Agenda item

The Head of Strategy and Economic Development, the Flood Risk Manager, the Strategic Planning and Environmental Policy Officer and the Cabinet Member for Environment had been invited to present Worcestershire's Flood Risk Management Annual Report 2017.

Representatives from the Environment Agency (Richard Bentley, Partnerships & Strategic Overview Team Leader for Shropshire & Worcestershire), and from Severn Trent (Tim Smith, Flooding Analyst, Asset Management) had also been invited.

The Agenda included the Flood Risk Management in Worcestershire Annual Report 2017 and those present summarised the roles and responsibilities of their respective organisations, and the main points from the Annual Report.

In relation to the Annual Report and flooding in Worcestershire, the following main points were raised:

·       In addition to the roles of Worcestershire County Council (WCC), the Environment Agency (EA) and Severn Trent, district councils also had duties and powers and also undertook work on behalf of WCC.

·       Partnership working with the district councils was described as excellent

and it was clarified that duties delegated to them related mainly to land drainage (smaller water courses and ditches). The district councils helped with administering apps, enforcement powers, development of schemes and surface water responsibilities. The role of WCC was more strategic whereas the districts acted as 'partners on the ground'.

·       A Panel member pointed out that she was unaware of this relationship with her own district council and queried whether there were different levels of engagement? It was confirmed that whilst relations had been variable, discussions had now taken place with all district councils and over time partnerships had formed from alignments in the north and in the south of the county.

·       WCC's duties came from the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act legislative Acts and importantly, WCC was now a consultee for major planning schemes.

·       In response to a query, it was confirmed that virtually no prosecutions had been necessary, which the Flood Risk Manager was pleased to have avoided, although a north Worcestershire issue may prompt this need in the future.

·       It was confirmed that flood risk registers included known risk areas (15), as well as potential flood risks. Although predicting all risks was tricky, WCC was confident in its ability to do so, which was based on modelling – this could not be precise however.

·       The Chairman asked how knowledge of potential flood risk was gained and the EA representative said that verifying reports of flooding was crucial.  Worcestershire had a lot of good archive data as well as that from university projects, theoretical models, all of which was fed back to partners. Not everything could be captured or predicted but challenge was also helpful with this checking process.

·       The EA had a dedicated telephone number to direct callers to the appropriate organisational contact, and this would be made available to Panel members.

·       Could the public report information using similar online interactive elements as the WCC Hub?  The EA had a system for operatives, which it planned to roll out to residents, and the Panel hoped this would be in place for the next update.

·       The Severn Trent representative would send through a web-link to report queries.

·       Regarding Panel members' queries about residents' individual problems with flooding and who they should contact about the statutory river map, the advice was to contact the WCC Hub.  However the Flood Risk Manager was disappointed if normal ways of working had not assisted and would be happy to investigate. The EA representative pointed out that regarding queries over land registry, data from the Agency was an open source.

·       The Chairman asked about the difference between permit and consent.  An example was if a farmer wanted to do some work to improve drainage on the land, which some had complained the EA prevented.  The EA representative explained that all this information was available online, including applications. The EA looked at the activity involved and environmental considerations were given more weight than under previous legislation. The Chairman would be provided with details clarifying permitted activities about watercourse maintenance and the Flood Risk Manager would also share the web-link to information due to be published.

·       A problem was highlighted in respect of ownership of the considerable problems of highway drainage around the A45 going through Shatterford. Was there a policy on this? The Flooding Risk Manager was disappointed to hear about the problems and would investigate, however he confirmed issues were prioritised according to their impact, as not all could be dealt with at once.

·       In response to a query about whether there were timescales for the emergency planning and the response aims set out in the report, many of which seemed aspirational, it was agreed that the action plan from the Local Flood Risk Management Plan would be shared with the Panel. Assurance was given that WCC made sure it was prepared.

·       A member enquired about a flooding issue related to Redditch Eastern Gateway, which the Head of Strategy and Economic Development would contact him about outside the meeting. 

·       The Panel asked for an update on progress with Spatial Planning and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), following previous updates. The Severn Trent representative explained that key to this was whether SuDS were sewers? The Water Industry Act did not refer to SuDS as sewers, therefore Severn Trent could not adopt them. The Government was due to publish guidelines but had not yet done so. However he also referred to proposals being worked on nationally, in order for SuDS features to be broadly defined as sewers if constructed to specific standards. It was not a done deal but the water industry did recognise the gap. SuDS were part of the answer and there was a desire to come up with a sustainable solution.

·       The Chairman was aware of SuDS presenting major problems for developers and emphasized the need to tackle this issue, which would otherwise 'come back and bite'. He asked whether the situation would be clearer for the Panel's next update and the Severn Trent representative believed it would.

·       Regarding main river management (3.7 in report), the EA representative spoke about a definite shift in schemes bringing communities on board and giving them options.

·       It was confirmed that in Worcestershire the EA had a team of 14 inspectors, and the team had stabilized from previous reductions. An organisational chart for inspectors would be forwarded.

·       Regarding natural flood management (3.8), Worcestershire would be benefiting from funding over the next three years and the Severn Trent representative advised that incidences had reduced.  A lot of effort was put in, for example working with schools, developers and planners, to highlight problems which caused blockages, such as use of wipes. The Panel pointed out that councillors could have a role in this communication and leaflets and web-links would therefore be provided to them.

·       In response to a query, the Strategic Planning and Environmental Policy Officer reassured members that WCC was well resourced to respond to numbers of planning applications and reminded members that the Council was a statutory consultee for major applications (for example 10 or more houses, or of an area larger than 0.5 hectares), of which there were currently approximately 225 a year.  However minor applications were not looked at, and were accumulating; this was a national issue which WCC continued to raise. The EA representative advised that EA standard advice aimed to provide a safety net especially in high risk locations.

·       2017 was the anniversary of the 2007 flooding and Flood Risk Manager highlighted the importance of acknowledging this event, the impact of which still affected some residents. Significant work had been achieved since 2007 but there was still much to do.

·       The Cabinet Member for Environment emphasised the degree and volume of collaborative working which took place which gave a better informed view and meant that problems arising from previous decisions which shouldn't have been made, could be addressed.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their contribution.