Agenda item

(1)       Mr Harwood informed the Committee that there had been 5 additional flood alerts issued by the EA since the publication of the agenda papers. The figures in paragraph 2.5 of the report should therefore read: “21 flood alerts (2 fluvial and 19 coastal.”  There had also been an additional 6^th occasion when the Thames Barrier had been closed (paragraph 2.7). 

(2)       Mr Harwood then said that the key issue was that there had been very little rain since the last meeting of the Committee.  There had been a very dry winter in autumn and winter of 2015/16.   The last 12 months had seen less than half the long term average rainfall total.    

(3)       The key period of activity had been around the autumn equinox where there had been high spring tides and storm activity.   There had been concerns over potential surge situations, but these had not materialised in any significant way except for some minor coastal flooding in the Faversham Creek area and parts of the coastal Isle of Sheppey. 

(4)       Mr Lewin asked what the tests and operational reasons had been for the 6 closures of the Thames Barrier.   Mr Harwood replied that these had mainly been operational, occurring during the 4-6 October period and on the 21^st in response to the EA Flood Alerts issued at those times. In consequence, there had not actually been any need for testing. 

(5)       Mr Lewin then asked what consideration the EA had given to the down-stream effect of the closure of the Thames Barrier and its effect on the Shoreline Management Plan, and whether there was any correlation that needed to be taken into account.

(6)        Mr Byne replied that there was no substantial correlation to be concerned with as the closures did not affect the water levels they the EA was concerned with in the Medway and Swale Estuary area.   There had been a bounce-back effect which had caused minor flooding but this did not extend as far east as the area covered by the Strategy.   The area affected was the the Thames Estuary, which was considered as part of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan.

(7)       Mrs Prendergast referred to paragraph 2.3 and asked what conditions were imposed in respect of the smaller reservoirs before water companies were permitted to abstract and fill from ordinary watercourses.  

(8)       Mr Tant replied that every reservoir abstraction licence had conditions that were mostly applied in the same way. 

(9)       Mrs Prendergast then said that she represented a constituency where there were a number of small agricultural reservoirs. In one of them, the farmer was able to control the flow in and out of the local stream, which had led to complaints from farmers on lower ground that they had no access to water.   She asked what controls were in place and how they were monitored. 

(10)     Mr Tant said that It was the EA which regulated reservoirs.  The questions raised by Mrs Prendergast would be addressed at the next meeting of the Committee. 

(11)     RESOLVED that the current water resources situation be noted together with the level of alerts and warnings received since the last meeting of the Committee.