Agenda item

(a)          Drainage and Planning Policy

(b)          Land Drainage Policy

(c)          Flood and Water Management Act 2010: Section 19 Investigation Policy

(1)       Mr Tant introduced the report by saying that KCC had been appointed Lead Local Flood Authority under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which gave KCC the strategic overview of local flooding caused by surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses.  This was accompanied by a number of duties, one of which was to publish a Flood Risk Management Strategy.  The revised Strategy had been published in 2017.

(2)       KCC had a number of powers and duties for the management of local flood risk.  These included the duty to act as a statutory consultee for surface water in planning, the power to regulate works in ordinary watercourses, and the duty to undertake investigations into flooding.  KCC was now bringing forward new policies which set out how these powers and duties were to be undertaken.

(3)       Mr Tant then discussed the proposed revisions to the Drainage and Planning Policy.  He said that it had first been adopted in 2015. Since then it had become clear that there were issues that needed to be dealt with.  The Policy Statement had therefore been refined and clarified in order to bolster the work that KCC carried out in partnership with developers and other local authorities.  The revisions also ensured consistency with changes to the NPPF and DEFRA’s 25-year Environment Plan.

(4)       Mr Tant then turned to the Land Drainage Policy.  He said that KCC’s powers were set out in the Land Drainage Act 1991.  One of these was the power to provide consent for any works within an ordinary watercourse outside IDB jurisdiction.   In particular, this policy set out KCC’s position regarding culverts. Generally speaking, KCC was opposed to culvertsdue to the increase in flood risk and damage to wildlife habitats.  KCC accepted culverts where they were used to unlock land for development. One of Kent’s greatest flood problems was flooding that arose due to the culverting of ordinary watercourses.  The draft Policy set out KCC’s approach to exercising these powers and gave applicants guidance who sought land drainage consent. 

(5)       Mr Tant continued by saying that the third Policy was the Section 19 Investigation Policy.  The duty to investigate flood events in the County was conferred on KCC under section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which left it up to each Lead Local Flood Authority to decide how it would undertake this duty.

(6)       Mr Tant said that up to this point, the investigation policy had been contained within the Flood Risk Management Strategy and had specified that an investigation would be carried out whenever flooding had caused damage to property. This approach was being revised because a formal investigation required the Lead Flood Authority to issue a report about the flood, which was a time-consuming process that slowed down the dissemination of information unnecessarily in small events.  The draft Policy therefore proposed to increase the threshold for a published report so that 5 properties in a local geographical area would need to be flooded internally before a formal report was written.  KCC would still investigate flood events that did not reach this threshold, but it meant that a formal report was not always required.   

(7)       Mr Tant concluded his introduction by saying that consultation on the three policies would take place during the summer months before the final versions were adopted by KCC in late Autumn.

(8)        Mr Tant replied to a question from Mr Brazier by saying that Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act was very brief and un-prescriptive on how investigations were to be carried out. It simply stated that lead local flood authorities had a duty, to investigate significant flooding to the extent it felt necessary.  It was left to the Lead Local Flood Authority to decide on the definition of “significant.”

(9)       Mr Brazier said that he had read a number of surface water management plans and found that they varied considerably. Some were very detailed whereas others contained information that was very dated with a flood risk still being identified where significant measures had already been taken to deal with it.  Mr Tant replied that the surface water management plans were separate from S19 investigations and varied in age. The first had been completed in 2012 and the last in 2017.  They were currently under review and would be updated on the website as necessary.

(10)     Mr Tant replied to a question from Mr Rogers by saying that consideration had been given to merging the revised Drainage Policy and the Land Drainage Policy.  They did, however, address different duties. One of them referenced that KCC was a statutory consultee for Planning whereas the other referred to its role as a Land Drainage Authority.   These powers came from different Instruments and therefore needed to be treated separately (albeit linked to one another).  Furthermore, the Land Drainage Act gave KCC enforcement powers which would not appropriately be set out in the Drainage Policy which was giving advice on planning matters to developers and other authorities. 

(11)     Mr Tant then said that that KCC could not decide how Sustainable Drainage would be undertaken.   The section on Sustainable Drainage within the Drainage and Planning Statement went as far as KCC was legally able to go and further than many Lead Local Flood Authorities.    He then confirmed that the Internal Drainage Boards would be consulted on the Land Drainage Policy. 

(12)     Mrs Mackonochie said that there was a connection between the intention to cut back on investigations when only single properties were affected by flooding and outside consultations advising on different solutions to flooding.  If a single property were to flood in for example one of the major developments in Zones 2 and 3, the landowner might have to employ consultants to identify the cause.  Mr Tant replied that KCC would not cease to investigate floods as a result of the Investigation Policy.  It was simply the requirement to publish a formal report on every occasion that would stop.  It was often the case that official flood investigations were not helpful as they were onerous, required consultation and delayed the authority from explaining the full reason for the flooding event.  Section 19 Investigations rarely went beyond a straightforward explanation of the reasons for the flooding occurrence.  They did not help to unlock money for remedial action.  Often, any work that needed to be undertaken had already begun well before the report was published. 

(13)     Mrs Mackonochie then asked whether the text could be strengthened to stress that authorities should understand the implications of permitting single storey non-bedroom extensions in areas prone to flooding.  Mr Tant replied that the EA was routinely consulted on any proposed development in a flood plain, which should enable appropriate advice to be given in such scenarios. 

(14)     Mrs Blanford said that every development in Ashford had SuDS systems.  It was the responsibility of the developers to ensure that they were built properly and regularly inspected. She asked who was responsible for inspection.  Mr Tant replied that no authority had the specific responsibility for inspecting sustainable drainage, although the planning authority had the duty to ensure that the permitted development had been carried out as approved.  The revised policy also required the developers to complete a form to confirm that they had completed the works in the manner set out in the Permission.   

(15)     Mrs Brown said that there was advice which the Environment Agency had made available to the District Authorities. She added that in Yalding there had recently been an application for a single storey bedroom extension in Flood Zone 3. The District Planners had omitted to consult the EA, who had nevertheless objected following representations made to them by the Parish Council.   She said that it was essential that all local authorities understood that the Environment Agency had to be consulted on even the most apparently minor applications in a flood plain rather than rely on the generic published advice.

(16)     Mrs Brown then asked whether a brief written explanation could be given as to exactly who was responsible for each type of flooding event. 

(17)     The Chairman said that he was keen to see the production of a simple Kent Flood Management map, giving contact details as appropriate.

(18)     RESOLVED that the report and the draft Drainage and Planning Policy, the draft Land Drainage Policy and the draft Section 19 Investigation Policy be noted together with the comments made by Members.