Agenda item

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport & Waste on the proposed decision to adopt the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and to delegate to the Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement the authority to make any further modifications which may be necessary.

Max Tant (Flood and Water Manager) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Max Tant (Flood and Water Manager) introduced the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy that set out how local flooding (flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses) would be managed in the county over the next six years. The report presented the progress since the previous Local Strategy in 2013 and identified the challenges that still needed to be addressed to ensure effective local flood risk management.

2.    In response to questions the officer provided further information.

3.    Mr Tant advised Members that point 4.9 on page 213 of the agenda pack listed 6 catchment areas. Medway, Northeast Kent and Nailbourne Valley all contained objectives to deliver flood risk management actions, whereas Folkestone and Hythe, Tunbridge Wells and Sittingbourne contained objectives to explore opportunities for flood risk management. Mr Tant said that the final draft would include wording about the delivery of feasible measures should they be found from the exploratory work.

4.    In regards to flood risk management within the Isle of Sheppey, Mr Tant said that these were largely coastal and fluvial and therefore fell outside the remit of the strategy. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was only looking at surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourse flooding. Coastal flooding and main river flooding were managed by the Environment Agency which is why the strategy did not make reference to the Isle of Sheppey. However the Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline Strategy which was the Environment Agency’s proposal for the long term management of the shoreline did include the Isle of Sheppey and Kent County Council had had a report on this at eh most recent Flood Risk Management Committee, chaired by Mr Anthony Hills. The Environment Agency consulted with Natural England in developing this shoreline management strategy, in particular to the shoreline coastal path. . The shoreline management strategy is currently open to consultation (https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/ksles/medway-estuary-and-swale-strategy/).

5.    Mr Tant said that it would not be practical to have a single document that covered all the risks throughout Kent, but this had been considered. Kent County Council had four Shoreline Management Strategies, each was approximately 200 pages long, for each catchments areas there was a Catchment Management Plan, each approximately 200 pages long and therefore a combined document that contained all flood risk was not feasible. Instead Kent County Council created a document for each borough in Kent, called Flood Risk in Communities which set out the local flood risk across all sources, the bodies responsible for managing it and any strategic management plans (https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/environment-waste-and-planning-policies/flooding-and-drainage-policies/flood-risk-to-communities).

6.    In response to a question about Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in Deal, Mr Tant said that most of the housing developments that he was aware of were on the eastern side of the marshes where the discharge of water was appropriate. There was a recognised risk in regards to the costal defences however Mr Tant advised Members that this was an issue that the developers needed to discuss with the Environment Agency. Mr Tant said that there was difficulty addressing the existing risk as retrofitting SuDs would not have been feasible in parts of Deal. Mr Tant advised Members that work would continue with Southern Water to identify opportunities.

7.    In terms of maintaining SuDS, Mr Tant said that the long term aim was something that the Council could condition. The Council would provide advice to the Planning Authority and then they would put the condition on the palnning application requiring long term maintenance. Mr Tant advised Members that conditions like this on long term maintenance had not been tested and therefore it was unclear as to whether this was enforceable. In its current state, Kent County Council had no powers beyond consultation at the time of the Planning Application. Mr Tant advised Members that the water industry was investigating what its role was in sustainable drainage and had explored the opportunity to adopt a greater role. The outcome of this work was not yet finalised.

8.    RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee endorse the proposed decision for the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste adopt the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and delegate to the Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement, the authority to make any further modifications which may be necessary, such as formatting changes and typographical errors in order to publish the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy document as attached at Appendix A.