Agenda item

(To receive a report by Paul Brookes, County Flood Risk Manager, which informs the Committee of the position of all current S.19 flood investigations in the County)

Consideration was given to a report which informs the Committee of the position of all current S.19 flood investigations in the County.  It was reported that the team was working through the 140 flood investigations listed in Appendix A to the report.  It was acknowledged that this work was resource intensive and it would take time.  It was important to be able to get on site as quickly as possible in order to start gathering evidence.

It was also noted that there had been recognition from the County Council that more needed to be done to address flooding issues, as additional money had been allocated in the budget.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was highlighted that more people were experiencing water coming into their gardens, garages and outbuildings, but not entering their property.  The County Council was encouraged to use the report to ensure that external buildings were included, as there were so many near misses which should be included as a S.19 investigation, but currently did not meet the criteria.

·         One member commented that their village suffered from sewage flooding, and it was queried whether these incidents needed to be included as the water was flowing into a fresh water beck.

·         It was confirmed that there was an extra £2m of funding into the flood arena, £1m was for S19 investigations, and £1m for joint works.

·         It was queried whether the numbers of staff were being increased to accommodate the increased numbers of investigations.  Members were advised that the flood investigations were commissioned internally, and the team that they were commissioned through had taken on extra staff, and there was additional capacity through the use of the Professional Services contract.

·         It was queried whether there were trained professionals who were available to deal with the increase in the number of investigations.  Members were advised that they were sufficiently able to do the work that needed to be done under S.19.  There was access to relevant resource through the contract with WSP.  However, nationally there was a shortage of trained water engineers.

·         It could be seen from the graph included within the report that it had been an exceptional year in terms of the number of flood investigations undertaken.

·         A member commented that if it had been their property that had flooded they would be frustrated if they had to wait for a reason for the flooding due to a lack of resources.

·         It was queried whether, for surface water flooding that did not go into a property, there could be a list of these incidents.  This was especially important amongst villages.

·         It was noted that in Appendix A, the investigations were grouped according to date rather than by location.  There had been several incidents in Horncastle, but they were spread throughout the document.  It was queried whether it would be better to group them together for easier analysis.

·         It was reported that during the recent heavy rain, residents in Horncastle had received flood alerts, despite the alleviation scheme being at 25% capacity and it was queried why these alerts had been sent.  Members were advised that a flood alert was the first stage of warning, and was to advise residents to be prepared.  A flood warning was issued when it was expected that flooding was likely.  The issuing of a severe flood warning meant there was a danger to life and a decision to issue this would be taken in conjunction with partners and the emergency services.  It was noted that in the previous weeks, all three of these had been issued.  Residents were encouraged to stay signed up for flood alerts, as the flood alleviation scheme did not remove all residual risk.

·         It was noted that a list of 'near misses' was kept and was used as a basis for investigations in those areas.  It was noted that investigations of near misses could be carried out without the constriants of a formal process.

·         It was noted that some of the near misses were caused by surface water run-off from the highway, and there was now a joined up approach to this as the County Council had committed additional money for highways.

·         Investigations needed to be done properly and provide actions which could be followed up.  This approach was welcomed, and it was also commented that the hard work that the team did in regard to S.19 investigations had been seen and was not celebrated enough.

·         The incidents which did not qualify for a S19 investigation included sewage going into outbuildings, but this would only trigger an investigation if the water entered living accommodation.  However, this situation often meant that residents were unable to flush their toilets.   This was a situation which had been ongoing since the 1980s, but under present legislation this was not considered internal flooding.

·         Members were advised that where there were issues with sewage, whether it triggered a S19 investigation or was dealt with elsewhere, it would still be investigated, but was not part of the S19 process.  S.19 had been introduced to examine and manage surface water flooding.  Issues around sewage should be dealt with by Anglian Water as the water management company.

·         The opportunity for Highways officers to speak with the Committee would be welcomed.

·         It was highlighted that some of the older reports had an estimated date of completion of 2015 and were still listed as on-going.  It was queried whether these could be brought up to date with a more accurate estimated completion date.

·         It was noted that there were things that people could do to prevent flooding in their properties.  This was a message that needed to be delivered back to the public.  There was also a lot that could be done to contain water further upstream.

·         It was suggested that at the next meeting, Anglian Water gave a presentation about the work that they had done and also to reflect on the impact of the recent weather.

·         There was also the need to consider water as an asset and how it could be moved around.

RESOLVED

1.    That the comments made in relation to the investigations undertaken in the County under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 be noted.

2.    That the Committee receive a report at a future meeting regarding 'near misses' in terms of S19 investigations

3.    That the Committee receive a presentation from Anglian Water