Agenda item

(1)       The Chairman introduced this item by referring to the March meeting of the Committee where concerns had been raised about the risks associated with flooding at Little Venice in Yalding.  Following this meeting, he had arranged a Virtual Site Visit. This visit had been attended by representatives from KCC, Maidstone BC, Yalding PC, Kent Fire and Rescue and the Environment Agency.  The report on this visit was contained in the agenda papers.

(2)       The Chairman replied to a question from Mr Rayner by explaining the purpose of the meeting had been to hold a focussed discussion on the site in question with representatives from the various agencies responsible for its Health and Safety in the event of a flooding event and to report back to the Committee on the outcome.  For this reason, he had not sent out a general invitation to all Members of the Committee. 

(3)       The Chairman agreed that the legal advice given to KCC would be shared with all KCC Members of the Committee. 

(4)       Mr Mortimer informed the Committee that he had spoken to James Bailey (Maidstone BC Planning Manager) prior to the meeting.  Mr Bailey had informed him that the legal advice on the Lawful Development Certificate (paragraph 15 of the report) was still awaited.   He asked the Committee to be aware of the need for sensitivity when discussing this matter as experience at another site in Maidstone, where a similar situation had arisen, had distressed many of its residents. 

(5)       Mr Chittenden said that he had been the local Borough Councillor some 10 years before when a major flooding event had occurred in Yalding, with its impact extending downstream as far as Tovil. Following discussions between Maidstone BC, the EA and KCC, £17m had initially been earmarked for improvements. The feasibility study had concluded that no major improvements could be undertaken, leading to the allocation being reduced to £4m for improvements to individual properties rather than to the area as a whole.  He urged KCC and the Environment Agency review this matter once the pandemic was over and the financial situation became clearer as the risk of flooding would not reduce until a holistic solution was funded and implemented. 

(6)       Mr Rayner referred to paragraphs 2.9, 2.11 and 2.12 of the report. He said that it was clear that people were being moved into Little Venice without being informed of the potential consequences.  This meant that elderly and vulnerable people were effectively moving into an unsustainable location.  It was the role of elected Members to continue to shine a light on the problem. 

(7)       The Committee agreed to a proposal, seconded by Mr Bowles that the update report would be presented by 26 July 2021 rather than within the next calendar year. 

(8)       In response to a question from Mrs Hurst, Mrs Brown explained that the residents of Little Venice did not purchase the land (although they could buy the caravan) but payed rent for living in temporary accommodation on the site.  Conveyancing did not take place. 

(9)       Mrs Brown then said that the following the flooding event of 2013/14, Government had provided £17.5m, which KCC had agreed to match fund, for flood defences in Yalding.   The proposal that had been modelled had been for two sub-storage areas (one on the River Beult, the other on the River Teise). The modelling had shown that the catchment area was too shallow, so the overall expenditure of £35m would only have resulted in the protection of 32 properties.   As the cost-benefit was not justified and the proposed defence was logistically impractical, the Leader of the Council had reduced the KCC allocation to £4m in order to enable the protection of individual properties.  This meant that flood defence at Little Venice needed to be considered discreetly rather than as part of a general programme.

(10)      Mrs Brown then informed the Committee that the Medway Flood Partnership had learned that the EA’s proposal to increase the Leigh Barrier flood storage area had stalled because the required amendments to the Act of Parliament had attracted 11 objections, necessitating a Public Inquiry.  

(11)     Mr Rayner commented that if the Leigh Flood Barrier expansion were to be delayed, it was likely to come under increased pressure it would put Tonbridge, East Packham and, above all, Little Venice at greater risk.  An increasing number of elderly and vulnerable people would therefore be moving onto a site that was inherently risky to them.  He therefore asked that the meeting in July 2021 would address the questions of how the authorities were warning these people of the risk attached to moving onto the site from homes that they owned elsewhere as well as the arrangements that were being made to ensure that they could be safely evacuated to appropriate temporary accommodation at short notice. 

(12)     Mrs Brown said that she urged all Parish Councils to update their Flood Management Plans to ensure that their Flood Wardens knew how to operate safely and effectively during the Covid-19 pandemic and that they had the appropriate personal protective equipment to be able to do so.

(13)     Mr Harwood confirmed that the guidance for evacuation and shelter had been updated to assimilate “social distancing” and PPE lessons learned from the pandemic. Welfare Centre training sessions had also taken place open to Kent Resilience Forum partners.

(14)     RESOLVED that :-

(a)          the report and the report be noted, including the three areas set out in paragraph 3.1 of the report which will continue to be explored to a point of resolution; and

(b)          an update report be presented to the Committee by Monday, 26 July 2021 at the latest.