Meeting documents

For Members to consider the Council’s response to flooding in Bucks, how the County Council carries out its statutory duty, the local issues and responses, roles and responsibility, and lessons learned from winter floods.

Lesley Clarke OBE, Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning

Karen Fisher, Lead Officer for Flooding (Place) and Environment Agency Representative 

David Cobby, Jacobs

Karen Fisher, Flood Management Team Leader, David Cobby, Jacobs,  Doug Hill, Environment Agency, Lesley Clarke OBE, Cabinet Member for Planning & Environment and Netta Glover, Deputy Cabinet Member for Planning & Environment were welcomed to the meeting.

Members of the Committee were referred to the report in the agenda pack which gives details of the background to the strategy, statutory responsibilities, challenges, issues and work that taken place.

The Flood Management Team sits within the Planning Advisory and Compliance and currently employs three full time officers and a Lead Officers/Senior Flood Management Officer.

The Buckinghamshire Strategic Flood Management Committee (BSFMC) was formed in 2009.  The Committee membership includes the Cabinet Member for Planning & Environment and representation from Partners organisations such was Thames Water, the Flood Management Agency and District Councils.  Meetings are held every three months and are chaired by a County Councillor.

The Cabinet Member also sits on the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) where decisions are made for flood management capital projects.  Buckinghamshire County Council represents Slough Borough Council, Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council on this Committee.

Winter Flooding in 2013/14 had a severe impact on the Buckinghamshire area.  This was a testing time for the Flood Management Team as there were only two officers in post. Work took place with colleagues such as TfB, the Resilience Team as well as external partners. 

The County Council has a statutory requirement to carry out flood investigations. The Flood Team has prepared 18 flood investigation reports on locations of the flooding which were the most severely impacted. Four of the reports have been completed and published.  It is hoped that the 14 reports will be completed by the end of the calendar year. An additional report was completed two weeks ago in response to 30 businesses in Chesham being flooded by surface water.

The County Council has a statutory responsibility to hold a register of all assets which impact on flooding (bridges, banks, structures etc). One member of staff has been dedicated to compile the Asset Register.

The final part of the Flood Water Management Act is still to be enacted. In the past week, a new consultation has been released by DEFRA which seems to substantially change the process for two tier Authorities by placing the approval process with the planning process and the Local Planning Authority.  The responsibility for the inspection, adoption and maintenance process is unclear.  This is a big change in income and resources set aside.

Going forward, the revenue funding from the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs for 2014/15 could be phased out.  Jacobs has been commissioned to look at up to five locations around the county where temporary or demountable defences could be employed during a flood.

There are a number of capital projects in Chesham which are coming to completion (Fullers Hill and Spinney). The Marlow Flood Alleviation Scheme has been added back into the programme for the next six year funding scheme.  Work is taking place with the Environment Agency to explore ways of addressing the funding gap of £3 million.

In terms of challenges, if the flooding comes from an ordinary water course or groundwater flooding, the responsibility lies within BCC, not the Environment Agency.  If the incident is not related to a highway, which would be the responsibility of TfB, then BCC has no resources to be able to respond in the ground. Discussions have taken place about the development of a ‘mutual aid proposal’.

A list of recommendations/action has emerged from the Flood Investigations reports of flooding in winter 2013/14.  The County Council does not have a statutory responsibility to deal with the recommendations; however as the recommendations are in the public domain, there is the expectation that they will be dealt with.  There is also pressure to complete the recommendations from other Authorities who do not have the resources.

The Cabinet Member reported that she had recently attended a recent meeting of the RFCC in London, during which, the issues about the Marlow Flood Alleviation Scheme were discussed.   The Chairman of the RFCC visited Marlow and saw what she described as a ‘shovel ready’ scheme. There is the concern that if there is a delay with the scheme, this would affect planning permission already granted and that the planning permission process would have to start again and might not be granted.

During discussions, the following questions we asked and points made;

Does the Thames Regional Flood and Costal Committee (RFCC) include the Great Ouse river catchment area? There is a Thames and a Central Anglian Regional Flood and Costal Committee. BCC sits on both Committees.  The seat on the Anglian RFCC is shared and at the moment Northamptonshire current represents BCC.  Buckinghamshire represents Slough, Luton and Bedfordshire on the Thames RFCC.

The report makes reference is made to Affinity Water.  Is this Anglian Water or another company?  Affinity Water is a company which just does clean water not foul water in the Misbourne area. Work also takes place with Anglian Water.

In terms of lessons learnt, what is the current position of ownership, consent and riparian management enforcement? An example is the flooding in the Willows, Aylesbury where 80 properties were flooded internally.  This was an Environment Agency (EA) failure but it was difficult to ‘pin down’ the responsible body.  What went wrong and how can this be corrected in the future? The Local Authority has powers to carry out enforcement against the landowner on ordinary water courses i.e. when one side of the river bank belongs to AVDC and the other side to the Trust.  The EA simply has the powers to maintain the river.

Mr Hill explained that in terms of riparian ownership, in law, the responsibility of repair to a water course rests with the landowner but in practice, this is difficult to enforce.  A surgery is being held in the next few weeks to give information about responsibilities and riparian ownership, what can be done collectively to address this problem which is reflected across the entire catchment.  A number of lessons have been learnt from the flooding at the Willows i.e. the responsibility for culverts.  Close working is taking place with Bucks Highways to try to identify a long term solution.  Aylesbury Vale District Council is also carrying out survey work to try and find a solution to overcome flooding issues.

Residents could own land at the river’s edge but the Environment Agency is responsible for the water running through.  Working together is essential as responsibility was not clear until the flooding on the Willows occurred. Mr Hill said that one of the main issues that emerged from the Section 19 action and flooding in 2013/14 is that there needs to be a joint solution.

80 properties were flooded internally on the Willows, Aylesbury.  Are residents able to apply for funding from the repair and renew grant scheme to help with the cost of buying and installing flood measures? Households and businesses affected by winter flooding can apply for a repair and renew grant of up to £5,000 via Aylesbury Vale District Council who were administrating the grant. Only a handful of applications have currently been received. Residents of the Willows have been sent a letters asking if they would be willing to consider applying for the scheme and pooling any funding received i.e. 80 applications at £5000 is £400,000. With £5000, a resident could install floodgates in their own property but flood water could come into their house via air bricks or via other properties.  The aim is to try and address flooding in the community.  The challenge is that the deadline for claims for Government funding is the end of March 2015.  Discussions are taking place with DEFA about the possibility of the money being carried forward if residents agree to the pooled scheme. Residents are being encouraged to pooling of funding from the repair and renew grant and to attend the surgery for information and advice.

The Chairman said that residents should be encouraged to sign up to install joint flood defenses as this would give more security of being able to deal with flooding events.

TfB carried out a ditching campaign to encourage local landowners and farmers to carry out their duty to clear ditches to assist water flow away from land and roads.  How has the EA liaised with TfB to check if ditches have been cleared? Mr Hill advised that work has taken place with the National Farmers Union (NFU) to look at the possibility of upstream storage of water.  Ditches and drainage is out of the remit of the EA.  The main purpose is to ensure maintenance of main rivers. This has to be done at a holistic level.  To see the most benefits, work needs to take place with TfB and other larger agencies.

What is the relationship with the Internal Drainage Board in terms of tributaries and feeders?Mr Cobby said that the Internal Drainage Board was involved in a surface management plan study in Buckinghamshire as were the Agency and other Districts.

In Chalfont St Giles there has been flooding from the Misbourne and in Chalfont St Peter there has been raw sewerage on the main road and in the village. Who do Members of the Council contact as these are two entirely different problems?  The current helpline has a recorded message.  There needs to be a mechanism in place for reporting flooding issues.  Members are welcome to contact Flood Management Team or to email the Flood Management Team inbox.In the winter there were difficulties contacting agencies due to the amount of ongoing flooding.  One of the challenges was there is no direct workforce to send people out to areas which were flooded.  There is TfB but their focus is the highways.  The Local Area Technicians carried out a tremendous amount of work during a very difficult period. Issues relating to sewerage should be reported to Thames Water.  The EA and Thames Water have 24 hour telephone numbers for the reporting of flooding. Members are encouraged to use this method of reporting as incidents reported are logged. 

Gaps in the reporting process were identified following which the team put together a flow diagram of who to contact and the relevant contact numbers depending on the type of flooding.  The flow diagram will be circulated to Committee Members by email and hard copy.

Action: Karen Fisher/DSO

If flooding is reported via a recorded telephone message, how can assurance be given this issues reported will be acted on and not just disappear into the ether? The Cabinet Member explained that there is an automated email response which advises the issue will be looked at within 14 days.

During the recent flooding of the telephone exchange in Chalfont St Giles, there appeared to be confusion on resolving this problem. For one week large road tankers were used to pump the water out of the building which was taken to the top of the hill for discharge until it was pointed out that the water was running back down the hill into the telephone exchange.  The second problem was the EA wouldn’t allow the water which was being pumped out to be discharged into the Misbourne unless it was across the road. The result was a pipe was placed across the road.  First of all the water was discharged into the road which caused flooding.   A pipe was then added which discharged the water into the Misbourne by the bridge.  It took a long time for the flooding to be resolved. Eventually the EA then agreed to discharge the water on the side of the road. Mr Hill said he was not aware of the specifics as he was not part of the decision making process of this incident.  During the winter, the EA was part of the Thames Valley LFR focus on how to deal with flooding.  There is the need for a multi-agency solution and engagement with residents to come up with a solution.

Mr Cobby said reference has been made to the commissioning of a study being embarked on to look at temporary flood defences and the deployment. Pumping of water is part of temporary flooding deployment. If temporary defences and pumping can be deployed in an area short term to alleviate flooding, what is the best plan for the deployment of assets and have this agreed up front.

It is able having the confidence there are enough resources available, the location of demountable flood defences and the details of the Memorandum of Understanding. The Cabinet Member said that the other issue to be addressed is what happens when the flooding has gone.  Sandbags have to be taken to landfill for disposal as they could contain contaminated water.  This is an additional cost to the tax payer.

Is it the County Council as the Local Authority Flood Manager responsible for flooding issues? The responsibilities are a little confused.  If the flooding is coming from surface water or ground water, the responsibility lies with the lead local Flood Authority but often it is a multiple source i.e. flooding may be coming from a sewer but there could also be infiltration from ground water. The key is working together and making sure there is a strong working relationship is in place.  There will always be resource issues.  BCC is funding the study on demountable defences from its revenue as it this was felt strongly to be something Bucks should do as a county.  BCC is going to look at where defences could be put.  More detail will be needed i.e. a topographic survey and logistics in terms of storage and implementation.

It is good to hear that partnership working clearly improved.  As winter approaches, how can it be ensured that the attitude of ‘it is not my responsibility’ will be avoided this year? There needs to be clarity on who takes responsibility. The Cabinet Member said that the chart gives clarity of responsibility.

The Chairman referred to page 22 of the report refers to statutory responsibilities, enforcement and consenting.  As this area appears to be evolving, it would be helpful for an update on BCC’s Flood Strategy to be provided at a future meeting of the Board (to include the responsibility for new developments, consenting on existing watercourses and the planning application process).  Ms Fisher said she would be happy to provide an update which could include clarity on sustainable drainage.

Action: Karen Fisher

The EA consented to a 700 house scheme on a known moist spot of Buckingham.  The discharge for the site goes on the upstream side of a pinch point in the flood plain which has resulted in a huge amount of water being added to a pinch point. Buckingham now has an additional risk of flooding due to a bad statutory consultee response. The Cabinet Member said discussions should take place on a regular basis. The issue of planning permission and refusals being overturned has been mentioned to the Chairman of the RFCC i.e. a house is brought in good faith perhaps not knowing that 10-15 years ago planning permission was overturned by an inspector. Insurance is also an area that needs to be looked at. There is a now a different type of scheme being put in place.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member, Deputy Cabinet Member, Ms Fisher, Mr Cobby and Mr Hill for attending the meeting.