Minutes:
Mr David Goff (Chairman-Kent Flood Action Group Forum) – was in attendance for the item.
1.Mr Goff discussed the following:
a) Introduced the role of Flood Action Groups, explaining that they were volunteer-led groups with significant local knowledge and experience of flooding issue and worked closely with local communities and partner agencies to raise awareness of flood risks and preparedness.
b) Advised that Flood Action Groups monitored local conditions, coordinated community responses and often acted as flood wardens, including supporting vulnerable residents during flood events and also played a role in advocating for improvements to flood management arrangements.
c) Discussed the collaborative works with the Kent Resilience Forum and the Environment Agency and outlined that Flood Action Groups aimed to engage with communities and increase awareness of flood risk.
d) It was discussed that recent evidence indicated a proportion of residents remained unaware that they were at risk of flooding and that improving awareness was a key challenge, particularly in the context of strengthening community resilience to flooding.
e) Highlighted the important role played by parish councils and Flood Action Groups in supporting local flood resilience. Concern was expressed that, despite often operating within the same communities, communication and coordination between these groups was not always as effective as it could be.
f) Noted that Internal Drainage Boards also played an important role in local water management. The officer advised that there were five Internal Drainage Boards operating across Kent, working alongside other risk management authorities to support drainage and flood risk management activities.
g) Advised that the National Flood Forum acted as the secretariat for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on flooding, meeting with Members of Parliament on a quarterly basis. Work undertaken at a local level was fed into these national discussions, alongside information received from central government.
h) Mr Goff outlined a number of ongoing challenges associated with flood risk management, including development within floodplains, the impact of agricultural practices and surface water runoff, and collaborative work with the Environment Agency to address obstructions within river systems. It was noted that effective partnership working remained important in managing these issues and reducing flood risk.
i) Raised concerns on the resourcing pressures face both the Environment Agency and the County Council and how the Flood Action Groups could play a supportive role by assisting communities to engage with flood risk management and contributing local knowledge.
j) Discussed the role of the forum in coordinating and collating information during flood events to support situational awareness and the local response. Members were advised that elected Members also played an important role in sharing information from affected communities and helping to ensure that local concerns were communicated to the relevant agencies.
k) Highlighted the concerns that residents living in areas at risk of flooding could face difficulties obtaining mortgage terms beyond 25 years. Concern was expressed about the potential long-term implications for affected communities, including impacts on property values, investment and the sustainability of local areas.
l) Closed out the discussion that managing flood risk remained a significant challenge requiring joint working between agencies and communities and that that not all communities could be fully protected from flooding, and that there were instances nationally where relocation had been necessary due to unmanageable risk
m) Emphasised the importance of improving public understanding of flood risk and increasing awareness of the limitations of flood defence infrastructure. It was recognised that every flood event presented different challenges and circumstances, and that while efforts were focused on protecting communities wherever practicable, equal importance needed to be placed on strengthening long-term resilience and adaptation for future generations.
2.In response to the presentation Members raised the following points:
a) Members raised the discussion of dedicated flood wardens and suggested that the option be explored at greater depth, The concept had been proposed to the Environment agency.
b) In response to questions regarding the role of the forum in relation to water quality issues, Mr Goff advised that the forum was not currently involved in the testing or monitoring of water quality. He explained that the forum’s focus was on flood risk management and resilience, with responsibility for water quality monitoring resting with the relevant regulatory bodies and agencies.
c) Members discussed the effectiveness of flood warnings issued by the Environment Agency and raised concerns that warnings were sometimes repeated without a clear explanation or issued late at night, which could cause confusion and disruption for residents. Members emphasised the importance of timely and clearly communicated warnings to support community preparedness and response during flood events.
d) Mr Goff acknowledged the concerns raised and highlighted the challenges associated with increasing public awareness and understanding of flood risk. Members also discussed recent changes to the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps and the difficulties some residents faced in obtaining affordable home insurance in areas at risk of flooding. It was noted that clear communication and public engagement remained important in supporting community resilience and preparedness.
e) Members were advised that there could be challenges in formally linking Flood Action Groups with parish or town councils, as doing so could alter the focus of the groups from community-led resilience and support activities towards broader governance and administrative matters. It was noted that maintaining the independent, resident-focused nature of Flood Action Groups was an important consideration when exploring opportunities for closer working arrangements.
f) The committee thanked Mr Goff for his ongoing collaborative efforts with a number of Members present. Additional concerns were raised on skill retention and the how the issues faced could be communicated with newer generations.
RESOLVED to note the Kent Flood Action Group Forum - Update