Minutes:
(1) Mr Tant gave a presentation. The accompanying slides can be found in the meeting page on the KCC website.
(2) Mr Tant introduced himself as the KCC Flood and Water Manager. He managed the Flood and Water Management Team within the Environment and Waste Directorate. The Team provided the duties in its capacity as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Kent. The LLFAs had been created by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 which had followed the Pitt Review of the 2007 Floods. These had occurred during the Summer months and had been very extensive throughout the UK.
(3) Mr Tant continued by saying that the Flood and Water Management Team also provided strategic flood risk management advice on water resources, promoted water efficiency and advised on water quality.
(4) KCC’s role as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) gave it a strategic overview role for local flooding which arose from surface water, ordinary watercourses and groundwater. Mr Tant explained that a watercourse was simply an area through which water flowed towards a natural endpoint such as the sea - ditches and ponds were not watercourses, and KCC had no powers over them. Some watercourses were designated as main rivers and were the responsibility of the Environment Agency. All other watercourses were described as “ordinary watercourses.”
(5) Mr Tant turned to the LLFA’s powers and duties. It had to prepare a local flood risk management strategy, the third version of which was due to come into force in the next two years. The LLFA also had to undertake “section 19 investigations” into floods in the county. This could potentially be for any flood, although the LLFA would not normally duplicate the work of another agency, such as the EA, in this regard. The LLFA maintained a register of structures and features that had a significant impact on flooding. Since 2015, the LLFA had become a statutory consultee for major planning applications (involving 10 or more homes or 1000m2 of office space). It also had powers to regulate normal flows in land drainage for ordinary watercourses that were not in the jurisdiction of one of the five IDBs in the county. The LLFA also worked collaboratively with other risk management authorities in Kent.
(6) Mr Tant defined surface water flooding as that which arose directly from rainfall. Flooding could occur if rainfall fell heavily on the land, overwhelming the capacity of local drainage to cope with it. Once this surface water entered any type of drainage system (such as a river or sewer), it ceased to be legally classed as such. Surface water flooding typically occurred following intense rainfall in the summer. The last four years had seen some 100 flooding events each summer. The winter months could also see significant flooding events in ordinary watercourses, usually as a result of the ground already being saturated when the rainfall occurred.
(7) Mr Tant said that he was often asked which areas were susceptible to flooding. The answer was “everywhere.” Floods were often experienced in unexpected areas. For example, in 2021 Ulcombe had been flooded despite being located high up the Greensand Ridge. A few years earlier, Vigo in West Kent had flooded despite being in a heavily wooded area at the top of a hill. Although flooding typically occurred in low-lying areas, this could take the form of the lowest point such as a dip in a road even when the town or village was otherwise on higher ground. Urban areas tended to be more susceptible because of the concentration of properties and related hardstanding or drainage. The EA’s mapping estimated that Kent had 22,000 properties at risk of surface water flooding. Only Essex had a comparable number.
(8) Mr Tant used a map of flood enquiry locations to demonstrate that (although there were concentrations in urban areas) flooding took place all over Kent.
(9) Mr Tant went on to discuss KCC’s role as a statutory consultee for major planning applications. He said that the provision in the Flood and Water Management Act making the LLFA responsible for approving and adopting sustainable drainage had never been commenced. The statutory consultee role had been set up as an alternative as it enabled comment on the surface provisions proposed as part of the development. KCC received some 150 consultations per month, at all stages of planning, outline and detailed. Mr Tant stressed that the role of the LLFA was to provide comments to the local planning authority which had the responsibility for the determination of the application as well as for any enforcement action. The LLFA used its consultation role to promote the use of sustainable drainage. This was reinforced by documentation on the KCC website. The LLFA preferred green, open solutions, but sometimes had to settle for engineered solutions if they complied with the Government’s non-statutory technical standards.
(10) Mr Tant then said that although the LLFA had powers to undertake Flood Risk Management, it did not have an actual duty to do so. KCC’s approach was driven by the local strategy and the Section 19 Investigations, which enabled the carrying out of measures that were considered necessary. These included retrofitting SuDS, natural flood management and property flood resilience (which focussed on the prevention of damage to properties by stopping the flood water entering). The greatest difficulty in undertaking retrofitting or natural flood management projects was that of identifying land which could be appropriately developed without constraints.
(11) An example of retrofitting was at George Park in the Margate area. This project had been the first project shown to Lord Deben, the Chair of the Committee for Climate Change on the day before the meeting. The project disconnected surface water drainage from the sewer by allowing it to drain naturally in the park where the chalky ground was sufficiently permeable. The project had also provided tree planting, ponds, pollinator habitat and amenity benefits by improving the landscaping to make it a more interesting feature for local residents.
(12) Mr Tant said that the project in Downs Road, Folkestone had seen the problem of impermeable soil overcome by the installation of rain gardens at the side of the road, enabling the water to fill up the voids beneath them. From there, the water flowed more slowly into the sewer. This had the effect of reducing the threat of sewer flooding. As at George Park, habitat and amenity benefits had also accrued. This was important because the people who lived in the neighbourhood of the project were not affected by flooding but were able to enjoy its benefits without regarding the scheme as an inconvenience.
(13) Mr Tant briefly identified projects currently underway. These included the retrofitting of SuDS at St Katherine’s Primary School in Snodland which had flooded extensively in 2019, causing children to have to move to other schools for their education. The scheme involved capturing the water and directing it to a pond. The project involved a planting scheme which had been developed with the School. Nine Section 19 Investigations were also underway. Options were being explored resulting out of investigatory work.
(14) Mr Tant concluded his presentation by describing some of the collaborative undertaken by the Flood and Water Management Team. This included work with Southern Water on the Storm Overflow Task Force as well as support for the EA’s work on flooding from the main rivers and the coast. KCC was contributing £2.5m to the expansion of the Leigh Flood Storage Area in order to reduce flooding in the River Medway catchment.
(15) Ms Wright referred to the “Monkey Puzzle” Tree at George Park. She said that concern had been expressed at a recent Parish Council meeting that its roots would over time become as complicated as the tree itself and that this could impact upon the nearby pavement. Mr Tant replied that the tree had been planted before the project began by a local charity and that KCC was not responsible for it. The land was managed by Thanet DC and this concern should be taken up with them. KCC had worked in partnership with the tree-planting organisation and both sides had taken their partners’ wishes and intentions into account.
(16) Ms Wright then said that the parish of Monckton experienced problems with flooding as the pump had died. One resident had experienced her entire front garden being flooded with sewage. M\r Tant replied that the resident needed to raise this matter with the sewage undertaker.
(17) Mr Cole thanked the Flood and Water Management Team for its work in Swanley and suggested that events there might merit an in-depth Investigation. He then asked for a definition of the purpose and remit of a Section 19 Investigation. Mr Tant replied that this was set out in two lines in the Flood and Water Management Act which said that the Investigation had to establish which flood risk management authority was responsible and whether it had done what it was able to do. Some LLFAs simply wrote a very short report which simply identified the responsible authority and described what it had done. KCC’s reports went into more detail by describing the location and explaining the reason that the flooding had occurred. This would include the level of rainfall, the local land and infrastructure, as well as its ability to cope with the conditions that had arisen. The report would also contain recommendations – although these would not be based on modelling. The reports were published on the KCC website.
(18) Mrs Blandford asked whether Kent was experiencing more heavy downpours in recent years than had previously been the case. Mr Tant replied that, whilst he could not give a definitive answer, it certainly seemed to be the case. Nearly every summer since 2014 had seen very heavy rainfall in the county. It was possible that the reason that summer rainfall appeared to be heavier than before was because it was now being monitored, which had not taken place before 2010. He did not personally agree that this was the case but was unable to provide data to prove that it was not.
(19) Mr Tant then said that housing development should no longer be a cause of flooding as each new development was supposed to include a workable proposal for sustainable drainage. It was the LLFA’s role to ensure that major planning applications did so. KCC as planning authority had the responsibility to ensure that the scheme was actually implemented. The vast majority of developers built in the sustainable drainage measures they had applied for. The problem of runoff typically occurred in developments that had taken place before the late 1990s when the there had been no requirement to prevent it.
(20) Mr Tant continued by saying that flooding problems often arose from developments that the LLFA was not consulted upon. These included the paving of driveways, patios, small extensions and conservatories. Taken together, these small developments had a significant impact, particularly in urban areas.
(21) Mr Rogers said that Medway IDB (which he chaired) was digitalising its register of structures and features. This had been expanded to include access routes and potential hazards. He offered to share this data with KCC.
(22) Mr Mackonochie said that more councils were carrying out Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs). He asked whether they could help in respect of the smaller developments, and whether there was any literature that could be disseminated to District and Parish Councils in respect of potential flood risk arising from them. Mr Tant replied that the Flood and Water Management Team was sometimes consulted about NDPs. Although it was unlikely that people planning on building a patio would consult their NDP beforehand, these documents had a potential value in enabling a community to identify the sustainable drainage arrangements that it wished to see and which were in keeping with the local landscape character.
(23) RESOLVED that Mr Tant be thanked for his presentation and that its content be noted.