Meeting documents

This item is the first evidence gathering session for the Committee’s Flooding Inquiry, focussing on evidence from the Council’s officers around the County Council’s responsibilities for managing flood risk and responding to flooding emergencies.

This will also be an opportunity for members to learn about the specific flooding incidences that occurred in the Winter of 2013-14, the environmental context and the effectiveness of partnership working at operational level.  Officers will also be able to advise the Committee about their own reviews of the flood events, the learning they have shared and any improvements that have already been introduced as a result.

Contributors:

Mrs Karen Fisher, Strategic Flood Management Team Leader, BCC

Mr Andrew Fyfe, Resilience Manager, BCC

Reports:

Update Report from Karen Fisher p11

Spreadsheet tracking S19 post-flood actions p21

Update Report from Andrew Fyfe p61

Bucks Flooding Flow Chart p65

Suggested Background Reading:

BCC Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2013-18 Summary

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/2274929/flood_risk_strategy_finalpart1.pdf

Section 19 reports – particularly The Willows

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/environment/flooding/strategic-flood-management/flood-investigations/

LGiU Scrutiny of Flooding Toolkit – Sent separately to members on email

LGiU Managing Floods: Supporting local partnerships

http://www.lgiu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MANAGINGFLOODS.pdf

Tricia Birchley took the Chair for the Flooding Inquiry. Karen Fisher, Strategic Flood Management Team Leader, Andrew Fyfe, Resilience Manager and Simon Dando, Transport for Buckinghamshire were welcomed to the meeting. The aim of the Inquiry was to ensure that the lessons learned from the 2013-14 flood experiences would lead to improved responses from the Council and relevant partners in the event of flooding incidents in the future.

Karen Fisher provided information for Members on the statutory duties for the Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) which were outlined on page 12 of the agenda.

The main points of the presentation were as follows:-

·         A good example of follow up work from the flood investigations is on the Willows Estate in Aylesbury where the District Council, County Council, Environment Agency, Town Council and Thames Water with local residents have worked together to deliver a trash screen on the river, some flap values on outlet pipes and some temporary defences and pumps to be deployed in a flood situation. Repair and Renew Grants were pooled together to increase resources for the locality and there was a launch day in September.

·         The Cabinet Member referred to the DEFRA funded Pathfinder Project in Chesham called Flood Smart which has raised flood awareness and established a Flood Action Group and some innovative advice from planners on how to consider flood/drainage issues during the planning process.

·         The Cabinet Member sat on a Regional Flood Committee and Buckinghamshire was covered by two companies Anglian and Thames Water.

·         17 flood investigations were carried out following on from Winter 2013/14. The Council have a responsibility to write reports but not follow up action. However, this is undertaken on a systematic basis to help partnership working. Page 13 of the agenda shows work undertaken with partners and page 14 work undertaken with the support of communities.

·         A piece of work has commissioned by Jacobs to provide detailed maps of ground water and chalk valleys which have been given to communities, TfB and planning authorities. These maps have helped steer a decision against development in Monks Risborough.

·         The Council is a statutory consultee in relation to planning applications and 50 have been received since mid-April which equates to 160 a year. The Council only have resources for this quantity. It was important to enforce conditions on planning applications to control flooding but this remains the responsibility of the Districts as LPAs.

·         The Marlow Flood Alleviation Scheme was going ahead with some initial road raising and the Project will last 3-4 years.

·         The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy does not have to be revised until 2018 but this is being undertaken during 2015/16 financial year because of changes in legislation and updating the sustainable drainage information.

·         Funding was a key issue as resources in the team were limited. Other pots of funding would need to be found for delivering schemes on the ground and there were also opportunities to look at charging for aspects of the work but the Council was not able to charge for statutory responsibilities.

During discussion the following points were noted:-

·         Policies were key documents in terms of steering good decisions for planning and highway issues. They also helped in the provision of the right materials. Good advice needs to be made available for residents and also developers in order not to increase flooding risk. Local Area Forums could be used to promote good practice e.g. permeable paving.

·         There were no real powers in terms of legislation. There was a previous proposal under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) of not approving planning permission unless the drainage had been approved but this was not taken forward.  Instead drainage parts of a development are being reviewed as part of  planning applications with Buckinghamshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) now being statutory consultees.

·         It was important that the Flood Team was involved in Section 106 negotiations.

·         Proactive enforcement by the Sustainable Drainage part of the Team would be welcomed. Kent and Essex were putting in place a maintenance team to deal with SUDs but a business case would be required with the ability to charge.

·         Reference was made to having a web map for farmers to show the impact of flooding on surrounding areas and the importance of maintaining water courses once a flooding event had occurred. There needed to be a strategic view of flooding (across boundaries) so that problems were not caused elsewhere and for other organisations to build up relationships with farmers as sometimes the Council was seen as an enforcer. Some farmers could sacrifice parts of their land for flooding to aid local communities but there were no financial incentives for them to take this forward.

·         There was a statutory responsibility to having an asset register to show flood risk areas which could be put on the website.

·         It would be helpful to have "shovel ready" schemes available in case there were delays to other schemes in the area. There was a discussion about whether the Council was best placed to deliver these schemes with its local knowledge. There will be some innovative techniques investigated in a number of locations across the County including the Hughenden Valley with regard to land management and low level bunds.

·         Previously when the flooding had occurred and residents rang Thames Water they were put through to an answering machine and no response was received for a few days even when there was a discharge of raw sewage. Thames Water commented that it was not their responsibility but it was unclear where the responsibility lay. Karen Fisher confirmed that it needed to be the responsibility of Thames Water. It would be helpful to question them at the September meeting on this issue and the fact that they had the specialist equipment to deal with raw sewage.

Action: Committee Adviser

·         In terms of the action plan from the Section 19 flood investigations at the end of the report Members asked that this be updated by the end of August with clear priorities using the traffic light system and to have clear deadlines. Karen Fisher informed Members that the Council did not have powers to ensure that these actions were carried out by partners. It would be helpful to have information on what the Council can influence.

Action: Karen Fisher

·         A Member who attended the Planning Committee at District Council level commented that he had not been briefed or ever discussed drainage issues relating to planning applications.

·         An early warning system was crucial.

·         In terms of the impact of flooding on vulnerable people the Resilience Manager reported that Adult Social Care played an active role in responding to the flooding and were in the Emergency Operations Centre while it was opened, ensuring that vulnerable members of the community were kept safe.

·         Parish and Town Councils do not have a statutory duty to undertaken Emergency Planning. However, Community Resilience is an essential means of mitigating the growing gap between the increasing scale of hazards and the reduction in public sector resources. By developing Community Emergency Plans, Parish and Town Councils or other groups could provide a community based means of responding to local emergencies. They would not be asked to undertake the role of formal emergency responders.

·         Transport for Bucks worked closely with the Flood Team in prioritising work where there was a flooding risk e.g. cleaning gullies.

There was a further Meeting on 8 September 2015 to obtain Inquiry Evidence from residents and key partners.