Issue - meetings

To consider an update on Flood Risk Management within the Borough

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 5 to 10, which gave an update on flood risk management within the Borough.

The report outlined 11 key areas whereby actions had been undertaken in the past twelve months. These actions included the completion of Surface Water Management Plan for Earley, emergency response to flooding and subsequent S19 incident reports, delivery of capital drainage schemes, and smart drainage trials.

Parry Batth (Executive Member for Environment and Leisure) and Francesca Hobson (Service Manager – Community, Heritage, Green & Blue Infrastructure) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

During the ensuing discussions, Members and the invited expert guest raised the following points and queries:

·           The asset register was critical both for proposed developments and retrospective, as a lot of detail could be hidden in areas such as slight dips in the ground.

·           The NFM feature in Maiden Erlegh was brilliant and fundamental piece of work. There had been internal flooding further down that section of ditch towards the river. Was the modelling for the aforementioned feature inclusive of the reach down towards the river? Officer response – Officers were concerned that the culvert at Egremont Drive was acting as a bottleneck, meaning that although it was causing flooding at that location it could lead to other problems downstream should it be removed. Whilst the consultant was carrying out these works, Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) ensured that they included all of that information in the modelling to ensure that the removal of the culvert would not have any adverse impact downstream. The contractor monitors this site on a weekly basis, compared to a monthly check for other locations within the Borough. In addition, the contractor would proactively check the site in the event of heavy rain.

·           What support was in place for residents whose homes flooded? Officer response – WBC was working to set up dedicated support groups, in addition to working with flood action volunteers. WBC was aiming to be as proactive as possible in setting up flood resilience groups, with the Swallowfield flood resilience group being an excellent example. These measures were key, as flooding had a longer psychological impact on affected persons.

·           In planning terms, some developments did not get built in the order they were envisaged. How was this managed to avoid a situation where an asset was not exactly where it should be? Officer response – The team had expanded over the years from two officers to six officers. This gave additional capacity to monitor these sort of situations. Lots of residents reported such instances, and officers were sent out to investigate.

·           Could the programme of when each area would receive a surface water management plan be detailed, in addition to how each area was prioritised? Officer response – In terms of priorities, historical reports of flooding were used alongside the surface water flood risk maps and reports from residents. Currently, 1 surface water management plan was being developer per year, and this was based on a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76