Agenda item

(indicative timing: 2:05 to 3:05pm)

In attendance for this item:

Worcestershire County Council:

Paul Smith, Assistant Director for Highways and Transport Operations

Rachel Hill, Assistant Director for Economy, Major Projects, and Waste

Steph Simcox, Deputy Chief Finance Officer

Michael Green, Senior Flood Risk Consultant

Glenn Lucitt, Contract Project Manager

Mark Morris, Highways Drainage Manager

Severn Trent Water – Tim Smith, Flooding and Partnerships Manager

South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership (SWLDP)  - Martyn Cross

North Worcestershire Water Management (NWWM) - Richard Osborne

The Panel received the Annual report on Flood Risk Management in Worcestershire. The Senior Flooding Risk Consultant (SFRO) gave a presentation, commencing with a reminder of the background context of the report and highlighting the Council’s responsibilities as Lead local Flood Authority. The following provides a summary of the key points highlighted in the presentation and the discussion points and questions raised by the Panel during this time.

Understanding and prioritising flood risk

·         The Panel was reminded that all of the partners had worked together on 3 major flood events during the year, with January 2021 being the most significant.

·         A new template had been developed for Section 19 flood investigation reports, which would make the process more efficient.

·         With regard to the development of the new Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, to follow on from the current 6-year strategy, the SFRO advised that guidance from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency (EA) was awaited. Once this was received a timeline for the development of a new strategy would be able to be drawn up.

·         Local site investigations had been completed in Hagley, Redditch and Wythall following recent flood events and flood risk plans were being produced as a result. The Representative from NWWM highlighted that these areas had been impacted by multiple sources of flooding, and therefore the plans were needed to bring all relevant partners together.

·         The Cabinet Member commented that the Council’s role was one of facilitator, working in partnerships with other agencies.

·         A Member raised an issue concerning Droitwich town centre which had suffered from surface water flooding resulting from a main drain being blocked by developers. The SFRO confirmed that both District Councils and the County Council (as statutory consultees) had a responsibility for sustainable development. The SDLWP representative, commented that he was unaware of this issue, and it was agreed to be followed up after the meeting.

Reducing the likelihood and impact of flooding

New schemes and developments:

·         The full list of completed flood alleviation schemes was included in the appendix to the report, along with others that were planned as well as drainage schemes in the pipeline.

·         For the past 3 years a natural flood management programme had been funded by Defra, which had proved to be very successful. A short video was shown to the Panel of examples of the types of interventions which had been installed in river catchment areas. A new bid for continued funding had been submitted and funding was now in the process of being secured for the next 6 years.

·         Representations had been made on 2040 planning applications by the Council, the South Worcestershire Land Drainage partnership, and North Worcestershire Water Management.

Maintaining the existing arrangements:

·         68 land drainage consents had been processed during the last year which provided a check that the flood risk was not being increased. The Panel was advised that for the main rivers this role was carried out by the Environment Agency, but for all other watercourses this was done by the land drainage Partnerships.

·         Severn Trent had carried out visits to a number of schools in Worcestershire and delivered key messages to children.

·         Gullies work – Members were pleased to be informed of the work that had been carried out on gullies during the year, including 100 broken gully connections repaired and 21,000 gullies jetted, which was very positive.

·         Flooding hotspots – a Member asked whether hotspots were monitored and whether remedial works were performed? The SFRO advised that the County’s surface water plan had over 1,000 known hotspots identified which were prioritised with associated actions. The flood team or highways team were involved, depending on whether properties or roads were affected. The Panel was informed that it was a live document, which was regularly updated when new locations were reported. All hotspots that were reported to the Council through the ‘report it’ site would automatically be included in the listing.  A link to this site would be provided for Members and they were encouraged to use it to ensure that every problem area was captured on the system.

·         In response to a Members question about whether building currently took place within the flood plains, the SFRO advised that generally building on flood plains was avoided but if it was necessary, the area would be flood compatible, e.g., with highways or public open space. The Representative of SWLDP advised that there had been no development in the south of the county on flood plains. The NWWM representative, commented that water management issues were complex, and historical flood data was constantly referred to. Information on the number of houses which had been built on a flood plain in the last 12 months was not available at the meeting.

·         A Member referred to a situation in Feckenham where the building of a house had directly contributed to a flooding issue for other properties through the unlawful accessing of a drain. He felt strongly that ownership of responsibility had to be a key priority of all landowners. It was agreed that this case would be looked at outside of the meeting.

·         The Chairman highlighted a case in his area where residents had paid for a scheme to be completed which had successfully solved the problem. He urged a concentration of effort from partners to find solutions for small-scale flooding problems which needed to be resolved. The NWWM representative advised that whilst previously national pressure had aimed resources at larger schemes, this had changed and funding was now available for smaller schemes via the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC).

·         The Cabinet Member responded to a question about the 6-year funding programme, advising that it was an Environment Agency programme, with the RFCC being responsible for allocating funding. Some of the major recent allocations included works at Alcester, Severn Stoke and Childswickham.

·         In terms of surface water flooding, the Cabinet Member explained that priority was focused on water causing flooding of residential properties and businesses. Other initiatives, for example raising the height of the New Road past the cricket ground in Worcester meant that the road should be able to remain open in times of flood.  

Flood response and recovery:

·         The response to and recovery from the major flood events was a key focus during the year.

·         Following new guidance from Defra, the Worcestershire multi-agency flood plan was updated and provided a new framework document for the response to flooding.

·         The temporary barriers at Beales Corner, Bewdley had been compromised and a plan was established to enable temporary barriers to be erected until a permanent barrier was provided. The Contract Project Manager explained that the barriers were the same as the previous ones, with the addition of concrete barriers behind to support them. The Cabinet Member advised that major works had taken place at Beales Corner, with the road having been resurfaced with a more resilient material to allow the barrier to have more traction. A training and installation programme had also taken place.

Governance and Partnerships

·         The Panel was informed that working together with partners, for example through the River Severn Partnership allowed strategic level opportunities to be developed. Other local partnerships had led to economies of scale being achieved and allowed access to different sources of funding.

Communications and Engagement

·         Community resilience initiatives were encouraged as was the development of flood groups. Crucial support was provided in partnership with the National Flood forum.

·         In response to a question, the SFRO confirmed there was a flood group for the Powick area which was affiliated to the Flood Forum. He advised that work with agencies was ongoing to try to reduce the incidence of flooding in that area.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Flood Risk Officer for his presentation. Members then proceeded to ask some further questions to which the following responses were provided:

·         When looking to set up a Flood group, residents could obtain practical help and support from the National Flood Forum to identify priorities, facilitate the setting up of the group and initiate meetings with relevant agencies.

·         The adoption of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) – The Severn Trent representative advised that from October 2020 Water Companies had been able to adopt some SuDS features if they could be defined as sewers. He explained that the definition of a sewer had been broadened to include some SuDS. The option to offer SuDS features (to Severn Trent to maintain) was now available to developers, but the take-up was slow, with plans taking a lengthy time to come through and none as yet going all the way through to adoption. If developers incorporated SuDS, they were not required to pay an ongoing fee to the Water Company, but instead the drainage charge would be included in the surface water fee to homeowners. It was noted that the Government was considering setting up SuDS approval bodies.

·         In respect of a land-owners legal obligation to others when they created flooding problems for others, the NWWM representative advised that landowners had a legal duty to pass water on unimpeded, to allow nature to take its course. The SWLDP representative highlighted that in the past 50 years there had been significant problems created as a result of much larger land areas being contained within farms with greater run-off and increased rainfall levels.

·         In terms of legal powers that could be used where problems were being created, the Panel was informed that the Land Drainage Act allowed action to be taken where channels were being blocked, although there was little that could be done in respect of run-off. If issues were creating life threatening situations, Worcestershire Regulatory Services would take urgent action. The SRFO highlighted that the law was complicated around land drainage issues and planning enforcement for each case was different.

·         The Severn Trent representative advised that developers were required to separate foul and surface water systems. A combined sewer was the last option that they would want water to flow into. Severn Trent took a proactive approach to this issue determining whether extra capacity was required to the network at an early stage. Home purchasers could find out about connection issues for their property as part of the usual information supplied to house buyers. It was also highlighted that public sewer records were available, and that plans would also show sewers on sites which were still under development.

The Chairman thanked the partners for their contribution to the Annual report and to the meeting.

The Panel agreed that they would urge the Cabinet Member to continue to support additional funding for flooding issues and for drainage/gullies work to be continued in the 2022-23 Budget.