Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs W Bowkett.

An apology was also received from Jonathan Glerum (Anglian Water).

No declaration of members' interest was received at this stage of the meeting.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Flood and Drainage Management Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 17 September 2018, be agreed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

No announcements were received.

(To receive a report from Deborah Campbell (Environment Agency), which invites the Committee to consider and comment on the activities of the Environment Agency including progress of key capital schemes)

Consideration was given to a report from the Environment Agency, which provided an update on the Environment Agency activities, including progress made on key schemes.

Deborah Campbell from the Environment Agency advised the Committee of the following issues:-

·         Boston Barrier – The Committee was advised that the Boston District Fishing Association would soon be locating to the completed facility downstream of the barrier location.  Piling works were underway; and fabrication of the barrier was now complete.  The Committee were invited to view what was happening with the Boston Barrier via twitter, or to visit the Boston Hub;

·         Boston Haven Banks – It was reported that through partnership working with the County Council the project had secured £1m of European funding for works to raise a number of low spots along the Haven Banks, which in conjunction with the barrier would help reduce the risk of flooding to the centre of Boston.  Confirmation was also given that a legal agreement between the County Council and the Environment Agency had been signed and the Committee was advised that the contract was expected to start in June 2019;

·         Saltfleet to Gibraltar Point Strategy Review – It was reported that following the 2018 flood risk management options consultation, work was ongoing to finalise the two preferred flood management options.  It was highlighted that one of the options was a significant step change from an economic point of view, with the building of hard rock structures on the beach to hold the sand for longer.  It was highlighted that currently between £5m - £7m was spent annually on the flood management option; under the hard structures proposal, the Committee was advised that the cost would be between £60m and £70m in the initial stages, but with lower annual maintenance costs subsequently.  It was highlighted further that the proposal was currently being considered by Executive Directors and the Treasury to see if they were happy with the option, prior to consultation; and

·         Black Sluice Catchment Works – The Committee was advised that the Black Sluice Pumping Station in Boston was to be decommissioned.  The Committee was advised that work was ongoing with Heritage Lincolnshire to identify possible alternative uses for the building.  It was noted that the gravity sluices would continue to be used as the primary means to reduce high flows in the South Forty Foot Drain.

A short discussion ensued, from which the following points were raised:-

·         What measures were in place to ensure that rabbit and badger holes were dealt with early?  The Committee was advised that there was a National Inspection Programme, which allowed for all assets to be inspected every six months. It was also highlighted that if any problems were identified members of the public could report them;

·         Horncastle Improvements - A question was asked whether all the outstanding issues concerning the Horncastle Flood Alleviation Scheme had been sorted.  The Committee was advised that the contractual element of the scheme was still progressing. (It was highlighted that this type of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

(To receive a report from Warren Peppard (Flood Risk & Development Manager), which provides the Committee with an update on the Sustainable Drainage Design & Evaluation Guide)

The Committee gave consideration to a report from Warren Peppard, Flood Risk & Development Manager, which provided an update on the document entitled 'Sustainable Drainage Design and Evaluation Guide'.

The report detailed the consequences of the Ministerial Statement in December 2014 and subsequent legislation which required that major developments should incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and that the systems used should take into account advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

It was highlighted that to reflect the LLFA's new role as both a consultee for surface water drainage, and as an advisor for SuDS, the County Council had over the last few years developed a number of local guidance documents.

Details of the three guidance documents were shown on page 22 of the report, these were:-

·         Lincolnshire Development Roads and Sustainable Drainage Design Approach;

·         Development Road and Sustainable Drainage Specification and Construction; and

·         Sustainable Drainage Design & Evaluation Guide.

The Committee was advised that the Flood Risk & Development Manager was currently promoting the latter document with local planning authorities in Lincolnshire.  It was noted that the document was being promoted as a local guidance document, which provided the development industry and all key stakeholders with a concise guide to SuDS best practice in Lincolnshire.

During a short discussion, the Committee raised the following points:-

·         Some members extended their thanks to the Flood Risk & Development Manager for the guide; as it was felt that it was an important tool for new developers and others to understand what was required;

·         A request was made for a training module to be created in readiness for the expected new planning committee members following the election.  It was highlighted that the module could either be delivered by the County Council, or prepared for District Councils to use.  Committee members felt that a copy of the document should be circulated to all members of the Committee.  Officers advised that meetings were held regularly with district council counterparts; and that open invitations had been extended to district councils for briefing sessions; and that this offer would be reinforced; and

·         One member enquired as to when the documents would be published on the website.  The Committee was advised that the first two documents were already on the website and that the design and evaluation guide would be available in the near future.

RESOLVED

1.    That the update on the document entitled 'Sustainable Drainage and Design Evaluation Guide' be received.

2.    That an update on the Sustainable Drainage and Design Evaluation Guide remain as a standing item on the agenda going forward.

(To receive a report from the Environment Agency, which provides the Committee with an update on Bulldog Bank)

Consideration was given to a report from the Environment Agency concerning Bulldog Bank.

The Growth and Environment Commissioner advised the Committee that in order to adapt to changing circumstances, Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) needed to be kept valid.  It was highlighted that there were various reasons which would justify a change to a SMP, which included, a severe event which had made an element of the existing SMP policy or action plan untenable. 

Details relating to the background and the current situation relating to Bulldog Bank were shown on pages 23 and 24 of the report.  The Committee was advised that the justification to repair Bulldog Bank had been examined; from which it had been ascertained that the economic and benefits assessment did not support the case for Flood Risk Grant in Aid, as there were no residential properties at risk and only a small area of golf course.

The report highlighted that the freshwater habitat behind Bulldog Bank was already adapting to saline intrusion; and that the designation of the wider site were focused on various dune types, coastal geomorphology and associated coastal flora and fauna.  The Committee was advised that the plan was to seek approval to duplicate the Managed Realignment into EPOCH 1 - present day to 2025, whilst retaining the principle to sustain flood risk to people and properties.

The Committee's attention was drawn to the map on page 29 of the report, which provided the Committee with the proposal to realign the sea bank to reflect the western dune alignment; and to remove references to Bulldog Bank.

All Options considered were detailed on pages 26 and 27 of the report and the Committee was advised that Option C would be used to update the Humber Estuary Coastal Authorities Group (HECAG) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Policy Unit.

The Committee was invited to consider and comment on the report and endorse the promoted approach as detailed.

During a short discussion, the Committee raised the following comments:-

·         One member queried the origins of the map.  Officers confirmed that the East Riding of Yorkshire had acted as the lead authority in developing the Shoreline Management Plan;

·         One member enquired as to whether 'managed alignment' was the same as retreat.  Officers confirmed that managed alignment was the same as retreat. It was noted that the term retreat was not used because it did not adequately convey the fact that carefully considered realignment was a designed and managed process;

·         Confirmation was sought as to whether the proposal referred to formed part of the Shoreline Management Plan that covered from Gibraltar Point northwards to Flamborough Head.  Officers confirmed that the proposal related to the southernmost section of the Shoreline Management Plan; and

·         Officers confirmed that work had been done to strengthen and raise the bank behind; and that Bulldog Bank would not be actively dismantled, but would be allowed to naturally erode.  Officers also confirmed that the second bank was of an adequate standard to provide protection.

RESOLVED

That the Flood and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(To receive a report from Paul Brookes (Flood Risk Manager), on the latest position of all current investigations in the County under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010)

(Members are asked to view the current Section 19 spreadsheets online (also contained in Appendix A) and inform Democratic Services in advance if they wish to highlight any particular sites at the forthcoming Scrutiny Committee meeting)

Consideration was given to a report from Paul Brookes, County Flood Risk Manager, which invited the Committee to consider and comment on the investigations undertaken in the County under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

The Flood Risk Manager advised the Committee that the report covered the period from 1 September 2018.  It was noted that there had been no new Section 19 investigations started in the current period, which was a reflection of the average or below average rainfall in the County. 

Appendix A to the report provided the Committee with a record of current investigations in the County that were being carried out in accordance with Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

During a short discussion, reference was made to the considerable length of time some of the investigations were taking.  Officers advised that the County Council could only make recommendations to the risk management authorities; the Council was unable to enforce any action.  The Council only had a duty to investigate.  Confirmation was also given that land was outside of a Section 19 investigation.  It was highlighted that growth flood risk could be dealt with through the planning process.  It was further highlighted that sewer/surface foul water was the responsibility of the sewer authority. 

One member enquired regarding the status of the Potterhanworth (Under Railway Bridge on Station Road) investigation, as detailed on page 40 of the report.  Officers agreed to respond direct to the member outside of the meeting. 

A further enquiry was asked relating to the Market Rasen Flood Alleviation Scheme.  Officers advised that the scheme had been finished last week.  The Committee was advised that the scheme had gone very well; and that the scheme would help protect 51 properties at a cost of £575,000.

RESOLVED

That the progress made on investigations undertaken within the County under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act be noted.

(To receive a report from Daniel Steel (Scrutiny Officer), which invites the Committee to consider its Work Programme for the coming year)

The Committee gave consideration to a report from Daniel Steel, Scrutiny Officer, which enabled the members to consider and comment on the content of its work programme, to ensure that scrutiny activity was focussed on areas of greatest benefit.

Pages 49 and 50 of the report provided the Committee with a copy of the work programme for the Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee up to 28 May 2019.

The Committee was reminded that the next meeting of the Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee would be held on 11 February 2019.

RESOLVED

That the Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee Work Programme, as presented, be agreed.