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 was sought on what arrangements were in place to ensure that Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) were maintained.

The ATML commented in response that the council did offer to adopt SUDS assets seeking to ensure that there was a sustainable long term solution for their management.  There was a proactive approach to the emptying of highway gullies with a programme to deal with every gully within the next 18 months to years.  Reactive work took place in response to specific issues.  In terms of issues arising from land use the firm was working closely with the Wye Catchment Partnership and the Wye and Usk foundation.  The Environment Agency tended to take the lead on run off from fields because it had greater powers available to it to act.  Locality stewards were working with lengthsmen to improve understanding of issues.  Gullies were being recorded and marked.  Asset mapping had taken place and the action plan accompanying the strategy identified the need to develop and maintain a register of assets that were considered to have a significant effect on a flood risk.  He also reported that Welsh Water was actively developing a rainscape solution to manage the amount of surface water entering sewers.  Developers were not permitted to increase surface water run off.  SUDS were required.

·        It was asked whether sufficient data was being provided by Severn Trent.

·        A public facing document needed to be produced

·        It was suggested that the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Trust had useful information and skills in relation to water management that could be drawn upon.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     the strategy should recognise the importance of clear and effective communication of responsibilities in respect of all relevant parties;

              (b)     the executive be advised of the importance of preparing a joined up implementation plan;

              (c)     careful consideration be given to how land use and management affect flood risk, ways of educating people on this point and developing mitigating measures;

              (d)     a public facing document be produced setting out what to do in the event of flooding and relevant legal remedies for those affected;

              (e)     BBLP be requested to seek information from lengthsmen and local councillors on local conditions and identified flood risks as a matter of course; and

              (f)      the Statutory Scrutiny Officer be informed of the annual review of the action plan and following consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman consider whether there are any material matters requiring consideration by the Committee.