Agenda item

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 set amount of funding from Central Government. However, works were still carried out in other areas, for example this year a surface water flood risk management plan had been carried out in Earley in addition to a lot of capital works being carried out in other Borough locations.

·           The A329, specifically the roundabout section in Winnersh, had been flooded in February 2020. Was there a reason why this particular location had not been included within the investigations? Officer response – When the river backed up the gulleys and drainage system at the roundabout, flooding occurred. Therefore, investigation was not required as the issue was known. Officers wanted to deliver a scheme to prevent this issue from occurring, and were awaiting funding and liaison with stakeholders to do so.

·           Officers and contractors should be thanked for undertaking works to install all CCTV and drainage works and surveys across the Borough, during a year with lower road usage. There had been a noticeable decrease in flooding in a number of usual problem locations.

·           There had been instances of some gulleys not being emptied for some time in some locations. Officers were aware and were meeting with the relevant Members.

·           Could a couple of examples be provided regarding partnership working, and how it reduced flooding? Officer response – A particular focus was using SUDs to reduce flood risk, to move towards sustainable drainage systems in above ground locations, as these had additional benefits such as amenity value.

·           Would the Section 21 asset register include dams such as Bearwood Lakes, which would therefore be included within the Borough’s emergency plan? Officer response – None of the dams were formally recorded within the asset register, as they were recorded through the Reservoir Act via the Environment Agency.

·           When this item came to Committee in 2019, concerns were raised over residents paving over their front garden to convert it into additional parking when planning to extend their properties. At the time, a sub strategy had been agreed, however instances were still occurring commonly. What was being done to address this issue? Officer response – On a small scale this did not cause a significant impact, however, if this was happening frequently then the cumulative impact resulted in a large area where water would now run off and create surface water flood risk. Where possible, an informative was added to planning applications asking that green space be retained where possible. In some instances, planning permission was not required for some work. Officers were looking at the possibility of a Berkshire wide policy, or a joint communications strategy.

·           Had ground water levels now risen after a period of lower than average rainfall? Officer response – A few years ago there were concerns as the ground water levels were low. Over the past couple of years there had been increased rainfall, leading to relatively stable water levels. This was subject to the changing weather.

·           Thames Water had been brilliant regarding their communications on ongoing works. It was noted that making a note of their reference number, and always referring to that number allowed all works to be noted down in one central place.

·           There had been an issue of flooding for several years in the area of Sandford Lane in Woodley, when would this issue be addressed? Officer response – Sandford Lane flooded on a regular basis as it crossed two sections of river, causing fluvial flooding. One solution to this involved raising the road out of the flood plain, compensating for the material being used to raise it out of the flood plain immediately next to the flood plain, where there was no suitable location to do so given the amounts of materials involved. A much wider natural flood risk management scheme was planned, which would hopefully hold back water downstream of the M4 motorway, resulting in water being released much slower towards the River Thames, thereby reducing flood risk. This scheme would require a significant amount of funding a stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement had started positively, and an application had been made to DEFRA for their innovative flood resilience fund which, if successful, could be used to deliver this scheme.

·           Was data relating to how many times an asset was visited recorded? Officer response – Yes, this was recorded and could be provided to Members on an annual basis.

·           Loddon Bridge Road had a number of properties that were at risk of flooding, were any works planned to help these properties? Officer response – As these properties were close to the River Loddon, they could be at risk of fluvial and surface water flooding. Fluvial flooding risk would be reduced by the scheme mentioned above. Significant works regarding drainage had been carried out in that area to reduce the risk of surface water flooding, and therefore if this was still an issue then officers would take this away.

·           Was South Lake the responsibility of WBC, and if so were we responsible if it flooded? Officer response – South Lake was owned by WBC, however it was not within the remit of the officers presenting this report. However, as it was a WBC asset then reports and mitigation measures would be in place.

·           Members wished to thank officers for the thorough and well-presented report.

·           Members wished to thank officers for the works carried out at Egremont Drive.

·           There had been hope of other funding sources for the aforementioned major flood risk management scheme, had this materialised? Officer response – WBC had made an application to Thames Water, and were shortlisted as one of two authorities. Very little was then heard for a year and a half, and Thames Water had to significantly reduce the number of authorities that they could offer funding, from nine authorities to three. As a result, WBC unfortunately did not receive this funding. Officers were hoping to hear in April 2021 whether they DEFRA would progress our application to the next stage, which would require submission of a business case. Officers were hopeful that their feasibility case would help with this application. In addition, Thames Water had said that they were impressed with the works carried out within the Borough, and a partnership had now been created. There was a minimum of £125,000 available for the Borough to carry out surface water schemes.

·           How many sandbags did the Borough have available? Officer response – Approximately 1500 filled bags and 4000 empty bags which were ready to be filled were available.

·           Was there a threshold of silt in a gulley that then led to it being cleared? Officer response – The percentages were actually in relation to how much of the inlet or outlet are covered. If it was over fifty percent, then works would be immediately carried out. Currently, when the percentage went above twenty percent, works were being carried out.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Parry Batth and Francesca Hobson be thanked for attending the Committee;

2)     Data relating to how often assets were visited be provided to Members on an annual basis;

3)     Officers and contractors be thanked for their hard work relating to flood risk management within the Borough over the last year;

4)     An update return to the Committee in approximately 12 months’ time.