives and experiences with the Committee.  This would include the training they had received, the amount of time that they could devote to this role, and whether there was anything that the Committee could do to assist them. The same invitation could be extended to volunteers from Kent Lowland Rescue.

(14)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)                      the draft Flood Risk to Communities: Canterbury be noted together with the favourable response received from Members of the Committee; and

(b)                      an invitation be extended to representative Flood Wardens from Kent Lowland Rescue to address the next meeting of the Committee.