Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tant introduced the report. He explained that KCC was designated as the Lead Local Flood Authority for Kent. This meant that it was the Lead for local flooding as opposed to being the Lead for all flooding locally.   One of KCC’s duties was to prepare the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy in order to set out how local flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses would be managed. 

(2)       Mr Tant said that the original Local Flood Risk management Strategy for Kent had been published in 2013.  This document was to have a relatively short time frame, acknowledging the fact that the role of Lead Local Flood Authority was new to KCC at the time.   The time was now right to develop a more medium term Strategy. 

(3)       Mr Tant continued by saying that the new Local Strategy in its draft form was differed from its predecessor in terms of its brevity.  The first local Strategy had set out the work that would be undertaken to build an understanding of the risk of local flooding in the county.   This information was now contained in the Flood Risk to Communities documents which covered all the Districts in Kent. All of these were now complete with the exception of Dartford and Gravesham.   As a consequence, there was no further need to include it in the Local Strategy.  Some of the policy issues had also been removed.

(4)       Mr Tant said that the draft Local Strategy document contained a short overview of the flood risks in Kent, information on progress and developments since the publication of the first Local Strategy and an assessment of the challenges which remained, leading to objectives and actions to enable continued delivery of flood risk management in the county together with a description of funding.   The Appendices set out the Works Programme and a risk assessment based on the preliminary flood risk assessment. 

(5)       Mr Tant concluded his introduction by referring to the colour map which he said was an example of the methodology of the Strategy which aimed to present its information in as brief and accessible a manner as possible.

(6)       Mr Gregory commented that the different definitions of flooding sources set out in the map, coupled with the responsible Authority illustrated the potential risk of responsibility for an event not being taken up at all.  He gave as an example the definitions of Coastal Flooding (Environment Agency) and Main Rivers (Environment Agency) and Watercourses (KCC and IDBs)   In Thanet, the flood risk posed by the River Stour arose from tidal influence not letting the water flow rather than the quantity of water flowing in the river itself. 

(7)       Mr Harwood acknowledged that there could be some confusion over lead responsibilities in relation to different kinds of flood risk, but asked the Committee to bear in mind that flood response activity was always multi-agency.   The immediate response would involve the various rescue services and other partners, whilst the matter of lead responsibilities was addressed through the Kent Resilience Forum (KRF) which enabled all the Category 1 and Category 2 responders to work together under clear and well-defined leadership.   The Command and Control element of the KRF was specifically designed to overcome any confusion which might arise.   Overall control at the response stage would come from the Gold Commander (Kent Police), Chair of the SCG, who would hand over to KCC for wide area events or the affected District (for local events) when the recovery phase began.

(8)       Mr Scholey referred to paragraph 5.6 of the draft Strategy Document (SuDS adoption and maintenance).  He said that in Sevenoaks a recent planning decision had aimed to introduce a SuDS scheme, expressing that the water companies would hopefully adopt them.  This was extremely unlikely. He asked who would ensure that the system was properly maintained.   A condition had been included and that the developer had set up a maintenance company to carry it out.   He asked whose responsibility it was to ensure that the job was properly done. The risk was not to the nearby properties, but rather to those properties downstream. 

(9)       Mr Tant replied that according to the DCLG it was the role of the Planning Authority to both apply such conditions and to make sure that they were delivered.   He added that the water companies would not adopt the most beneficial SuDS but that there were parts of SuDS that they would adopt.  KCC’s position was that it would prefer to see a more robust system in operation and that it was SuDS itself, by for example monitoring the implementation of an aspect of a scheme over a ten year period to ensure that it was delivered according to the agreed development plan. 

(10)     In response to a question from Mr Pugh, Mr Tant said that KCC had been obliged under the Flood Risk Regulations to carry out a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment as part of the Strategy in order to identify Areas of Significant Flood Risk.   Any such areas then had to be mapped and modelled in response, together with an action plan to manage the risk.  The criteria for identification of Areas of Significant Flood Risk were set jointly by the Environment Agency and DEFRA.   Six such areas had been identified by the Environment Agency in Kent.   KCC disagreed with these assessments because it was considered that, even though they did carry a level of risk, these were not “significant” (as defined by the Government) on a national scale.  The difference between KCC and the Environment Agency was that KCC had access to more local information and data, whereas the Environment Agency had undertaken an assessment on nationally available data. Many of the areas identified by the Environment Agency had measures planned.

(11)     Mr Pugh then said that the growth in housing in Kent would see a significant increase in the risk of sewer flooding if there was insufficient capacity to cater for these developments.

(12)     Mr Tant said that combined sewer networks had been identified as a Challenge in Section 5 of the Strategy.   He was keen to work closely with Southern Water in respect of flooding as well as the facilitation of growth.  Closer working with other Local Authorities was also necessary when planning new developments by taking into account water infrastructure.  He added that this would also have implications in terms of water supply.   There was a clear link between surface water flooding and sewage capacity.  Southern Water had prepared a Drainage Strategy which covered North East Kent (Deal and Thanet) which assessed the issues they faced up to 2040.  These included climate change, development and asset deterioration. They found that in some towns in the area they could only accommodate some 40% of the proposed development with the current infrastructure.   Additional work resulting from this Assessment could include surface water separation and implementation of sustainable drainage (including retro-fitting).   It might also entail development being phased by planning authorities in order to enable Southern Water to improve its water infrastructure.

(13)     Mr Rogers returned to the theme of SuDS. He said that Kent would be seeing the construction of 7 to 8,000 houses each year.  He considered that the importance of SuDS had been understated in the Strategy and that there were currently too many opportunities for the water companies, planning authorities and developers to avoid the need to take responsibility for sustainable drainage.   He suggested that message of the final sentence of paragraph 5.6 in the draft Strategy should be more aspirational than was conveyed by the phrase “we hope to identify any opportunities to improve the uptake of full SuDS and promote the benefits.”

(14)     Mr Gregory noted that the Southern Water Drainage Strategy covered the period up to 2040 whereas District Authorities’ Local Plans went up to 2031.  He suggested that these documents should all cover the same period. 

(15)     Mr Tant said that different bodies had different statutory timeframes to work to.   The water companies worked to “Asset Management Periods” of 5 years.  They would not be entitled to vary this. 

(16)     Mr Laws said that it was extremely rare for water companies to object to a proposal on water infrastructure grounds.   He expressed the hope that the planning authorities would be forceful whenever the water companies offered to provide a sustainable drainage scheme but failed to deliver. 

(17)     Mrs Doyle said that her experience on Canterbury CC’s Planning Committee had been that Southern Water had often demanded increased sewer capacity which the developers had been obliged by condition to install.

(18)     Mr Tant explained that water companies were not allowed to object to planning applications. They had to provide sewage whenever an application for development was permitted because there was an automatic right to connect to sewers.   They were allowed to say that there was no capacity locally and therefore insist that the developers should provide it.   If it became clear that the lack of capacity was systemic, it was the Sewerage Undertaker rather than the developer who had to fund the necessary improvements. 

(19)     RESOLVED that the report and accompanying draft Local Flood Risk Management Strategy be noted together with the comments made by Members of the Committee.