Minutes:
(1) Ms Katie Moreton gave a presentation setting out an overview on service delivery and a summary of events in the financial year 2015/16. She said that some 4,500 customer enquiries had been received during this period – a reduction from 2014/15. Normally, the service would expect about 10,000 enquiries in a year of average rainfall.
(2) Ms Moreton said that the number of drainage emergencies had reduced to a figure of 467 in 2015/16. She explained that these were categorised as rainfall which had led to a risk to highways or of property flooding. Such emergencies were responded to within two hours. The reason for this reduction was that the year had seen 750mm of rainfall which was about 90% of what could normally be expected.
(3) Ms Moreton went on to say that 37,500 gullies had been cyclically cleaned in 2015/16 out of a total of some 250,000 roadside drains. A further 3,323 targeted cleansing jobs had been completed. These consisted of multiple gullies at specific sites where the public had reported that the drains were blocked. An additional 941 investigations, repairs and improvements had been undertaken.
(4) Ms Moreton moved on to a detailed description of drainage cleansing activities. She said that all drains on main roads were cleansed on a cyclical basis every twelve months. This programme would be completed by the end of March 2016. A service-wide programme was undertaken on high speed roads. This meant that soft landscaping, pot hole fixing, barrier tensioning and street lighting teams would carry out their maintenance work together overnight.
(5) Ms Moreton said that drainage cleansing on minor roads was formerly undertaken on a cyclical basis. This had proved to be unpopular because the response to people who reported blockages was that repairs would only be carried out if there was an immediate threat to public safety. This approach had been changed in April 2014. Now, whenever an enquiry was received, it was passed to a Highways steward for inspection and an assessment, including maintenance work that might be needed in the vicinity, the work needed and the risk to safety and property. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, the necessary work could commence within two hours at the earliest or within 90 days at the latest. Once the cleansing was completed, the drainage system was tested to identify whether there were any inherent problems.
(6) Ms Moreton defined “Drainage Hotspots” as “a flood prone section of the highway network.” These were areas where flooding occurred because the drains were frequently blocked. If a drainage system was seen as defective, it would not be focussed upon because repeated cleansing would not solve the problem. Prioritisation was done twice a year by analysing all the reports of flooding and those areas where Highways had attended emergencies. Presently, there were 114 hotspots in Kent which were attended to every six months. This list was sense checked by the Area Drainage Engineer and the District Manager.
(7) Ms Moreton then informed the Committee that the list of hotspots was not automatically added to on the request of locally elected representatives or Parish Councils as this could result in a list that became completely unmanageable. The approach to adding hotspots was county-wide and data-based and included an analysis of any area notified to Highways by representatives and Parishes.
(8) In response to a question from the Chairman, Ms Moreton confirmed that one factor that was considered when identifying hotspots was the volume of complaints received. An additional cleanse would also be done if flooding occurred after the hotspot had already been cleansed on two occasions. If, for example the additional flooding occurred at a bus stop, the cleansing would usually be undertaken within 28 days of notification rather than the maximum of 90 because of the number of people who would be affected.
(9) Ms Moreton replied to a question from Dr Eddy by saying that cleansing would normally be undertaken in November after leaf drop, and then in March or April. She then described the work that was undertaken in cyclic cleansing. The crew would lift the cover, remove the silt and debris, and then charge the drain with water in order to establish whether it was flowing. If, for some reason it proved impossible to remove the grid, this would be reported back for further work at a later stage. For all other cleansing including hotspots, the crew would also jet the connecting pipe to the main line or the soakaway. Any blockages or breakages identified in this way would be reported back and an Engineer would be asked to investigate the fault, often by sending a CCTV camera down the pipe in order to identify the cause.
(10) Ms Moreton replied to a question from Mr Hills by saying that the list of hotspots was not published because of the danger that this information could affect people’s insurance. This information was given to Parish Councils on request.
(11) Drainage repairs and improvements were capital projects usually triggered by customer enquiries. Work was prioritised according to highway safety, the risk of internal property flooding, network disruption and social impact. She gave as an example of the kind of repair and improvement work that would not normally be prioritised a puddle next to a footpath where a bus might splash pedestrians. Whilst this was inconvenient for people, the current financial climate ensured that it would not meet the criteria for intervention. Areas of greater flooding (shown on the right hand side of the presentation slides) would be identified.
(12) Ms Moreton then described the Drainage Scheme for 2016/17. All the Highways Asset managers had made their bids for capital for their highway improvements budgets in December 2015. The initial drainage bid was £11.65m comprising 144 large schemes and 1,000 small reactive improvement works. The agreed budget was £3.625m which she estimated would enable 66 large schemes and some 200 small reactive improvement works to be carried out. This compared with a far smaller budget in 2015/16 of £1.65m which meant that only smaller works had been carried out during this period.
(13) Ms Moreton agreed to write to Dr Eddy in respect of drainage problems at Freemans Way in Deal. She said that at Allenby Avenue and Albert Road in Deal, KCC’s drains flowed into Southern Water’s waste water system. Highways and Southern Water were working together to investigate a problem with the outfall. At Green Lane and Singledge Lane in Whitfield, enquiries had been very infrequent and tended to only occur when there was heavy rainfall and water poured onto these roads off surrounding fields. As large-scale development was taking place there, the landowners would be required to manage the surface water drainage on their site in the future.
(14) Mr Chittenden asked about progress at Ashford Road in Maidstone under the road bridge. Ms Moreton replied that the drainage problem should now have been significantly reduced by the installation of a new pipe. She agreed to write to him in order to confirm.
(15) Mr Rodgers said that a recurring problem arose throughout the county when farmers cut their hedges close to the road. This often resulted in debris being washed along the gully, creating blockages. He asked what could be done to ensure that the roads were swept by the farmers after hedges were cut in order to prevent this. Ms Moreton replied that enforcement action could be taken if someone was caught leaving a sufficient amount of debris on the highway to cause an obstruction. Usually, though Highways were only informed well after the event had occurred. This meant that their only course of action was to ask the District or Borough to sweep the debris away. It was planned to carry out some work with local farmers in 2016/17 in order to improve awareness of their responsibilities as well as the potential consequences if they did not clear up afterwards.
(16) RESOLVED that Katie Moreton be thanked for her comprehensive presentation on Highway flooding events and drainage issues.