Agenda item

(1)         Mr Frank Heeley, Environment Agency Partnership and Strategic Overview Team Leader - SE London and North Kent gave a presentation. The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic agenda papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Heeley began his presentation by saying that the Environment Agency aimed to work collectively to respond to the challenges faced over the next decades through its ability to manage catchment strategies, taking account of multiple factors and benefits.  It also had to consider in detail how these activities could be resourced through partnership funding of projects and schemes.   

(3)       Mr Heeley then said that the 25-year Environment Plan was an ambitious document put together by DEFRA covering waste, clean water, and the mitigation of climate change effects.  One of its targets was the protection of 300,000 homes from flooding by the end of the current funding cycle in March 2021.  This target was just over half way to being fulfilled, and a large number of the projects were set to conclude in the last three months of the cycle.  This work was supported by the EA’s corporate strategy “Creating a better place.” 

(4)       The challenges faced included EU exit.   The EA was currently manning its Incident Room as part of DEFRA’s response. It was ensuring the mitigation of any environmental impacts (such as waste) arising from the use of Manston Airport as an Operation Stack queuing point.   This work could potentially take place at the expense of the Environment Plan’s priorities.  Other challenges were the securement of partnership funding and the need to ensure that the projects were managed to time and cost. 

(5)       Mr Heeley moved on to give an overview of flood risk in Kent. He said that there were some 60,000 residential and commercial properties at risk of flooding from the rivers and the sea.  He clarified that those areas in Kent designated Flood Zone 2 had a flood risk likelihood of 0.1% and that the likelihood for Flood Zone 3 was 1%.  These figures would be subject to re-evaluation when the recent amended climate change projections were fully taken into account.   An additional factor was that development continued to be permitted in Flood Zone 2 areas.  

(6)       Mr Heeley went on to provide the Committee with statistical information. He said that the national allocation to the 2019/21 capital programme was £845.7m of which £113.8m was allocated to Kent and South London.  He pointed out that this region traditionally received a greater proportion of the national allocation than other regions and that it also had a good track record of delivering its projects.  The EA was forecasting that flood risk to a further 21k properties would be reduced over the next two years (7.5k in 2018/19).  

(7)       Mr Heeley showed the Committee a list of the capital schemes in Kent for the period 2019/21.  He drew attention to the two major schemes which were the Hythe Ranges Scheme to protect against a 1 in 200 year scenario and the Lydd Ranges Scheme where the significant part of the capital scheme was the responsibility of the East Kent team. The entry that appeared under this heading on the Kent table related to the shingle replenishment part of this scheme.    

(8)       Mr Heeley said that in recent years, funding had been allocated on a national basis to those projects that delivered the greatest benefits in terms of outcome measures.  The South East received a higher proportion of national funding than other areas because of the high number of beneficiaries and its ability to deliver.  Two projects were, however, likely to slip into a future funding period.   One of these was in East Peckham which had a significant funding shortfall.

(9)       Mr Heeley then said that the partnership model had changed from an “all or nothing” approach to a scheme where no project was unrealisable if sufficient partnership funding was made available.  The Environment Agency worked to a strict spreadsheet to identify the funding it could provide, depending on the benefits that could be achieved.  This allowed a far more flexible collaborative approach, although it meant that those schemes with fewer benefits required significant funding from the beneficiaries.

(10)     Mr Heeley said that the Environment Agency had been widely praised for the way it worked with Local Authorities and private enterprise in order to bring about a communal approach to flood defences.  The East Kent Engineering Partnership, for example, had provided excellent schemes whilst developing value engineering to enable delivery at lower cost. 

(11)     The Local Authority Capital Programme consisted of four projects (Chatham Waterfront, Hythe to Folkestone Beach Management Replenishment and Recycling, and Hythe to Folkestone Beach Recharge) at a combined cost of nearly £6m.

(12)     Mr Heeley moved on to consider future schemes.  Some of them such as the Great Stour Flood Alleviation were underfunded for the next two years according to the national allocation. The EA was working with KCC and Canterbury CC to ensure that further work could be carried out in the next six-year programme.  The Nailbourne Schemes were purely levy-funded.  More information would soon be available to enable an options appraisal.

(13)     Mr Heeley said that planned work during the next 6-year capital programme (beginning in 2021) including the Medway Estuary and Swale Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCRM) Strategy had now received approval.   Work was also being undertaken in close co-operation with contractors to identify and develop next generation projects.   Local Enterprise Partnerships would also be involved in this process.

(14)     Mr Heeley then explained that Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) set the strategy for coastal management over the next 100 years.  There were four management approaches which had been widely consulted upon within the communities and partnerships.   These were “hold the line”, “no active intervention”, “manage realignment” and “advance the line.”  The latter option had never been adopted largely because such an approach would run the risk of encroaching upon the natural inter-tidal habitat.  A “refresh” was currently underway, designed to make the SMPs more accessible to the public. 

(15)     Mr Heeley then turned briefly to the question of climate change, which had been widely discussed during the previous item.  He said that although total rainfall levels were expected to fall during future summers, the resultant storms would be very intensive and lead to a greater risk of flooding.  This could in turn lead to increased costs and funding gaps for the capital programme due to the need to defend to a higher scale.

(16)     Mr Heeley concluded his presentation by saying that the Environment Agency had protected a significant number of people during its current programme.   In addition, it responded to some 1,000 planning consultations each year. He believed that good strategic planning was the most valuable way of preventing people becoming the victims of flood risk.  Catchments needed to be developed in a way that allowed for slower run-off and encourage groundwater percolation to replenish the aquifers.  The EA would be investing many of its resources in strategic planning for catchment areas over the next few years.  This would involve engagement across communities, infrastructure levies, new modelling and flood mapping.  Finally, the EA had an important role as a Category 1 responder and would continue to encourage people to sign up for flood warnings, particularly in the Medway catchment area and around the Stour, where they also needed to encourage people to become flood wardens and increase flood risk awareness.

(17)     Following a question from Mrs Brown, Mr Lake said that he was the Local Member for the Leigh Barrier. He had recently attended a presentation on how raising the barrier was going to work.  He was very pleased with the work that was going to be undertaken for Leigh and Hildenborough but had concerns over how this was going to affect areas further up river. He hoped that the same presentation would be delivered in Penshurst so that people could consider the impact of adjusting the height to the new barrier in terms of raised floodwater.

(18)     Mr Lake then said that he regretted that there had been no attempt to clear the Eden and Medway rivers of fallen trees and other natural debris.  He was also concerned that the EA had stated that there was going to be no attempt to maintain the weirs above the barrier.  Once they crumbled away, an awful lot of water would hit the barrier rather than being held back.

(19)     Mr Heeley replied to Mr Lake by saying that the EA’s Asset Teams made risk assessments of whether there was an immediate danger to properties as a result of not carrying out river maintenance work.  This enabled the prioritisation of high risk areas.  He offered to seek a response on the specific area in question.  The same principle applied to weir maintenance.  Although any project was potentially fundable, grant money would only be forthcoming if there was a level of benefit with sufficient partnership funding to merit it.

(20)     Mr Lake said that Chafford Weir at Fordcombe had at one time powered a paper mill.   The same power could be used again to provide electricity for housing in the locality.   He believed that the best approach would be to hold back the water whilst utilsing the power that was coming downstream.

(21)     The Chairman suggested that this topic could be considered at the next meeting of the Committee.

(22)     Ida Linfield asked what provision there was for clearing waste from motorways in the event of live animal transportation becoming stranded during the Brexit period.   She also asked whether flood risk provision in Canterbury only covered the Nailbourne or whether other areas were involved.  Mr Heeley replied that animal welfare was the responsibility of DEFRA. The EA was looking to identify sites for the disposal of animals that died on the motorways during the Brexit period.  Contingency Plans were in place and the EA was working closely with Strategic Command in Kent to help inform the permitting regulations.  There were 16 people working each day to ensure that the environmental implications were managed.  

(23)     In response to Ida Linfield’s second question, Mr Heeley said that the EA was developing a project to protect the Great Stour.  This would probably be part of the next pipeline of schemes.

(24)     Mr Heeley replied to a question from Mrs Doyle by saying that the future great Stour Alleviation Scheme to protect 300 properties at risk in Canterbury and the middle Stour would concentrate on making improvements to the Great Stour in order to prevent water reaching the properties.  Where this was not possible, they would move into property protection.  He added that options for the Nailbourne would be ready in the Spring and could be reported to the next meeting of the Committee.

(25)     Mr Heeley replied to a question from Mrs Mackonochie by saying that the EA was only funded to protect housing that had been built before 2012.  It was expected that those built afterwards would have taken climate change and flood risk into account.

(26)     Mrs Hurst asked what provision was being put on place to go beyond the Stour and whether it could have any impact on the Wantsum.  Mr Heeley said that he was not in a position to give a detailed answer to the question. The principle adopted by the EA when developing projects was that it must not put new people at risk.  He was therefore confident that there would be no detrimental effect on the Wantsum.

(27)     The Chairman said that he would aim to have the points raised during this item addressed at the next meeting of the Committee.

(28)     RESOLVED that Mr Heeley be thanked for his presentation and that matters raised during the discussion  be further considered at the next meeting of the Committee.