Agenda item

To consider an update to the Council’s flood risk management strategy

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 5 to 8, which gave an update on the progress made with the Lead Local Flood Authority’s (LLFA) duties under the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010 during 2018/19.

Parry Batth (Executive Member for Environment and Leisure) and Francesca Hobson (Flood Risk Manager) attended the meeting to answer Member queries and present the report.

The report focussed on 8 key areas of work for the LLFA, these being:

1.     Completion of a surface water management plan for Shinfield;

2.     Maintenance of the Section 21 asset register;

3.     Delivery of capital drainage schemes;

4.     Drainage revenue works;

5.     Commenting on planning applications in relation to flooding and drainage;

6.     Development of a natural flood risk management scheme for the Lower Loddon;

7.     Collaboration with the University of Reading;

8.     Designation of additional flood defence structures.

The report outlined that the primary responsibility of the LLFA was to manage the coordination of surface water and groundwater flood risk in order to protect residents from flooding. A successful grant funding application to DEFRA enabled the LLFA to complete a flood risk management scheme to the south of Church Lane in Shinfield. This work was being carried out on third party land and involved the creation of a 250m ditch and a 190m bund to protect properties on Church Lane from surface water flooding. In future, Officers would be carrying out surface water management plans for all Towns and Parishes at risk of surface water flooding within the Borough.

The Section 21 asset register had been updated during 2018/19, which provided a database of features or structures within the Borough that, in the opinion of the Authority, could affect flood risk. Officers across the Council had access to the register via a mapping system, and part of the information had been made publically available to allow residents to report faults with individual assets across the Borough.

Officers had delivered a number of capital drainage schemes in 2018/19, including at Wilderness Road, Kentons Lane and Gipsy Lane. During 2018/19, Officers were expecting to deliver capital drainage schemes for Pound Lane, Pepper Lane, Jouldings Lane and Barkham Ride.

Over 40,000 gullies had been emptied by Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) contractor in 2018/19 as part of the annual gully cleansing programme. Silt levels had been recorded within the gullies to allow officers to develop a risk based approach to gully cleansing going forwards. In addition, 1,215 drainage problems had been responded to on the highways network after being reported by residents.

During 2018/19, the Flooding and Drainage Team had provided consultation responses to 460 planning applications, which had helped to ensure that the most appropriate drainage strategies were being implemented by developers. This had, in turn, contributed to a reduction of surface water flood risk across the Borough.

A preliminary design was being developed by officers to investigate the feasibility of delivering a natural flood risk management scheme to the south of the M4, to contribute to a reduced risk of flooding to the highways network and properties along the Lower River Loddon.

Officers had been working and collaborating with a number of students at the University of Reading on water related studies. This had provided WBC with more accurate and detailed information regarding flood risk and water quality across the Borough. This collaboration was expected to continue and develop further going forwards.

Officers had formally designated a number of additional features and structures within the Borough during 2018/19 which could have an impact of flood risk should significant changes be made to them. The benefit of designating these structures for the LLFA was that the owner would be unable to change the feature/structure without previous consent. Any successive owners would also be made aware that the feature/structure was significant in terms of flood risk.

In the ensuing discussion Members raised the following points and queries:

·           How were new build houses and developments managed in terms of assessing potential flood risk? Officer response – Any structure that could pose a significant flood risk could be designated under the flood and water management act, which gave the LLFA emergency powers and meant the owner could not change the structure without the consent of the local authority. The Flooding and Drainage Team routinely responded to major planning applications and worked with developers to minimise their impact of flood risk within the Borough.

·           How was WBC’s strategy towards gulley cleansing being altered? Officer response – Contractors were now measuring the percentage of silt build-up when a gulley was being routinely cleansed. This would provide data to allow contractors to target gullies which had a higher level of silt build-up more regularly, which would reduce issues where a ‘problem’ gulley could become blocked.

·           What measures were being put in place to relieve root infiltration issues? Officer response – The Wokingham Borough had 100’s of kilometres of pipes within its network, which made it incredibly difficult to have a cleansing programme for the pipe network. Officers were looking at capital funding bids for schemes to maintain and clean the pipe network in future. There was potential to put measures in place to protect existing pipes, however, it was usually more effective and efficient to replace an existing pipe with more substantial infrastructure.

·           Did WBC charge residents for sandbags when they were required? Officer response – WBC never charged residents for sandbags and currently had a good stock of sandbags for emergency situations. It was, however, the residents’ responsibility to dispose of the sandbags when no longer required. Officers worked with residents in flood prone areas to identify measures they could take to protect their property from potential flooding.

·           Had the amount of planning application consultation responses sent by the Flooding and Drainage Team increased in recent years? Officer response - The number of planning application consultation responses sent by the Flooding and Drainage Team had significantly increased when compared to previous years. In 2016, new obligations were put in place for the team to respond to surface water flood risk for planning applications. The Flooding and Drainage Team had increased from one to five officers in recent years, which had enabled consultation responses to be sent for both major applications and a number of householder applications.

·           How did WBC work with the Environment Agency (EA) on a collaborative basis? Officer response – As the LLFA, WBC met with the EA on a monthly basis to look at issues within the Borough. WBC also worked closely with the EA when responding to planning application consultations.

·           Did the Flooding and Drainage Team have any influence in planning policy, for example when a resident paved over their front garden to provide additional parking? Officer response – An Executive sub-strategy was agreed in 2017 which provided a set of conditions regarding planning policy within the Borough relating to flood risk management. There was a lot of weight behind this sub-strategy and the team worked with householder applicants to ensure that the conditions were followed.

·           What was being done to address flooding in Lower Earley? Officer response – A flood risk management plan was being developed, which would cover all of Lower Earley Way. This scheme was similar to the scheme delivered in Shinfield. This was taking some time as a bid had been placed to secure capital drainage funding, and this process was inherently lengthy.

PhialaMehring, Vice Chair of the national Flood Forum, was invited by the Chairman to offer comment on the issues raised during the meeting. Phiala praised the work of Francesca Hobson and the whole of the Flooding and Drainage Team at WBC, citing their in depth knowledge and compassion for the communities they served. Phiala stated that in the shadow of climate change, more funding was required to address and rectify flooding issues and risks. Phiala added that more lateral thinking was required to address flood risk, and cited examples of London Boroughs which had conducted green space audits to identify areas where sites, such as schools and playgrounds, could be ‘greened-up’ or where rain gardens could be installed to capture rain water. Phiala stated that Local Authorities needed to strive to engage with communities and seek out an appetite to improve their environment.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Parry Batth, Francesca Hobson and Phiala Mehring be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)     The Committee continue to work with the Flooding and Drainage Team to achieve effective flood risk management within the Borough;

3)     An update on flood risk management progress during 2019/20 be scheduled to the Committee in 12 months’ time.