Agenda item

(1)       Mr Peter Waring (EA Senior Flood Advisor, Kent and SE London) gave a presentation. The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic agenda papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Waring introduced himself as the Middle Medway Flood Resilience Scheme Project Manager.   He showed the Committee a diagram of the Medway Catchment and identified the Middle Medway as within the Low Weald, focused on the confluence of the Medway, the Beult and the Teise and incorporating the Lesser Teise.   It contained the parishes of Yalding, Hunton, Collier Street, Marden, Nettlestead, East Farleigh, West Farleigh Wateringbury, Teston and Barming as well as a number of smaller communities.

(3)       Mr Waring then said that the Middle Medway area had always been at risk of flooding and that significant flooding events occurred every couple of decades.  Records indicated that flooding had been taking place since at least 1643.  He added that the impact of flooding on society had increased continually over the years.  Furthermore, flooding incidents were now happening more frequently and with greater intensity due to changing weather patterns. 

(4)       Mr Waring briefly set out some of the existing flood risk management measures within the Medway catchment.  There was a series of embankments at Edenbridge to protect the town as well as the flood storage area at Leigh, where the capacity was going to be increased for the benefit of Tonbridge and Hildenborough. The capacity increase at Leigh would, however, have a minimal beneficial impact on the Middle Medway area. 

(5)       Mr Waring went on to say that the EA had considered a number of options to reduce flood risk in the Middle Medway area.  Unfortunately, none of these could be implemented without increasing the risk to other communities or without incurring far greater cost than the benefit to the community that they would protect. The EA had, for example looked at storage on the rivers Beult and Teise; at walls and embankments around communities; and at measures to improve conveyance through the flood plain. None of these had been cost effective or had any technical merit. This meant that the only remaining option was property flood resilience.

(6)       Mr Waring moved on to discuss property flood resilience in detail.  He said that there were two aspects to this. These were resistance and resilience.  Resistance was the installation of measures that prevented the ingress of flood water into the property.  This could include door barriers, flood doors, and non-return valves on waste pipes. These were “passive” structures that would prevent internal flooding even if there was nobody inside because they did not have to be re-installed or switched on.  Resilience did not prevent the ingress of flood water. It was the use of material to enable the rapid recovery of the property if internal flooding took place. It involved the use of materials such as lime plaster (which did not contain gypsum or other soluble materials), and closed cell plastic insulation (which was impervious to dampness).  These materials would enable the property to become dry and habitable very quickly.  These materials were expensive to retro-fit. The aftermath of a flood would be an ideal time for retro-fitting to take place.  Unfortunately, this very rarely happened because Insurance payments generally simply paid for the restoration of the property to its former state. 

(7)      Mr Waring showed the Committee a detailed map of the Middle Medway Project Area and pointed out that the majority of the projects were in a diamond-shaped area between the Lesser Teise, the Beult and Yalding.   The Project Area as a whole extended from Laddingford in the west to Queen Street in the south west to the plain area of Marden to the south and across to Stile Bridge to the east.  The most downstream area was in East Farleigh to the north.

(8)       Mr Waring said that a series of engagement events with residents had taken place in 2016/17. This had been followed by scoping and full property surveys of 454 properties during Spring and Summer 2017. This had established that 46 properties were not suitable for Property Flood Resilience (PFR).    

(9)       The work had begun with Phase 1A, which was a pilot scheme of 28 properties, where resistance measures were installed by the end of 2017.  This phase was tested by a Flood Exercise in Spring 2018.  Phase 1B had just begun and would see the installation of resistance measures in some 256 properties by the end of 2019.  Detailed surveys of these properties had already been carried out. A Flood Exercise would also be carried out by the end of the year. Phase 2, led by KCC and Maidstone BC, would be for those properties that were only suitable for resilience due to their fabric and mode of construction.

(10)     Mr Waring then discussed the challenges.  Some residents had decided not to participate, which could become an issue if they lived in a terraced or semi-detached property.  Even if all the other properties in a terrace had flood resistance measures installed, flooding to the property which did not agree to PFRs would affect them all. It was therefore important to persuade all terrace owners to be part of the scheme if at all possible.   

(11)     Mr Waring continued that it was sometimes very difficult to contact residents. They might be at work or only live in the property occasionally.  Some were let out to tenants who did not pass on the information to their landlords.  If a property changed hands, it was very possible that the new owners were not made aware of the project by the time they arrived.

(12)     Another challenge was posed by listed buildings.  Sixty two of the 256 houses in Phase 1B were actually listed and could only proceed after separate applications to the Local Authority.    It would be essential to ensure that the work undertaken did not damage the properties’ heritage value or undermine the historical significance of the building.

(13)     Mr Waring showed four pictures to demonstrate the measures that were now in place after phase 1A, consisting of both passive measures and those requiring the owners to take action upon receipt of a Flood Alert.  

(14)     Mr Waring concluded his presentation by quickly reminding the Committee of the three levels of the Flood Warning System. A Flood Alert was given when there was flooding of low-lying land and roads, but no property flooding was expected. People were encouraged to be vigilant and to pay attention to weather forecasts.  A Flood Warning was issued when flooding of properties was expected. Immediate action was required, including the deployment of flood barriers, moving furniture upstairs and moving out of the property to safety.  A Severe Flood Warning was issued following consultation with emergency partners when the flooding began to present a high risk to life, requiring evacuation if feasible and not already undertaken.

(15)     Mrs Brown said that the Environment Agency had done a very good job of keeping the community up-to-date on its activities.  She asked whether there was any further information on Phase 2 of the project.  Mr Waring replied that KCC and Maidstone BC had asked the EA to engage some consultants to undertake some initial assessments for the 46 properties involved. This work had been completed within the past fortnight. He had then produced a brief interpretive report, which was currently being peer-reviewed.  His next step would be to discuss the conclusions with the two Local Authorities.

(16)     Mrs Wright asked whether the new developing Local and Neighbourhood Plans should specify that new housing should be built with the capability of withstanding flooding.  Mr Waring replied that the EA would probably object when it was consulted about any development that was the subject of flood risk.  It considered that the best form of flood defence was to avoid building properties in the flood plain.   There could be exceptions to this general principle, such as domestic extensions or agricultural buildings that were being converted.  It was possible that no objection would be raised if it was possible to convert a building so that there was no risk of flood water entering by, for example, raising the finished floor level.  Essentially, the EA would object whenever there was a risk of inundation to a property.

(17)     The Chairman said that 400 new three-storey houses were being built in his Romney Marsh constituency, which was for the most part Flood Zone 3.  He asked whether there was any conflict between this type of development and flood regulations.  Mr Waring replied that providing there was no accommodation on the ground floor, the property would be classified as flood resilient. 

(18)     Mr Waring replied to a question from Mrs Brown by saying that there were a lot of listed properties in Yalding.   It was feasible to raise floors and sacrifice the ground floor for storage and garages in buildings if they were not listed.   Another suggestion had recently been made during a presentation in Yalding that it might be possible to introduce a raised walkway system.  He did not consider that this could be implemented without significantly changing the character of the village. 

(19)     Mr Waring then said that the walkway system would work at properties such as the former Rose and Crown public house in East Peckham. The EA had withdrawn its objection to the development because it was designed to raise up the property so that all the accommodation was at ground floor level leading to a walkway above flood level, which would take the inhabitants to an area that was at a much lower risk of flooding. This system would allow the residents to go about their normal business during a flood event.  

(20)     Mr Waring replied to a question from Mrs Mackonochie by saying that when the EA had looked at options for the Yalding/Collier Street area, they had taken into account the impact of water storage in these villages on nearby communities. As there would have been a detrimental impact to them, this particular option had automatically become unviable. 

(21)       RESOLVED that Mr Waring be thanked for his presentation and that its content be noted.