Agenda item

(1)               Mrs S V Hohler (Chairman of the Select Committee) together with Mr J I Muckle and Mr M J Vye attended for this item.

(2)               In introducing the report of the Select Committee Mrs Hohler said that this had been a short and focused piece of work on what was a very complex issue.  She said that in the report the Select Committee suggested some small steps that could be taken to contribute to the overall reduction in flood risk and the better management of it.  The Select Committee believed that it was crucial that great care was taken when looking at sites for new developments; flood defences were maintained to a good standard and measures put in place to make buildings more flood proof and communities more resilient.  As importantly there had to be a constant focus on flood risk and the Select Committee suggested that an oversight should be provided by a standing Flood Risk Committee together with multi-level involvement through Flood Liaison Advice groups which could bring together experts, including those from the local community. 

(3)               From the 30 recommendations which the Select Committee had put forward Mrs Hohler spoke in particular about the need for there to be adequate ring-fenced direct government funding for flood risk management and reassurance given to the public that vital plans, strategies and flood defence work would not be compromised by competing financial demands within DEFRA or elsewhere.  Mrs Hohler also said that because of its expertise the Fire and Rescue Service should be included as an active partner in the planning process for new developments and that KCC should lobby government to produce a set of building regulations for use in flood risk areas so that planners can be supported by increased but nationally consistent obligations to assist developers with a high level of flood proofing/mitigation.  Also urgent action had to be taken to ensure that people are made more aware of the risk, and to be aware of what is being done to protect them and what they can do for themselves.  In concluding her remarks Mrs Hohler placed on record her thanks to the Members of the Select Committee and to the officers who had supported it in its work. 

(4)               Mr Muckle spoke about the growth areas within Kent and development generally and the need for these to be planned and phased in such a way that any potential flooding issues were robustly addressed from the outset.  The planning experts and others such as the Environment Agency had to provide the guidance needed on building developments and the best way for these to be taken forward.  It was possible for developments to be carried out on flood plains but that had to be done in the right way in order to ensure peoples’ safety.  Mr Vye said that the County Council had a duty to Kent’s residents along with District Councils to take a lead role in ensuring that all that could be done was being done in order to protect from flooding.  Mr Vye referred in particular to Recommendation 10 of the Select Committee’s report which said that Kent Highway Services and the Environment Agency should seek to reconstitute the Flood Liaison Advice Groups in Kent (ideally catchment based) with representation from the insurance industry and local communities.  Mr Vye also referred to Recommendation 21 which says that the Environment Agency should encourage input to local strategies and schemes from local authority and Internal Drainage Board experts.  Also the Internal Drainage Board should be represented on the Southern Regional Flood Defence Committee in order to optimise the benefits to be gained from local knowledge.  Mr Vye also referred to Recommendation 18 which speaks about KCC specifically allocating funding for road gulley cleansing work to go ahead and where necessary to enable the condition and capacity of highway drainage systems to be improved, with the location of gulleys and their characteristics being recorded on GPS. 

(5)               Mr Ferrin said that he welcomed the report and said that he would seek to meet with the representatives of the Environment Agency to discuss the recommendations and any concerns it may have.  He also said that he saw marine flooding as being a particular issue and he wanted to make sure that Kent received its fair share of the funding being allocated in the South East.  The County Council had already begun mapping the drainage system although this would be a lengthy and expensive process.  Mr Chard said the changes that had taken place in local structures had hampered the ability of Members to be involved in decisions at the local level.  He therefore wanted to see a discussion take place around how local Members can engage more with the Environment Agency about decisions being made in their areas.  He also said that with funding for flood defences now being allocated more on a regional basis Kent had done less well in obtaining money for local schemes.

(6)               Mr Hill said that he also welcomed the report and was glad to see that the Environment Agency already appeared to be taking on board its recommendations.  He also spoke about the effects of global warming and the fact that this could amongst other matters increase the incidents of flash flooding. He also welcomed the comments and recommendations in the report regarding emergency planning and the role and work of the Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Service and the Kent Resilience Forum.  He said he would like to see if the County Council’s Community Wardens could also play a part in this work and with the appointment of a new head of Emergency Planning now was a good time to refresh the County Council’s input.  Mr Gilroy said that he welcomed the report and in order to take this work forward wanted to link its findings to the work which was already ongoing with district colleagues, the Police and the Fire Service.  He said that consideration should be given to having a seminar on these issues with involvement from all those who had an interest in flooding issues, particularly district councils, bodies such as the Environment Agency, the Fire and Police Services and the armed services. 

(7)               In concluding the discussion Mr Carter said that he also very much welcomed the report and its recommendations and the importance of working with the County Council’s partners and other agencies in taking these important issues forward.  He said he also welcomed the fact that the report would be discussed by the County Council at its meeting in January 2008.