Agenda item

(1)       Mr Victor Freeney from TEAM 2100 gave a presentation. The slides are contained within the electronic agenda papers on the KCC website. 

(2)       Mr Freeney began his presentation by setting out the area covered by the Team which was between Twickenham in the South West to Southend and the Isle of Grain in the East.   It contained 23 policy units, 13 of which had their defence systems fully funded whilst 10 (including the 4 in Kent) still needed local funding to complement the government funding which was already in place.   TEAM 2100’s work programme set out how flood risk would be managed in the Thames Estuary area up to and beyond 2100.            Work on developing the flood management plan had begun on 2002 and it had been published in 2012. 

(3)       Mr Freeney said that the effect of climate change would be an increase in storm surges and seal level rises as well as increased rainfall. More people now lived in the flood plain, increasing the consequences of any flooding that did occur.   He added that the UK was tilting from top left to bottom right so that the southeast was effectively sinking.   In addition, flood defences were now ageing, which also increased the flood risk. 

(4)       Mr Freeney then said that the Thames Estuary plan was outlined in three phases.  TEAM 2100’s responsibility in Phase 1 (2002 to @2015 Maintaining confidence and planning together) was to secure the investment programme for the first ten years of the plan. 

(5)       Mr Freeney went on to set out key facts in TEAM 2100’s 10 year delivery programme.   The contract had been signed in late 2014 with the Environment Agency as the client.   It would run for 7 years with a 3 year extension at an estimated cost of £308m.  The Integrated Delivery Team consisted of the Environment Agency working with CH2M, Balfour Beatty, Qualter Hall, Hunton Engineering, KGAL and engineering safety consultants.  This was an innovative approach as it brought the clients and providers into the same team.

(6)       Ms Rebecca Murphy (Environment Agency) set out to describe the physical work being undertaken, together with the plan going forward.  The 10 year programme was essentially split into two sections, the first of which was the major maintenance of the major barriers including the Thames Barrier and the Dartford Creek Barrier.  The second was the fixed and active assets such as the walls and tidal embankments as well as the smaller pedestrian and vehicular floodgates and the tidal outfalls.  The physical work generally covered major maintenance, but also included inspection, repair or refurbishment of these defences.  There were no plans to carry out major replacements during the 10 year period.

(7)       Ms Murphy said that the major focus of the first two years of the 10 year programme had been on the initial assessment and appraisals of the historic assets, including a general walk-over by the geological and technical experts.  This work was supported by facilitation exercises such as annual vegetation clearance.  This would lead to the identification of the work that was needed during the rest of the programme period.  The next phase would be option identification, followed by design development and the selection of the preferred option. This would be carried out in consultation with all stakeholders involved in these defences. 

(8)       Ms Murphy moved on to discuss the several hundred assets currently in the programme.   In Kent, these included the Dartford Creek Barrier and the defences in the Isle of Grain.  These were all being appraised at this time as part of the two year assessment and appraisal phase.  

(9)       Ms Murphy then said that the only exceptions were the 54 floodgates in the County, where this work had been completed in a relatively short period and they were now being refurbished.   Nine of these had been replaced during the current year (8 along Royal Pier Road in Gravesend and 1 at the Sealink Ferry Dock.    Consideration was also being given to which of them could be de-commissioned.  This would entail the full removal of the asset and its replacement by a passive defence system. 

(10)     Ms Murphy then informed the meeting that the 4 policy units in Kent were Dartford and Erith; Swanscombe and Northfleet; North Kent Marshes (split into Canal Basin, Denton and Shorne Marshes, and Cliffe and St Mary’s); and Isle of Grain (split into Allhallows and Grain Marches,, and South).  The accompanying slide set out the dates for the various stages. Generally speaking, Stage 1 would be completed in all four policy units by Quarter 2 of 2018/19.  The usual expected start date for construction was Quarter 3 of 2020/21.  

(11)     Ms Murphy explained that much would be dependent on the achievement of full funding.   The figures in the accompanying slide were based on the current figures for the work undertaken in the Thames Estuary Plan.   The figures given were estimated at the highest level. The actual sums would be determined by the option selected.  A funding strategy was being developed which would enable engagement with the right stakeholders.   Addressing the large funding gaps was one of the main priorities for the next four years. 

(12)     Mr Lewin asked about the impact of “bounce back” whenever the Thames Barrier was closed. He also asked why the Study had stopped at the Isle of Grain rather than covering the entire Thames Estuary.    Ms Murphy replied that when the Thames Barrier was constructed in the 1980s, it had been done as a single system so that the anticipated and known wave reflection was accounted for in the crest level of the defences. The impact of the Barrier beyond the Isle of Grain was negligible.   The Strategy for the Thames Estuary only accounted for the area around the south of Grain.  An additional Study was being developed for the Medway and Swale Estuaries (including Whitstable and the Isle of Sheppey).   

(13) Mr Tant confirmed that he was in contact with the producers of the Medway and Swale Estuaries Study and that he was hopeful that they would be able to attend the next meeting of the Committee. 

(14)     Mr Pearman informed the meeting that KCC was represented at the Strategy Group that was driving this particular delivery mechanism and that all the issues that had been or were likely to be raised were known to its two Members on the Board.   

(15)     Mr Bowles said that the response given in respect of the impact of the Thames Barrier east of the Isle of Grain was often given by experts.  Many who lived in the area described considered that the impact was greater than the experts believed it was.   

(16)     RESOLVED that Victor Freeney and Rebecca Murphy be thanked for their presentation and that its contents be noted.