To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor A Warmington.

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

Councillor EPJ Harvey substituted for Councillor A Warmington.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

Agenda item 7: Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Councillors BA Baker and WLS Bowen declared non-pecuniary interests as Council appointees to the River Lugg Internal Drainage Board.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 9 May 2017.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 May 2017 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Thursday 6 July 2017.

Accepted questions will be published as a supplement prior to the meeting.

Please submit questions to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk

None.

To receive any written questions from members of the council.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Thursday 6 July 2017.

Accepted questions will be published as a supplement prior to the meeting.

Please submit questions to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk

None.

To seek the committee’s views on the council’s draft sustainable modes of travel to school strategy to inform cabinet’s consideration of the strategy.

The Committee’s views were sought on the council’s draft Sustainable Modes of Travel to School Strategy (SMOTS) to inform cabinet’s consideration of the strategy.

The Transportation Strategy Manager (TSM) gave a presentation.  A copy of the presentation slides had been previously circulated.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made. (References in brackets are to the page number in the published agenda papers.

·        (p30) It was suggested that there was some ambiguity in figure 4, travel choices by settlement.

·        (p28)  The reference to the possibility of the vacant seat payment scheme being withdrawn at any time was questioned.  The Admissions and Transport Policy Manager (ATPM) clarified the operation of the scheme.  The Head of Transport and Access Services (HTAS) suggested that whilst factually correct the rather technical wording in the SMOTS needed to be refined.

·        It was asked whether journey times and air quality should form part of the targets in the strategy.

·        It was asked what the cost of undertaking the work on the strategy was.  The TSM and HTAS replied that it was not costed as such and commented on the amount of officer time involved and various funding sources that were available. 

·        The response rate to the questionnaire issued to parents was extremely low making it difficult to have confidence in the robustness of the conclusions being drawn from the data.  Councillors could not support and defend policies based on such poor data.  It was questioned whether a more focused approach to securing data would be more cost effective and more beneficial.

The HTAS commented that prior to the requirement to produce SMOTS schools had been required by Government to complete the pupil level annual school census (plasc).  There had been a move away from this top down approach.

·        The cabinet member – health and wellbeing commented on the public health benefits that could be gained from behavioural change and encouraging healthier modes of travel to school and the importance of securing the input of the public health team.  A Member suggested that it was important that schools were made aware of the public health data.

·        It was asked whether there was any correlation between accidents and where travel plans were not in place.  The HTAS agreed to seek clarification.

·        (p38) The HTAS agreed to clarify why the bikeability scheme was delivered to level 2 and not to level 3.

·        (p15)  The TSM clarified that the reference to the Hereford Transport packages being likely to include cycling and walking measures simply reflected the fact that the transport packages were evolving.  There was a wide range of proposals.  These would be subject to public consultation.

·        In relation to a concern questioning the way in which updating of the strategy had been undertaken the HTAS explained that the original strategy had been produced in 2009.  Guidance did not specify review dates but required the strategy to be published every year.  There had been updates to elements of the strategy but these had not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To review the draft high level strategic document and determine any recommendations to improve its effectiveness.

The Committee was invited to review the draft high level strategic document and determine any recommendations to improve its effectiveness.

The Directorate Services Team Leader gave a presentation.  A copy of the presentation slides had been previously circulated.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·        The sustainability of the expectation placed on local communities to self-help was questioned.

·        Regarding the mitigation of flood risks identified within the strategy, there was a feeling that the requisite proactive preventative work was not being carried out. Confirmation was sought that the allocation of funding within the current contract with Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) was capable of mitigating the flood risks identified within the strategy. In response it was clarified that a risk-based approach was taken targeting resources and funding at those areas that were most susceptible to flooding.

The Asset Management Team Leader (AMTL) commented that the contract was recognised nationally as performing well and efficient.  Resources were in place to deliver the contract.  Work had to be prioritised.

A Member questioned whether the contract was actually working efficiently commenting that there were a number of instances where the contractor seemed unresponsive and drainage problems occurred regularly and repeatedly at the same locations.

·        There was a lack of clarity about the respective responsibilities of landowners and the council, for example in respect of clearing ditches, and communication needed to be improved.

·        There was a lack of connection between the strategy and the facts on the ground.

·        An implementation plan was needed to ensure that actions identified were completed in a co-ordinated way.

·        It was remarked that water courses ran through some of the strategic housing sites in the core strategy.  It was asked if the Environment Agency models could be relied upon and to what extent the council could review the Agency’s assessments or had to take them at face value.  It was also asked if the council drew on local knowledge as part of its evidence gathering.

The ATML commented on the complexity of flood modelling.  BBLP did review planning applications and did draw on local knowledge.  He also confirmed that the firm did also explore sources of available funding including s106 contributions.  Funding was limited and priority was given to where funding from the environment agency could be secured.

The cabinet member – infrastructure commented on the work of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) and the Environment Agency’s strategy to manage fluvial flooding.

·        Surface water run off needed to be managed and respective responsibilities of all the agencies involved made clear.

·        Section 10.1 of the report acknowledged that changes to land use and land management affected flood risk but it was questioned whether the approach to mitigate this risk was sufficiently joined up; and whether local knowledge from the lengthsmen and parish councils was actively sought

·        It was also asked how much proactive work and how much reactive work was undertaken and how it was ensured that measures were proportionate to the risk.

·        Clarification  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To review the committee’s work programme.

The Committee reviewed its work programme.

The Chairman undertook to explore with the Vice-Chairman a request that the delivery of housing growth targets should be included in the work programme.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     the draft work programme as set out at appendix 1 to the report be approved;

              (b)     the committee should contribute to the response to the consultation on West Mercia Fire and Rescue Governance as requested; and

              (c)     a standing panel of up to 5 members be appointed to maintain a watching brief as proposals for the Minerals and Waste local plan develop, with Councillors Bowen (Chairman) and Swinglehurst appointed to it and other nominations to be sought from Group Leaders.

The next scheduled meeting is Monday 11 September 2017 (10:30 am).

Monday 11 September 2017