Meeting documents

The Committee will be hearing from partner agencies, who will be asked to provide an overview of the wider context of Flooding across the region in 2013-14 and how they managed and prioritised their responses to numerous flood incidents which occurred simultaneously.  Members will have an opportunity to follow up with partners on any issues or concerns raised by residents in the earlier session and to hear about partnership working initiatives which have developed in response to the 2013-14 flood events.

 

Partner agencies will be asked to share any learning that has resulted from internal reviews they carried out subsequent to the flooding and Members will be able to follow up on any outstanding Section 19 recommendations.

 

Contributors

 

Representatives from the Environment Agency, Berkshire & Buckinghamshire region

 

Mr Huw Thomas, Local/Regional Government Liaison, Thames Water

 

Mr Tim Parkins, Performance, Evaluation and Projects Team Leader, Bucks Fire and Rescue

 

Representatives from the four District Councils – Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe.

 

Papers

 

Report presented to Aylesbury Vale District Council’s Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee in November 2014, regarding Flooding in The Willows.

 

S19 Spreadsheet with RAG Status column as requested by the Committee following 21^st July meeting. Members are reminded that whilst the Strategic Flood Management Team will continue to follow up on these actions, BCC has no power to enforce recommendations which apply to partner agencies.

The Chairman advised that the Committee had heard from residents in the morning session and this afternoon would be an opportunity for partner agencies to explain how they managed demand and prioritised their response during the flooding of 2013-14.

 

The Chairman welcomed Mr Barry Russell, Operations Manager, Environment Agency to the meeting. Mr Russell briefly explained the large area that his team covers, Upper Thames and outlined his history of working for the Environment Agency (EA). Mr Russell was the Lead for the Environment Agency at the Strategic Command Group at Kidlington throughout the flooding of 2013/14.

 

Mr Russell gave a presentation before taking questions from members. and the following main points were noted:

·         The winter of 2013-14 was the wettest on record with a large number of properties flooded nationally.  157 flood warnings were issued across West Thames, with 14 severe flood warnings across December, January and February. Thresholds have since been reviewed for issuing flood warnings in West Thames as the EA want to be as accurate as possible.

·         1400 properties suffered internal flooding with a further 300 affected by ground water flooding. The EA opened an Emergency Centre and Regional Incident Rooms which were open 24/7. More than 600 staff were working in the incident rooms, as well as operational staff making sure defences were deployed. Field teams were also out checking water levels.

·         The duration of rainfall created further issues that short duration, high intensity rain does not bring, with the soil at saturation point in November 2013.  The ongoing rainfall kept the River Thames at capacity – the highest level it had reached in 65 years.

·         Since the flooding, the EA have participated in internal and partner agency debriefs and the plans of Local Resilience Forums had been updated. The EA had also worked with partners running training days and testing equipment.

·         For The Willows, Aylesbury no flood warning was issued as the watercourse was not one that the EA are responsible for. The EA have supported the work of The Willows Flood Group and have worked in partnership with BCC, AVDC and residents. AVDC have stepped up their riparian responsibilities and regularly inspect the waterway and the newly fitted trash screen on the Stoke Brook is on the EA’s fortnightly inspection schedule.

·         The EA have supported the work of the Hughenden Valley DIG and have undertaken an initial assessment of the top of the Hughenden Stream.

·         In Marlow, partnership working was taking place across Local Authorities in respect of the Marlow Flood Alleviation Scheme which would protect 287 properties. Preliminary works had taken place at Gossmore Lane raising the road to keep planning permission current whilst further discussions with landowners and an archaeological and ecological survey take place.

·         The Chairman asked how the EA could react more quickly to warnings from residents on the ground.  Mr Russell explained that a lot of work had been done with the Local Resilience Forum to try and improve multi-agency response.  The EA work with flood action groups to educate them on how they can help themselves in a flood situation.  The EA operate an incident room where the call handlers collect local intelligence and then pass this up to the strategic SEG, who make decisions on resources.  In 2014, the full length of the River Thames was affected and therefore some areas may have felt that they did not receive support as quickly as they would want but the EA had to deploy resources as best as we could.  The EA would not be looking to take action against residents who were trying to protect their homes.

·         A Member raised the issue of lack of communication between agencies.  Mr Russell commented that the response of partners was better in 2014 was significantly better than in the past.  Systems fed local intelligence through to SEG very quickly and the EA have dedicated laptops for use in an emergency. 

·         The EA’s number one objective is to protect human life in a flood emergency.  However when the EA are putting in a scheme they do have to consider the impact on wildlife, flora and fauna, as well as the protection of local people.

·         Dredging can sometimes provide additional capacity in a river but because the River Thames is a modified river with weirs and bridges, dredging is not always appropriate.

·         Mr Russell advised that over 45,000 properties were issued with flood warnings varying from populated areas to more rural communities. A large number of gauges throughout the River Thames have thresholds which when exceeded sound an alarm. Flood warnings are then sent direct to people pre-registered on the Flood Warnings Direct scheme. This would not work for residents in areas who did not anticipate being flooded, but the EA liaise via partners to publicise warnings such as BCC, District Councils, Parish Councils etc

·         Mr Russell agreed that if someone is being flooded they do not care who is responsible for the different sources of flood water and the EA will respond to residents in a serious flood situation even if it is not caused by main river flooding.  However in terms of providing solutions, the agency responsible for the source of the water does come into play due to the funding which is needed for flood alleviation schemes.

·         Groundwater flooding is very different to river flooding.  The EA are trialling groundwater flooding warning in some areas but this is in its infancy.

·         The EA call centre in Sheffield has good IT systems which can pinpoint the source of a call accurately and Mr Russell was not aware of delays in message being relayed. The call centre number is 0800 80 70 60.

·         There could be more training for front line staff in all agencies on the finer points of the Flood Acts and which agency is responsible for different sources of flooding.

·         In Buckinghamshire there were many proactive land owners, but others did not take their riparian maintenance duties seriously.  Mr Russell advised that peer pressure had a positive effect, particularly when a flood action group has been formed. The EA has permissive powers to visit land and complete works and then re-charge owners but this was not the best use of resources. More recently the EA have facilitated farmer demonstrations to show what can be done and how and where the EA can support landowners.

The Chairman thanked Mr Russell for his presentation and for answering Members’ questions.

 

Thames Water

The Chairman welcomed Huw Thomas, Local/Regional Government Liaison, Karen Nelson, Operations Manager and Chris Moloney, Operational Control Manager of Thames Water to the meeting

.

Mr Thomas gave a presentation before taking Members’ questions. The following main points were noted:

·         Thames Water covers a large area stretching from Cheltenham right across to London, Essex and Kent. Groundwater flooding continued after river levels subsided with issues affecting some pumping stations as late as May 2014.

·         The sewers are a low lying asset and because the system is not sealed, to avoid a build-up of noxious gases, the sewers are vulnerable to groundwater.

·         Sewage treatment works were inundated and at full capacity. Tankers were used to help people who were internally flooded with sewage and to protect Thames Water’s own assets.

·         In Hughenden Valley, residents who had experienced flooding in 2001 had been satisfied with the response from Thames Water at that time, however in 2014 residents were informed that they would only receive help if their properties were flooded internally.  Mr Thomas explained that due to the sheer scale of the issues in 2014, external flooding was not a priority.  A series of drainage solutions have subsequently been developed, including one for Hughenden. A mobile filtration kit is now available that can be deployed to sites identified.  Ms Nelson explained that Hughenden has progressed further than other areas, with assets already installed to enable the mobile equipment to be deployed. The mobile treatment kits will be stored at strategic locations in Cirencester and Little Marlow.

·         Residents of The Willows reported that Thames Water did not come out to clear up sewage, leaving the residents to clean up and take it to a waste disposal dump. Mr Thomas advised that contractors were sent out to clean up some areas, but were making little difference due to the ongoing rainfall. Now their contractors, Lanes Drains were in place which would lead to improvements in future.

·         Residents of The Willows had also raised concerns about newly fitted flap valves that were already locked in the shut position due to silt in the Stoke Brook. Ms Nelson added that silt is a known problem with flap valves and she was in discussions with Alex Batt of BCC’s Strategic Flood Risk Management team about the possibility of fitting sleepers in the brook to control water flow and silt deposits, so that the flap valves will operate correctly.

·         In Chalfont St Peter, sewage had flowed onto the A413 continually for three days and residents, the parish council and the local County Councillor, David Martin all reported difficulties in contacting Thames Water. Mr Thomas explained that he had met with Councillor David Martin in Chalfont St Peter at the time and accepted that it had taken a number of days to resolve the flooding. Mr Thomas re-iterated that this is another area prioritised for the emergency mobile filtration kit and detailed drainage surveys have subsequently been carried out. Last year it took a few days to obtain permission from the EA to pump sewage into the River Misbourne, but in future this would not take as long, due to improved partnership working with the EA and better understanding of the drainage issues in that area.

·         Chris Moloney explained that the automated telephone system used by Thames Water in 2014 was necessary due to the high volume of calls they were receiving.  The automated voice added to the front of the call system tried to redirect callers to other agencies where appropriate. Additional staff were added to the nightshift and the call centre was open 24 hours a day in an attempt to answer as many calls as possible.

·         Thames Water has a specific telephone number which is provided to emergency planners, emergency services and key local authority members which bypasses the public telephone line. The line is handled by a limited number of people so if it was to be passed on to an elected member it must be used respectfully. A Member reminded the Thames Water representatives that each County Councillor represents approximately 8,000 people so giving them a dedicated number could reduce the number of calls coming through on the public line. Ms Nelson confirmed that Thames Water also uses social media to get messages out and this has been really helpful.

·         Mr Thomas advised that Thames Water work closely with planning authorities and spoke of the new SUDS (Sustainable Drainage)  regime which in theory should prevent surface water from new developments being passed on. Thames Water are not statutory consultees for planning applications although they do provide feedback.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Thomas, Ms Nelson and Ms Moloney for attending the meeting and Mr Thomas gave assurances that Thames Water would be happy to attend meetings of local flood action groups in Buckinghamshire if they were invited.

 

Bucks Fire and Rescue

 

The Chairman welcomed Mr Tim Parkins, Performance and Evaluation and Projects Team Leader, Bucks Fire and Rescue Service to the meeting.  Mr Parkins had submitted a Flood Debrief report to members ahead of the meeting and took questions from Members. The following main points were noted:

·         Mr Parkins explained that the Fire Service did not just respond to incidents in Bucks in 2014 but also in other areas within Thames Valley. An internal debrief and national debrief were completed to identify what was done well and what could have been done differently. The reports collated internal staff feedback and comments from members of the public, which on the whole were very positive.

·         Mr Parkins spoke very positively about multi-agency communications. Marlow was identified as a high risk area which required national assets to be brought in and a Command and Control unit was set up in the Pound Lane car park which became the focal point where all multi agency briefings took place. At Headquarters senior officers were involved in teleconferences and there was good communication.

·         It was estimated that the flooding placed an additional cost to the Fire Service of approximately £55,000 which was claimed back from Government under the Bellwin Scheme. This included an invoice from Staffordshire for £26,000 for the deployment of a high volume pump. The Fire and Rescue Service were one of the last agencies to leave Marlow in 2014.

·         The Fire and Rescue Service has two boats available, one stored at Newport Pagnell and one stored at Beaconsfield and each station in Bucks has members trained to go out in dry suits. Recently new towing vehicles with off road capability had been purchased.  Mr Parkins clarified that much of the equipment is not only designed for use during floods. These are also used when people come in to difficulty in water.

·         Mr Parkins was asked what local communities could do to help themselves in a flood situation. Mr Parkins advised that residents should be encouraged to start local flood groups. Local people have knowledge of the vulnerable in their particular area and he had been involved in good community work in Buckingham, where severe flooding has been experienced in the past. The Fire and Rescue Service were always happy to work with communities on flood prevention.

The Chairman thanked Mr Parkins for attending the meeting and on behalf of the people of Buckinghamshire, she thanked the Fire and Rescue Service for all their hard work during the Winter floods of 2013-14.

 

District Councils

 

The Chairman welcomed representatives from all four District Councils, namely Glynis Chanell, Chiltern District Council, Neil Stannett, Wycombe District Council, David Gilmour, South Bucks District Council and Emma Chilton and Adam Heeley, Aylesbury Vale District Council.  The District Council representatives were happy to take Member’s questions and the following main points were noted: 

·         The Chairman asked the AVDC representatives for their views on the effectiveness of partnership working during the flooding at The Willows in February 2014.  Ms Chilton advised that partnership working was limited on the day of the floods. AVDC had issued their full stock of 2,000 sandbags out to residents of the Willows by 7am and then TfB provided further sandbags through an ad-hoc mutual aid agreement with the County Council. As there was no formal request for a Local Authority Liaison Officer (LALO) no officers from AVDC were sent to the estate. Ms Chilton accepted that this was an oversight and should have happened. Many lessons had been learnt by AVDC and their own Environment and Living Select Committee had investigated their response. Partnership working had definitely improved since the floods and the Repair and Renew grant project was a good example of how effective partnership working could be.

·         The issue of sandbags was recognised as contentious one, as Local Authorities are not responsible for providing sandbags but often do it out of moral duty. It was identified that this is an issue that needs to be considered for the future with flood plans now being developed. Mr Gilmour advised that South Bucks keep a limited stock of gel bags. In 2014, some areas were impacted by the river suddenly bursting its banks and sandbagging would not have been appropriate. Wycombe District Council provided approximately 15,000 sandbags in Marlow over the course of the flooding and volunteers helped the vulnerable. The contractor was said to have worked extremely well to keep up with demand. Sandbags and toilet facilities were also provided for flooded properties in Hughenden. Chiltern District Council had gel bags issued to those at risk of flooding, initially 2,000 with a supplier restocking within 24 hours. Disposal was handled by a Waste contractor

·         The District Councils also gave advice on infectious disease control, tried to keep information on their websites up to date and fostered communications locally.  It was also the District Council’s responsibility to establish rest centres if they were needed.

·         Some residents of the Willows had reported that routine maintenance duties had not all been completed. A Member asked where responsibility lies. Ms Chilton explained that AVDC had undertaken all of their duties on land which they own. The ditch on Ellen Road and some car parking areas are not AVDC land. A Member suggested that it might help residents understanding if there was a map which detailed the different landowners on the estate.  Ms Chilton agreed to provide this information.

Action: Ms Chilton

 

·         A Member asked how recommendations in the Section 19 reports by the Lead Local Flood Authority have been approached. Mr Gilmour confirmed that flood Repair and Renew grants had been issued to New Denham residents. Ms Chilton confirmed all section 19 recommendations had been completed by AVDC but she expressed the view that some residents of The Willows were still living in ignorance of the flood risks. Members were also advised that it was challenging to implement flood alleviation schemes, as with Local Authority budget cuts it was a risk to authorise feasibility studies when ultimately there was no guarantee that work could be funded.

·         District Councils commented that it was difficult to get engage with residents, even in areas that had been flooded previously.  In light of funding cuts in the public sector, encouraging community resilience could be a valuable way of bridging the gap. Parish and Town Councils and community groups could play an important role in focussing on the vulnerable in their area during an emergency situation.  A Member commented that officers should visit each Local Area Forum to promote this message.

The Chairman thanked all the District Council representatives for attending the meeting.

 

Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

 

The Chairman welcomed Mrs Amanda Nobbs, Chairman of the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to the meeting.  Mrs Nobbs provided the Committee with an overview of the role of the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee before taking Members’ questions.  The following main points were noted:

·         The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is one of 12 regional committees across the UK and covers a large area which includes 47 upper tier authorities. The Committee has three main roles - to ensure coordinated plans across organisations; approving the investment programme to manage flood risk across the Thames catchment and ensuring that local authorities, utility companies and other agencies work together. The Committee has a large number of members with various areas of expertise.

·         Flood risk cannot be tackled with an annual investment programme, so a six year programme was now being considered to address risks both large and small, ranging from longer term large projects to smaller community ones. The Committee was able to raise funding through a Council Tax levy and by promoting joint working on projects, further Government funding could be awarded and greater efficiencies could also be achieved.

·         The Chairman commented that residents had experienced difficulties in obtaining a quick response when they raised the alarm during the flooding. Amanda Nobbs noted that this resonated with other areas and advised that there needed to be a system which responded to community feedback quickly.

·         Ms Nobbs explained that the Government is trying to promote more sophisticated and effective measures to protect properties from flooding rather than relying on sandbags.

·         Many plans have been made nationally to protect against flooding and moving defences as well as bringing in temporary defences.

·         The Committee were advised that BCC and other members of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee can propose projects for funding. The Marlow Flood Alleviation Scheme is part-funded by the Committee.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Nobbs for attending the meeting and confirmed that the Committee would share their findings with her in due course.  Members also extended their thanks to all the BCC officers who had supported the Committee’s Flooding Inquiry. A further meeting of the Committee would be arranged to enable Members to consider all the evidence they had gathered and develop recommendations for their report which would be presented to Cabinet later in the Autumn. A date would be circulated to Members after the meeting.

                        Action: Committee Adviser