This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Environment Agency and Met Office Alerts and Warnings and KCC flood response activity since the last meeting

    Minutes:

    (1)       Mr Harwood introduced the report.  He informed the Committee that since its publication there had been an additional 2 flood alerts issued by the Environment Agency (paragraph 2.4) and an additional Met Office severe weather warning for wind and rain (paragraph 2.5).

     

    (2)       Mr Harwood said that a number of highway flooding incidents had been notified to the Duty Emergency Planning Officer on the day before the meeting (Sunday, 11 November). Kent Fire and Rescue had needed to perform a rescue of a motorist caught in floodwater under the M20 Bridge at Boarley Lane in Maidstone shortly before Junction 6.  The root cause had been the significant rainfall that had fallen in a very short period of time.  There had also been highway flooding in Sandling Lane in north Maidstone as well as in Chartway Street near The Ridge Golf Club. Flooding at the Tonbridge Road/Terrace Road junction in Maidstone had impacted preparations for the Centenary Armistice Day celebrations.  He was gathering information on all significant surface water and highway flooding events experienced across the county in order to be able to discuss possible interventions to prevent a repeat with his Highways Drainage colleagues.  

     

    (3)       Mr Harwood then said that there had been meetings of the Severe Weather Advisory Group (SWAG) in September when high winds had been forecast.   These had initially been chaired by Kent Highways as the key risk had been trees falling onto the highway.  The winds were northerly which posed greater danger to trees than the usual south westerlies because their roots defended them better against the latter.  Later on, coastal flood risk had become the key issue as the northerly winds could force a surge down the North Sea to the pinch point at North Kent.  The Environment Agency had taken over the lead role in the SWAG at that stage.  This had taken place at the same time as the Emergency Services were dealing with the warehouse fire at Enterprise Way in Margate.  SWAG had played an important role, as its identification of wind patterns enabled an understanding of whether the greatest risk from the smoke plume was to the QEQM Hospital schools or residential communities. 

     

    (4)       Mr Harwood then said that high peak spring tides were predicted between 23 and 26 December 2018 which could potentially pose risks to coastal areas, particularly if accompanied by strong winds. 

     

    (5)       Mr Chittenden asked for a progress update on the work undertaken following the £4m allocation to flood defence work in Yalding.  He also asked for an update on the £189m which the Environment Agency had informed the Committee during its previous meeting had been allocated to Kent over the next five years in grants to deliver capital projects to reduce flood risk.

     

    (6)       The Chairman said that a large proportion of the £189m would be spent in Romney Marsh, mainly on a large project for coastal flood defence at the Ranges.   He agreed that this would be one of the items that the Environment Agency would be asked to cover when they were invited to the next Committee meeting in March 2019.   

     

    (7)       Mr Tant said that KCC had agreed an investment of £4m split across the Medway catchment area including works at the Leigh Flood Storage area and Hildenborough (£2.5m) and Yalding (£1.5m).   The Yalding project was split into a number of phases. Phase 1A to provide property-level resilience had already been delivered by the Environment Agency. This included flood barriers across doors and non-return valves on plumbing at 28 properties.  This work had been carried out by a firm named UK Flood Barriers which had gone out of business during the summer, preventing them from carrying out Phase 1B to a further 230 properties or so. The Environment Agency was preparing a national framework for property-level flood resilience, which would identify the contractors who could carry out this work.  Once the framework was launched, Phase 1B would be able to commence in Yalding.  He understood that the launch of the framework was imminent and would enable the identification of a contractor for Phase 1B.  The EA was currently working on Phase 2 which involved consideration of what could be done to support those properties which were not eligible under Phase 1.  It was possible that KCC’s contribution as well as any money that Maidstone BC was able to provide would be used for this Phase, although this might not be the case as the nature of these works meant that they would be more expensive and therefore less cost-beneficial.  The results of the EA’s assessment would be available in the New Year. 

     

    (8)       Mrs Brown said that Yalding PC had been advised that it would be 12 months before Phase 1B would be completed.  This Phase would be carried out in stages. The order in which the works would be carried out was not yet known.  The Parish Council was therefore expecting that work would not start until Easter 2019 due to the practicalities described.   The surveys for Phase 2 had been carried out by Jacobs. She had in her role as Chair of the Parish Council contacted the EA to ensure that all the eligible properties were included in the scheme.  

     

    (9)       Mr Lewin asked what the impact of rainwater run-off during the dry period had been for the high way network.  He said that he had personally water up to the axle of his car.   Mr Payne replied that this depended on the dryness of the land, the water compaction and the farming practices adopted on agricultural land.  Discussions with the RPA and DEFRA were aimed to alleviate water run-off. There was the potential for fines or the withholding of funding if certain criteria were not met.  Much also depended on the maintenance of the drainage network, the responsibility for which might rest with the adjacent landowner rather than the Highways Authority. 

     

    (10)     Mr Harwood said that data on the changing climate and rainfall totals should not just be examined by referring to the average. It needed to be considered on the basis of a developing trend for an increased frequency of short but intense rainfall.  Very dry weather was being followed by periods of very intense precipitation leading to significant run-off on the public highways and hard ground which could overwhelm surface water drainage systems.  Work was being undertaken by KCC’s Landscape Team to identify verges where additional planting would be most effective in maximising infiltration of run-off and uptake by vegetation.    There was further reassurance on this matter as the Emergency Planning Team was also routinely commenting on landscape resilience issues involved in major planning applications and spatial plans.  The NPPF indicated that development, including new housing was considered holistically, including enabling enhanced flood and other severe weather resilience through such details as materials, layout and design.  

     

    (11)     Mrs Brown said that many communities including Yalding were developing an empirical understanding of the changing nature of flood risk, including the dangers posed by extensive dry periods.  

     

    (12)     The Chairman informed the Committee of the report published in October 2018 by the Committee on Climate Change.  He recommended that all Members should read it, particularly those who represented areas on the coast. It covered the remainder of the 21st Century. The conclusion he had drawn from this document was that there was an urgent need to adapt and survive and to improve resilience.   The Committee had an important role to play in this regard. 

     

    (13)  Mrs Brown said that the recent Medway Flood Partnership meeting had been attended by representatives from Kent Highways who had discussed the potential problems posed by Brexit.   She asked what contingencies there were for dealing with heavy rain and flooding during the immediate aftermath in the light of the significant problems that they had advised might occur in the immediate aftermath. 

     

    (14)     Mr Harwood replied that KCC had identified the potential for simultaneous connected or unconnected events to cause major problems at this time.  KCC and District Councils had developed an Emergency Planning exercise named Brexercise Loki.  This had tested various scenarios in order to determine the ability to respond to combinations of events.  This included the ability to respond to the problems caused by heavy traffic congestion during a flooding event or other emergency, which would make it difficult to move the necessary resources around the county. The recent Budget had allocated a further £ 500m for Brexit planning. Kent’s partners had submitted a bid for potential funding against that stream.   It was stated that the planning,  assets and staff resources would all be in place to deal with any emergency impacts and consequences arising from Brexit.

     

    (15)     Mr Balfour said that the public needed to know the reality of what the planning actually entailed.   They were currently assuming that there would be congestion and flooding with no food in the shops and hospitals being closed.  The M26 would be a complete disaster. Highways England were digging up the A20 and the A2.  People were worried that they were in the eye of a perfect storm.  It was essential that KCC informed everyone of the measures that were planned to be in place.  Otherwise there would be a huge reputational risk.

     

    (16)     Mr Harwood said that the KRF had employed a Brexit Co-ordinator to closely look at all the issues involved.  KCC was working closely with the Government and local partners to raise any concerns.  KCC’s role was to foresee any potential impacts and consequences and to plan contingencies to manage them.  It was a case of planning for the worst whilst hoping for the best and Kent resilience partners were liaising with the Government to seek all the reassurances that people needed. 

     

    (17)     Mr Pugh referred to the deep-water port in Sheerness that could take a lot of ferries. There was also land around Sheerness which would be able to stack a lot of lorries.   It was urgent for the public to be briefed immediately on what the planning entailed.

     

    (18)     Mr Harwood replied that Sheerness featured within Kent’s planning as did the port on the River Thames at Dartford.   

     

    (19)     Mr Payne said that there was a difference between an Emergency Response and a Planned Response.  The latter required a detailed examination in relation to all the foreseeable possible outcomes of the Brexit process currently being considered by Parliament.   Operation Stack in 2015 had required an emergency response and this experience would inform the planned response if Brexit were to lead to the same stacking and congestion problems.   Likewise, there were responses to emergencies (such as extreme weather conditions) which could be planned in advance. These emergencies were by their nature unpredictable and would need to be addressed by Kent’s emergency planning.  

     

    (20)     RESOLVED that the report and content of the ensuing discussion be noted.

    Supporting documents: