Contact your Parish Council

Present:

Members                                                 

Councillor English (Chairman)

Councillor Brice                                      

Councillor Garten                                    

Councillor Jeffery

Councillor Cleator

Reserve Member

Councillor Springett

Item

Minute

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Substitute Members

Councillor Springett was present as Substitute Member until Councillor Brice’s arrival.

3. Next Steps of Review

The Democratic Services Officer raised the review’s continuation and conclusion with the Group given the short time until the end of the municipal year.

The outstanding information from National Highways, and the Environment Agency was noted, with no further attempts to contact the latter recommended.

The options raised were:

·         Conclude the review by April 2023, focusing on the actions that the group would like to put forward for presentation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC); OR

·         Continue with the review, with a brief pause between late April to approximately June 2023. This will allow further information to be received and produce the report, however the group would have to be re-appointed by the OSC, and the review would probably be completed between August-September 2023.

The significant amount of information provided already, and the current list of possible actions was lengthy, which whilst not a bad thing, was something for the group to consider in deciding which option to proceed with.

The Group supported a third option; to conclude the review and have a second stage review to examine any outstanding issues, mainly the lobbying and funding requests received by external stakeholders.

4. Review of Evidence

(Including meeting minutes and any other information provided)

 The Group reviewed the list of possible actions in turn and agreed the following actions.

(See table appended to the minutes).

5. Summary of Agreed Actions

Actions: That

1.   A second stage review be put forward for the OSC to consider; and

2.   The Democratic Services Officer draft the report for circulation ahead of the next meeting, in accordance with the actions agreed following review of the list of possible actions.

6. Duration of Meeting

5.30 p.m. to 7.45 p.m.

Meeting

Request

Action Agreed

15 Dec 22

·  Developing feasibility studies, to support the progression of schemes to improve the water management cycle.

  Relates to making sure water management cycle related schemes were readily available for implementation.

·  Proposals map (similar to the map created by the biodiversity and climate change manager) be attached to the Design & Sustainability Development Plan Document.

·  Increasing the amount of open spaces available to improve biodiversity and to take actions to increase the Council’s control over the implementation of conditions relating to SuDS and highways drainage.

·  Additional recommendation: Development Management review how water companies can be involved/consulted as part of the planning process;

Include as recommended action. Director of Finance, Resources and Business Improvement to be consulted on whether he would like a specific amount included.

As Above.

As Above, with reference made to the ongoing discussions with the Head of Development Management on the management of open spaces, which overlaps into the management of SuDS and Highway Drainage.

Additional recommendation to facilitate involvement from Water Companies in the interim; particularly as lobbying central government to provide powers and/or make the companies statutory consultees would be considered as part of the second stage review.

22 Dec 22

·   Near future review on the processes for monitoring tap water;

Amend to:

Encourage water companies to obtain accurate information on water consumption figures; link to educational campaigns to reduce water usage.

·   Development and/or influence on SuDs would need to be achieved through a policy hook through the Design and Sustainability Development Plan Document.

·   Explore whether Water Companies would sponsor and assist with delivering an educational campaign (reducing water usage).

·   Explore further the use and range of mechanisms to recycle water and reduce water usage, both in newly built houses and existing properties.

Reference made to residential extensions and conversions, as applicable to the D&S DPD.

·   Improve attention given to Water Management Cycle, through following:

o Parish, District and County representatives to meet with officers annually, to discuss local issues and ensure local knowledge is maintained based on geographical area (north, central & southern);

o Group Members to provide feedback to their respective political networks;

o Council to proactively identify water management cycle related matters for inclusion at events such as LGA Conference and Rural Urban Commission

Amended to encourage accurate information to be used in trying to achieve education change.

Include as recommended action.

Include as recommended action, with additional text to highlight retrofitting also, and that this would be applicable to the D&S DPD.

Include as recommended action, to be organised by borough areas.

Not required – action already occurring.

Include as recommended action.

27 Jan 2023

UMIDB

·   Joint working with the UMIDB to consider funding schemes that would slow water-flow outside of the district (UMIDB)

·   Providing further information on the UMIDB and its role within the group’s final report,

·   UMIDB Wishlist:

o For the Council and KCC to be involved in the modelling and delivery of projects;

o To lobby central government for secondary and tertiary legislation required to allow IDBs to actively work within catchment areas and levy those within it to support the work’s completion.

o For further joint working opportunities, through Public Sector Collaboration Agreements.

o Acknowledgement from other authorities, such as District and County Councils, that the UMIDB should be and could be doing more.

o Additional recommendation – request that development management include the UMIDB district area within the maps provided with major planning applications.

Follow-up action – find out KCC minimum threshold before finalising above recommendation & Development Management on appropriate level.

o Funding welcomed with emphasis given to joint projects.

o For the UMIDB to be consulted as a non-statutory consultee on planning applications submitted within flood plains (link to drainage schemes)

Request covered by feasibility study recommendation; the Group were advised that that recommendation would facilitate further partnership working on schemes put forward. 

Include in report for information.

Request covered by feasibility study recommendation.

To be examined through second-phase review.

Request covered by feasibility study recommendation.

Include in report for information.

Additional recommendation - To highlight if the UMIDB district overlapped with a proposed development in an area sensitive to drainage issues during consideration of major planning applications.

Covered as part of second-phase review.

27 Jan 23

SERT

Need for effective preventative measures against the mixing of surface and clean water with foul water; this extended to

ensuring proactive enforcement where issues had been identified.

·   Additional recommendation - seek to identify local hotspots with borough and county local members, to take forward appropriate meetings with KCC, national highways and the relevant water companies as applicable. 

·   SERT Wish-list:

o Increased funding and resource provision.

o To lobby central government on the funding available to replace the funding previously provided by the EU to support project delivery.

o See previously circulated SERT wish-list (1 March 2023).

Action within the remit of Kent County Council and National Highways

Additional recommendation – To proactively manage any flooding/WMC impacts by consulting relevant parties and seek improvements.

Covered as part of second-phase review.

Covered as part of second-phase review.

Requests 1-6 as applicable to feasibility studies recommendation.

Requests 7-9 noted as likely to be covered through future LDS and Town Centre Strategy.

Request 15 – further information required, consult NFU as part of second phase review.

No comments on other requests.

27 Jan 23

KCC

·   In response to questions on areas for improvement/joint working:

o Promotion of robust policies concerning sustainable drainage;

o Increase in proactive planning enforcement. 

·   Group briefly considered whether the government should be lobbied on applying the principle of nutrient neutrality across all water courses;

·   Schemes to address legacy impact of historic land drainage systems having not been maintained; scheme would be beneficial, preferred approach would be to locate the appropriate areas and produce a work programme demonstrating its significant benefit through a cost-benefit ratio.

·   Support expressed for separating roof water from sewer system, in new build properties and property conversions/extensions; and highlighted for D&S DPD.

·   Additional recommendation – Ask water companies if they would conduct an information campaign and provide funding for schemes to minimise roof run-off into the sewer system.

·   KCC stated they were keen to promote efficient water use at the development level, including use of ‘grey water’ – Group expressed support; highlighted for D&S DPD.

Comments to be made through D&S DPD and Town Centre strategy.

Action within the remit of Kent County Council and National Highways

Covered as part of second-phase review.

Follow-up with KCC to ask where the information is held.

Included as recommended action, to include new builds, and property extensions and conversions to cover as many properties as possible.

Additional recommendation – To increase mechanisms available to local residents.

Include as recommended action within report for D&S DPD.

7 Feb 23

SEW

·   In response to a request for the group’s support to encourage developers to consider water usage across its developments, the development of the D&S DPD was highlighted.

·   Support expressed for engaging with developers, potential for group to lobby central government to provide legislative powers to SEW and similar organisations highlighted, to enable them to take action against illegal water usage.

·   Group suggestion to encourage injection points within care home water supply tanks, alongside creation of business continuity plans; replace with:

  Community Safety contact local care homes to remind them of the ability to register with the relevant providers.

·   SEW Wish-List:

o Increased involvement in the planning process.

o For future developments to be as water efficient as possible.

Include as recommended action.  

Covered as part of second-phase review.

Include as recommended action. 

Covered as part of second-phase review.

Covered through other recommendations.

7 Feb 23

SW

·   Support from both external attendees to use the Heathlands Garden Community as a showcase (water efficiency measures)

·   Need to implement more natural flood management solutions to reduce sewer flooding;

·   For greater avenues allowing water companies to be involved in the planning process to be explored as part of the review;

·   SW Wish-list:

o Opportunity for enhancements to the building regulations for water, in a similar way to recent updates to building regulations on the conservation of fuel and power; to be reviewed as part of best practice, with any gaps identified to be actioned as and when they arise.

o See previously circulated SW wish-list;

Include as recommended action 

for noting, including to relevant Officers.

Request covered by feasibility study recommendation

Covered as part of second-phase review.

Include as recommended action, as part of best practice for building control service.

Include in report as recommendation for noting, due to synergy between documents and group sentiments.

1 Mar 23

·   Suggested need for greater written information from external attendees be included in the final report;

·   Advice needed on the actions proposed by SERT, as group likely to take forward some actions only (as unlikely to achieve all in the near future);. 

·   Drainage management could be subject to a detailed review in the future;

·   Creation of managed wetlands could be further explored (and raised at D&S DPD briefing) –

·   Highlighting natural flood mitigation measures within final reports, alongside signposting residents to the appropriate organisations and/or funds. (e.g. Valley Conservation Society).

·   Recommendation to ask stakeholders consulted to provide comments on the final report;

·   KCC to be asked to update the Surface Water Management Plans for Maidstone, including local plans where these have been produced e.g. Yalding, as a matter of urgency;

·   Additional recommendation – For Officers to advise on whether Surface Water Management Plans can be used as material planning considerations.

Not to be included in report.

Discussed during the meeting, and felt to be covered by feasibility study recommendation

Action within the remit of Kent County Council and National Highways

Include as recommended action.  

Include as recommended action, to provide further information for residents.

Once report published, stakeholders will be contacted.

Include as recommended action, given length of time since these were last produced.

Include as recommended action, to inform Members if they carry weight when considering planning applications.