Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tant introduced his report by saying that one of the requirements placed on Lead Local Flood Authorities by the Flood and Water management Act 2010 was the production of a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.  This would set out the objectives and actions to manage local flood risk from surface runoff, ordinary watercourses and groundwater.  Accordingly, KCC had adopted its Strategy in 2013.  This had been largely strategic in its approach and had now reached the end of its life.   The next Strategy now needed to be developed in response to the challenges identified through the current one. 

(2)       Mr Tant went on to say that the current Strategy had succeeded in establishing and clarifying the role of KCC, developing understanding and joint working with its partners such as the Environment Agency and Southern Water, improving local resilience as well as providing a methodology to identify the risks and challenges.  The next Strategy’s role would be to build on the work carried out so far and focus on these challenges which were set out in paragraph 3.5 of his report.

(3)       Mr Tant then spoke briefly about the first challenge “delivering local flood risk management works”. He said that a lot of work had been carried out to identify local flood risks, which were predominantly in urban areas.  It was now important to identify the works that needed to be undertaken in response, taking into account the high costs involved in comparison to their benefits.  Work to reduce risk did not necessarily involve physical maintenance.  It could also mean, for example, increasing awareness within local communities so that they could manage the risks themselves. 

(4)       Mr Tant then said that although there had been a very great level of improvement in partnership working, this had not yet resulted in joint investigation of and investment in solving problems.  If this could be achieved, it would result in greater community benefits as well as the delivery of savings.

(5)       Mr Bowles asked whether there was anything further that the Committee could do in order to make flood wardens aware of the great value that was placed on their work.  The Chairman replied that he intended that the next meeting of the Committee would be held in a parish and that an invitation would be given to the local flood wardens to attend.  This should not be limited to those flood wardens from the parish in which the meeting was held.

(6)       Mr Bowles then asked whether the parish councils should have greater representation on the Committee. Currently, there was a single representative from KALC.  Greater representation might enable a greater focus on local concerns.

(7)       Mr Bowles then moved on to the subject of combined sewer networks. In his view they should never have been allowed to be constructed. There were many thousands of these in Kent and on nearly every occasion where houses became afflicted with sewage problems, combined sewage networks were the cause. He asked whether there were any positive developments to report in this area.

(8)       Mr Bowles then asked whether there was any progress on SuDS. He said that they were well capable of working but that there was no system or Law in place which ensured that they were installed in such a way as to ensure that they did.  Mr Tant replied that the Government had chosen not to provide a legislative mechanism for SuDS. He was not aware of any intention to reconsider this position. The Water Industry was slowly moving in the direction of considering whether to establish a voluntary arrangement. 

(9)       In response to further comments from Members on SuDS, Mr Tant said that the Government did recognise the need to manage drainage from new developments.  It was a requirement of planning law to provide a drainage scheme that did not increase runoff.  The Government had chosen not to provide a formal adoption and maintenance mechanism.  Southern Water could adopt conventional drainage systems, but there was no formal mechanism for it to do the same for sustainable drainage.  This meant that if when developers were minded to supply sustainable drainage, it was their responsibility to find a maintenance provider.  Usually this would be a maintenance company. This meant that there was an inbuilt risk associated with the maintenance arrangements as they relied on the company’s continued viability. 

(10)     The Committee asked for a letter to be sent to all Kent MPs setting out its view that it was essential to develop a legislative framework for SuDS. 

(11)     Dr Eddy referred to the potential of natural flood management techniques (paragraph 3.5.4). He commented that the new Strategy should include a reference to the benefits of diversifying agricultural techniques and land management, strategically located afforestation and biodiversity enhancements.  It was also important to stress the importance of new regulations surrounding paving over front gardens which increased the runoff onto roadways.  It should also stress the benefits of farmers ploughing parallel to the roadway rather than up and down, which led to flooding and soil loss.

(12)      Mr Bowles informed the Committee that for it was not possible for farmers to plough their fields in exactly the same direction every year.  If they did so, it would lead to a ripple effect which, over time, would lead to a flat field taking a form similar in appearance to a corrugated roof.

(13)     Mr Chittenden said that Maidstone BC had experienced difficulties in respect of the SuDS schemes associated with significant housing developments. He then asked whether the Strategy would address the question of how money would be obtained to deliver local flood risk management works. He referred to the money needed for a scheme at Yalding and Tonbridge where KCC had committed £17m.  Mr Tant replied that Mr Chittenden was referring to a fluvial flooding scheme which was the responsibility of the EA and was not directly related to the Strategy.

(14)     Mr Tant then said that KCC had identified the funding opportunities for flood risk management works but that often the benefits did not outweigh the costs. This meant that KCC needed to either find ways to reduce the costs or seek an opportunity to co-fund.

(15)     Mr Lewin said that Kent now had to prepare for an increased frequency of extreme weather events in a way that had not previously been the case. This was the reason why, in his view, SuDS had become a very important issue.   He suggested that the Strategy could share examples of good practice in this regard. This could be tasked to the Kent Planning Officers’ Group.

(16)     Mr Tant referred to the KCC publication “Water.People.Places”. This was a master planning for SuDS guide which considered different types of development and how SuDS could fit into them.  It addressed different development types of local conditions and set out opportunities to deliver SuDS. This document had been widely publicised, was targeted at developers and their agents as well as Planners in Kent and was available on the KCC website.  He agreed to make the link available to all Members of the Committee.

(17)     Mr Tant responded to Members’ questions by explaining that it was no longer legal to provide new combined sewers.  The problems were posed by those which were already in existence.  Whenever they over-flowed, there were additional problems beyond those that were normally associated with flooding.  He identified a number of problems which were likely to intensify in the future. These were increasing growth (which would connect the combined sewers), increased densification of urban areas and increased rainfall as a result of climate change. The cost benefits of removing all combined sewer networks and replacing them with single systems was wholly unaffordable to the UK.  There might, instead, be opportunities for surface water separation through alternative disposal mechanisms, particularly in new development in coastal areas and on chalk.  This issue was being considered by the Water Industry and the sewage undertakers. KCC was a part of this process, which was still in its early stages.

(18)     Mr Hills referred to the wetting up programme in Romney Marsh which aimed to re-establish natural habitats in the area.  This goal had the potential to run counter to some tenets of flood risk management and required careful dialogue between all parties, including Natural England.

(19)     Mr Tant replied to a question from Mrs Stockell by saying that KCC in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) was a statutory consultee for major applications in the County in respect of surface water management.  It carried out this function with reference to non-statutory technical guidance and KCC’s own policy documents.  The Drainage Hierarchy permitted discharge to a combined sewer but not to a foul sewer.  Although The LLFA would not routinely object to a planning proposal to discharge into a combined sewer, it would expect an assessment to be carried out with the aim of possible identification of a better option.  The minimum requirement was that the developer would manage the drainage so that there was no additional runoff from the site.  The developer would also need to consult with Southern Water in respect of capacity even though they were not a statutory consultee.  This was because they would have to agree the adoption regime even though by Law they could not object to the connection itself the developer would have to fund any capacity increase.  If, though, the resultant capacity increase was deeper within the system, funding would be a matter for negotiation between Southern Water and the developer.

(20)     The Chairman informed the Committee that Southern Water had agreed to attend the next meeting of the Committee on 18 July 2016 and said that this would be the opportunity to ask detailed questions on this subject. He suggested that they might wish to give advance notice of any such questions which could be forwarded to Southern Water by Mr Tant in advance of the meeting. 

(21)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)          the report be noted together with the comments on the draft analysis of challenges and draft objectives identified for the next Local Strategy; 

(b)       the Chairman be requested to write to Kent MPs on the Committee’s behalf setting out its view that the Government should develop a legislative framework for SuDS;

(c)        an invitation be extended to flood wardens to attend the next meeting of the Committee; and

(d)       consideration be given to the question of whether additional representation from KALC would assist the Committee in carrying out its role.