Issue - meetings

1.  That work be continued with the Environment Agency and Kent County Council as part of the Executive Group, and local communities, to develop flood mitigation measures including property level resilience across the Medway, Teise and Beult catchment area and the affected urban area.

2.  That engagement with affected Parish Councils and the Medway, Teise and Beult Flood Group be undertaken.

Councillor Harwood disclosed an interest and left the meeting before the officers introduction.

The Property and Procurement Manager introduced the report updating the Committee on developments in relation to flood alleviation.

It was explained that:

·  Broad findings had indicated that constructing flood storage in the Beult and Teise areas would not make a meaningful difference to flooding.

·  The Environment Agency had recommended property level funding as the best form of community resilience.

Mr Stephen Day was invited to address the Committee. Mr Day stated that property level interventions only provided protection up to one metre in depth, and that this was unsuitable in areas such as Yalding where flood levels had surpassed one metre. Alternative measures were being investigated at a local level.

Councillor Geraldine Brown was invited to address the Committee. Councillor Brown informed Members that a joint parish flooding group had been set up to consider a combination of options put forward by specialists. Property level protection was not considered beneficial for listed, timber framed buildings, and the proposed funding for property level protection would not be made available to businesses.

During discussion the following points were made:

·  Consultation and discussion with Parish Councils was a priority. Communication with Parish Councils had been in progress but not with all affected Parishes and not with the newly formed joint parish flooding group.

·  Defra had requested the Environment Agency to pursue alternate options to flood storage at Teise and Beult. As Defra would be the main funder of any scheme, this would suggest that there would be no benefit in pursuing the flood storage options.

·  Rural areas had been the focus of previous discussions. However, urban and town centre areas had also been adversely affected by flooding. The work on the town centre bridges gyratory included flood alleviation interventions.

·  Reports produced by the Environment Agency had been scrutinised by a specialist contractor on behalf of the Council. They did not contradict any of the Environment Agency’s modelling. The consultants would be able to provide technical advice on any options that are put forward for consideration.

·  Options such as tree planting alongside waterways and part dredging of rivers had been investigated by the Environment Agency but had found this would make little improvement in the areas under consideration.

·  The cost of interventions would be beyond the budget of the Council alone. The Council could lobby funding organisations  to support the objectives of Parish Councils.

RESOLVED:

1.  That work be continued with the Environment Agency and Kent County Council as part of the Executive Group, and local communities, to develop flood mitigation measures including property level resilience across the Medway, Teise and Beult catchment area and the affected urban area.

For – 14  Against – 0    Abstain - 0

2.  That engagement with affected Parish Councils and the Medway, Teise and Beult Flood Group be undertaken.

For – 14  Against – 0    Abstain – 0