Agenda item

(1)       Mr Harwood gave an introductory presentation.  The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Harwood said that the Flood Response Plan was a single agency document which set out KCC’s roles and responsibilities and identified where there was an interface with its partners in terms of planning and response.  It also provided geographical data and briefings on Kent’s most flood vulnerable areas.  The revisions proposed aimed to address climate change impacts and emerging better data. Resources needed to be used in the most appropriate and ergonomic way, and the document sought to identify the multi-faceted nature of flood vulnerability.

(3)       Mr Harwood underlined that KCC was not undertaking planning in a vacuum or in isolation.  Each of the County’s Boroughs and Districts produced a local multi-agency Flood Plan. These were also in the process of being updated.  The Kent Resilience Forum had established a Task and Finish Group so that all the Boroughs and Districts could work together on their Plans.  KCC and the KFRS were also involved, ensuring that their single-agency plans dovetailed with those of their other partners. 

(4)       Mr Harwood concluded his introductory presentation by saying that the document would be signed off in October.  

(5)       Mrs Mackonochie referred to the section on sewerage flood risk and asked whether the water companies had been brought into the process.  Mr Harwood replied that the Kent Resilience Forum had established a Kent Utilities Group which included the water companies. This group had been considering this particular issue.  He then gave a commitment that he would revisit this particular section of the KCC plan in order to integrate and assimilate the water utilities into it. 

(6)       Mr Harwood agreed that any comments and contributions that Members might wish to make should be emailed to him.   He added that the Plan was constantly evolving and that it was not essential to do so before 23 Serptember. 

(7)       Mr Chittenden referred to a recent burst watermain incident in Bearsted and praised South East Water’s response to it.  Problems had, however, been experienced when Southern Water had been faced with similar problems and this might have been caused by the lack of clarity over who had responsibility when surface water and sewerage events were taking place in the same location.  This had often resulted in KCC Highways completing its share of the work whilst Southern Water did not perform its tasks until a much later date. 

(8)       The Chairman noted that the document referred to District responsibilities and commented that he had been shocked by the increasing lack of specialist staff resources available to them.  He was concerned that Kent’s Districts might not have the capacity to undertake all the work that was needed. 

(9)       Mr Harwood said that the water companies were now classified as Category 2 Responders under the Civil Contingencies Act.  This gave them far greater levels of responsibility and a “duty to co-operate” which they were fulfilling in a greatly improved manner. 

(10)     Mr Harwood then said that the Plan was, in part a historic document which identified exercises that had taken place over recent years following the flooding events of 2013/14.   Exercising of different types of emergency had latterly taken precedence, such as anti-terrorism and EU withdrawal.   He agreed that it continued to be essential to test KCC’s planning and its staff for flooding scenarios.  This needed to take staff and staffing changes fully into account. Significantly, Exercise Persephone would validate the KCC plan on 13 September.

(11)     RESOLVED that the content of the draft updates to the KCC Flood Response Plan be noted, together with the assurance given that any comments made by Members after the meeting will be taken fully into account.