Minutes:
Louise Smith, Head of Resilience and Emergency Planning, was in attendance for this item.
a) Kent County Council (KCC) was designated as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Kent. It was explained that LLFAs were established in 2010 following the Pitt review.
b) KCC held an overview role for local flooding, defined as flooding arising from surface runoff, ordinary watercourses and groundwater. Officers highlighted that one of the statutory duties of the LLFA was to develop, maintain, apply and monitor the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The strategy would set out how flood risks would be managed across the county and provided` the framework for coordinated action with partners and stakeholders.
c) Officers explained that flooding event were generally more localised than flooding from rivers and seas. It was noted that managing local flood risk often depended on several systems working together effectively, including drainage networks, sewers and ordinary watercourses. As these systems are frequently managed by different authorities, cooperation and integrated planning were essential to ensure risks would be managed effectively. Officers highlighted that the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was designed to support this coordination.
d) The adoption of the 2024–2034 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy represents the third strategy prepared by Kent County Council (KCC). It was discussed that the strategy would build upon lessons learned from previous iterations and was extended over a ten?year period, which would be longer than earlier strategies. A formal review would also take place after the first five years.
e) The aim of the strategy was to improve the safety and wellbeing of Kent’s residents and to support the county’s economy through appropriate local flood risk management. Four key objectives were highlighted:
f) Under the objective of understanding flood risk, officers explained that progress was being achieved through the sharing of information with other risk management authorities, including the Environment Agency, water companies and internal drainage boards (IDB).
g) Following a flood event where five or more properties had been internally flooded, the Council would often be required to trigger a Section 19 (Flood and Water Management Act 2010) flood investigation. These investigations provided a formal record of the flood event and included a description of the flooding and an explanation of the mechanisms by which it had occurred. Officers emphasised that such reports were not intended to attribute blame but would capture evidence to inform and aid in the future management of flood risks.
h) Discussed past investigations that had occurred in impacted areas such as Ulcombe (2021) and the options that were pursued to encompass natural flood management and property resilience. Reviews of priority areas that could be impacted by flood events had been identified. Notable urban areas included: Swanley, Gravesend, Folkestone and Snodland.
i) Highlighted the completion of the flood risk management scheme at Snips Hill in Sittingbourne. The scheme had involved the construction of a large attenuation basin designed to capture overland flow and discharge it to ground. As a result, 11 properties that were previously at risk of flooding in approximately a one?in?two?year event would now be protected to a one?in?50?year standard and provided the community with greater certainty and security around properties.
j) Officers emphasised the importance of partnership working with other risk management authorities, including Southern Water and its Clean Rivers and Seas Task Force. Through this cooperation, surface water on highways could be reduced and aid in lowering the risk of flooding to communities whilst also removing water from the combined sewer network.
k) The delivery of the Council’s land drainage role was discussed and highlighted the continuous improvement that was sought across ordinary watercourses and ditch networks throughout the county. Work undertaken in partnership with the Internal Drainage Board had provided additional support to the expansion within the River Stour catchment and to the pilot scheme in the Upper Medway.
l) Officers highlighted recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), that was introduced in December and had targeted strengthening the requirements for sustainable drainage. It was discussed that sustainable drainage would be now mandatory for all new developments. Officers had welcomed this as an important step in ensuring that surface water was better managed across new developments and would provide communities with assurance that growth would not worsen local flood risks and impact negatively.
m) To support the policy, national standards for sustainable drainage had been implemented. These standards established a hierarchy for discharge with preference given to options that managed water sustainably. It was explained that connection to the sewer network would be the last option within the hierarchy and reinforced the principle that surface water would be managed at source wherever possible.
n) The importance of working closely with the National Flood Forum (NFF) was discussed. The NFF had supported communities impacted by flooding and aided in establishing flood action groups. These groups provided a valuable opportunity for the Council to listen to community concerns, understand residents’ experiences of flood events, and work collaboratively to address issues.
o) The NFF further played a key role in facilitating communication between local communities and risk management authorities. Officers emphasised that this managed and structured approach ensured dialogue would be productive and focused, and confirmed that such engagement would be a central element to future flood risk management activity.
p) It was reported that a pilot scheme was undertaken in Folkestone in partnership with the Environment Agency, known as Hello Lamp Post (QR Code App). This initiative introduced a virtual flood warden, and it was recognised that larger towns and urban areas could be challenging to establish physical flood wardens.
q) The virtual flood warden would provide information directly to residents via their phones, using a QR code and application interface. Users would be able to access details about areas of flood risk and receive guidance on actions to better protect themselves and properties.
r) Close collaboration with the Environment Agency and the Kent Resilience Forum was essential. Officers emphasised that the aim was to enable communities to help themselves and placed greater power and responsibility in the hands of residents to prepare for and respond to flood risk.
a) Members queried whether the pipe draining initiative would be a requirement for new build planning applications. Officers clarified that while it was not a formal planning requirement but would form part of the wider programme of land drainage improvements. It was noted that KCC had limited enforcement powers in this area although Internal Drainage Boards, which might adopt responsibility for those sites would hold greater enforcement powers.
b) In response to funding questions, officers explained that the team had been supported by a strong revenue budget and capital funding. Capital funding was frequently supplemented by external contributions which had included the Flood Defence Grant, which provided government support for flood risk projects.
c) Officers addressed concerns raised by Members on a number of housing initiatives in the Paddock Wood area. Ongoing engagement with the Borough Council regarding new development proposals were underway. It was discussed that plans had included the incorporation of sustainable drainage measures, with developers now required to implement flood risk management as part of the scheme.
d) It was acknowledged that a significant number of existing properties in the area of Paddock Wood remained at risk of flooding. It was emphasised that this represented a clear example of a cooperative project that would require joint working between the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board, the Environment Agency, water companies and the Council.
e) Members discussed the recent awarding to the Dartford area of a flood risk warning system and asked on the significance of this area in KCC’s wider flood strategies. Responses discussed the flood risk issues around Swanley and Gravesend were primarily related to surface water rather than coastal flooding. It was explained that areas where coastal defence schemes were required would. likely fall under the remit of the Environment Agency. In such cases, the Environment Agency would act as the lead organisation, with Kent County Council providing additional support.
f) Representatives of the Environment Agency present added that work was ongoing to identify alternative sites for a potential second Thames Barrier. Three preferred locations had been identified, although further work would be required to ensure that any future barrier allowed continued active navigation on the Thames. Engagement with Dartford Borough Council on these discussions was welcomed. A final decision on the location of a second barrier was not expected until 2040
g) Discussed the Yalding scheme that had been undertaken by the Environment Agency. It was confirmed that follow?up discussions would be held with colleagues in the agency to assess how successful the scheme had been over the past ten years and whether any issues were experienced.
h) Property Flood Resilience (PFR), officers emphasised the importance of adopting passive measures that would not require residents to deploy them manually. Examples included replacing front and back doors with sealed units, ensuring properties remained protected at all times.
i) Members sought clarification on the data models currently employed by the Met Office and the Environment Agency. In response, the officer explained that there is significant reliance on long?term Met Office modelling to project future weather events, which underpins planning and resilience strategies. It was further pinpointed that the Environment Agency had recently updated its data sets which would aid in KCCs decision making.
j) Officers were praised for the completed works undertaken in Headcorn and were asked about the planned aspects of local engagement. It was reported that work was ongoing to contact affected properties and to compile a list of residents wishing to participate in the scheme. The response deadline would be the 16 November.
k) Once responses had been received, an engagement session would be organised for those residents who wished to participate. The session would provide information on how the scheme would progress forward and outline the surveys to be undertaken. Explanations on the activities that were to be delivered as part of the project would also be given.
l) Member highlighted how the repeated flooding in Tonbridge could be alleviated by using nearby school that were located on higher ground, for attenuation measures. Options include ponds, smart water butts, and planters to manage runoff from the properties extensive roof areas. Officers confirmed such sustainable drainage interventions are the type of measures Members could request details on specific location installs to aid in the reduction of local flood risks.
m) Schools were pinpointed as key sites for flood risk management due to large available space and runoff from hard surfaces. A wider programme was being developed to engage schools on flood risk, water resource management, and climate audits and offered a single package of opportunities. Councillors were invited to suggest schools for engagement, as local insight would be valuable in identifying priority sites.
RESOLVED to note the verbal update on KCC Local Flood Management Strategy