Agenda item

(1)         The Chairman brought this item forward from its original point on the agenda. 

(2)       The Chairman introduced this item by saying that members of the Committee had raised the issue of flood risk at Little Venice at a previous meeting.  In response, the Chairman and officers had investigated the situation. This had taken the form of a virtual meeting with the landowner who had supplied the information which was before the Committee as part of the report.  This information set out the measures that were being taken to protect the vulnerable residents on the site. 

(3)       Mr Harwood said that there was a historic planning permission for a mobile home site at Little Venice Country Park. there had been significant flooding events at the site in recent years, most significantly in the Autumn/Winter period of 2000 which had involved a nighttime rescue by boat. This event had placed the residents and responders at risk.  Residents had needed to be rescued from their caravans due to the threat posed by the high level of water. 

(4)       Mr Harwood continued by saying that since the first event, there had been a number of precautionary evacuations, including some carried out during the previous winter. 

(5)       Mr Harwood said that the site was a permitted development and that KCC officers and partner organisations had sought to overcome the risks in the best way possible, using such measures as the on-site Emergency Plan, working closely with the site operators and residents.  There had been additional work and investment in the flotation devices which made them more operationally robust.

(6)       Mr Harwood concluded by saying that an early operational response was key to achieving safety at the site.  Arrangements for this were working very well in collaboration with the operator, enabling the responders to move the residents to a safe location during the recent events before the flood water had arrived.   Discussions had taken place with Social Care Officers in respect of the increasing levels of need as residents became more vulnerable.  Potential improvements to the layout of the site were also being actively considered. 

(7)       Mr Rayner thanked the Chairman and the Officers from KCC and its partners for their achievements up to this point. He considered that what had been achieved represented a big step forward, although there were still improvements to be made. He agreed that early intervention was key. This activity was aimed at supporting those who were older, especially those with mobility difficulties.  Many had moved to the site from social housing. Safety at the site relied heavily on the ability and willingness of Adult Social Care to fund decampment in the event of flooding.  In his view, the letting and selling of caravans ought to be much more carefully controlled. Those with the greatest mobility difficulties should be placed on the higher ground. This was particularly important as the residents who had been evacuated to a hotel had been expected to make their own arrangements to return, placing a burden on Yalding PC.   

(8)       Mr Rayner continued that the planning consents had initially been temporary. The Law had, however, changed as a result of Court precedent.  This meant that people were now able to live at the site all year round, which meant that many were living there during the winter months when the flooding risk was at its greatest.

(9)       Mr Rayner said that the picture of the flotation tanks on page 21 of the agenda papers demonstrated that the doors were only some six inches above the bottom of the caravan.  He did not believe that they were watertight. 

(10)     Mr Rayner said that another problem was that when the caravans were tied to the jetty, they lost their buoyancy and were unable to float.  This should be investigated, especially in respect of those caravans in the deepest water. 

(11)     Mr Rayner asked when the residents who had the greatest mobility difficulties would be moved and whether there could be a report-back to confirm that this had happened.     

(12)     The Chairman said that a response to Mr Rayner’s questions would be sought from the landowner.   A progress report would be given to either the November or March Committee meeting.

(13)     Mr Lewis commented that contact details for the Flood Wardens and the Environment Agency were either missing or unclear. 

(14)     Mr Harwood said that Officers were holding discussions with the Maidstone BC Planners. The points made by Mr Rayner would be discussed with the site owner at the earliest opportunity.  In response to Mr Lewis’ comments, the Plan was the Operator’s Plan rather than that of KCC or the EA.  He had an ongoing commitment to help the Operator refine the Plan.

(15)     Mrs Wright suggested that a survey could be carried out of all Kent’s caravan parks as they were generally similar in nature and experiencing similar difficulties.

(16)     Mr Rogers said that during the Committee’s site visit to Little Venice some 7 to 8 years earlier, he had been assured that the flotation structure had been designed in such a way as to ensure that the whole caravan was lifted clear of the water.  He then asked whether there had been any instances of residents refusing to be evacuated during recent flooding events at the site. 

(17)     Mr Harwood confirmed that the mobile homes on site had been thoroughly tested before the previous winter and that there had been no water ingress into the mobile homes.  All the residents had left the site in good time during the three evacuations in 2020/21. There had been some practical issues as some of the residents had particular needs and also with some properties with stairs.  Some residents’ families had also needed to be involved.  This demonstrated the need for early evacuation.   The residents had a strong folk memory of the events of 2000 and co-operated fully. In the event that a resident refused to leave the site, the only approach open to offers was persuasion (except in very rare circumstances).     

(18)     Mrs Parfitt-Reid asked who was responsible for disseminating information to the residents.  Mr Harwood replied that the site operator had a role as the landowner. The EA also had the responsibility to operate the Warning service as the site was in a discreet Flood Zone.   

(19)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)          the report be noted together with the areas that will continue to be explored to the point of resolution; and

(b)          an update be presented to the Committee in November or March