Flood Liaison Group
Thursday 11 June 2015
ROYAL BOROUGH FLOOD FORUM
11th JUNE 2014
18.00 TOWN HALL MAIDENHEAD
MINUTES
| Present |  | |
| Cllr Jesse Grey (Chair) | JG | Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillor |
| David Perkins | DP | Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead |
| Ben Smith | BS | Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead |
| Simon Lavin | SL | Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead |
| Harry Clasper | HC | Chair of Parish Flood Liaison Group |
| Mandy Brar | MB | Parish Flood Liaison Group |
| Martin Coker | MC | Parish Flood Liaison Group |
| David Burfitt | DB | Parish Flood Liaison Group |
| Ian Thompson | IT | Parish Flood Liaison Group |
| Ewan Larcombe | EL | Parish Flood Liaison Group |
| Hilary Murgatroyd | HM | Thames Water |
| Jevan Laxen | JL | Thames Water |
| Bob Cunningham | BC | Thames Water |
| Jeanne Capey | JC | Environment Agency |
| Boni Azeh | BA | Environment Agency |
| Sandy Muirhead | SM | Spelthorne Borough Council (as observer) |
| ITEM | DESCRIPTION | ACTION |
| Welcome & Introductions | |
| JG welcomed everyone to the Town Hall at Maidenhead and asked everyone to introduce themselves. | |
| BS introduced himself as the Borough’s Strategic Manager, in the Highways and Transport Team, and explained that the Operations Directorate was currently undergoing a reorganisation. As part of this reorganisation responsibility for flood risk management policy and strategy will transfer to the Strategic Asset Management Team. This team will also be responsible for the delivery of capital flood risk management schemes and capital highway drainage schemes. SL will be transferring to the Strategic Asset Management Team. DP will retain responsibility for operational matters and will become more involved in community engagement activities Enforcement activities are likely to fall within the remit of the Community, Protection and Enforcement Services team lead by Craig Miller. | |
| | |
| 1.0 | Apologies | |
| 1.0 | Cllr Malcom Beer Cllr Richard Kellaway Fiona Hewer, Parish Flood Liaison Group | |
| | |
| 2.0 | Minutes of Previous Meeting (Accuracy) | |
| 2.1 | Agreed as a true record. | |
| | |
| 3.0 | Actions from previous meetings | |
| 3.1 | Point 2.3 (17th December meeting) - Tour of the Battle Bourne Scheme is to be arranged. Date to be confirmed. | JC |
| 3.2 | Point 2.4 (17th December meeting) - Proposed Thames Water actions to address issues identified in East Datchet. It was agreed that a separate multi agency meeting should be set up to discuss this. | DP |
| 3.3 | Point 5.5 (17th December meeting) - Issues with the Thames Water sewer system in East Datchet were raised. SL stated that he understood that this issue related to sewer flooding of gardens in Horton Road during River Thames flood events. In such events water from the Thames enters the sewer system at low spots in the Wraysbury area and is pumped via pumping stations in Friary Road and The Avenue to the gravity sewer in Horton Road. It was agreed that this issue should be discussed at a separate multi agency meeting. | DP |
| 3.4 | Point 6.1 (17th December meeting) - FH reported that development of the “Cookham website” bringing together live information on flooding seems to have come up against some form of obstruction. MP to seek clarification and details of likely timescale. MC reported that little progress appeared to have been made in the development of the “Cookham website” and that problems were still being experienced in accessing the dara necessary to populate the webste. DP stated that he had discussed this project with the Borough’s head of IT and that it had been agreed that it would now be dealt with as a properly managed project with input from the Borough’s IT team. DP also stated that, as project sponsor, he had set a deadline for completion of 31st July 2014. | DP |
| 3.5 | Point 7.1 (17th December meeting) - The timing of the December meeting has made it difficult for some members to attend in the past. It has therefore been agreed that this meeting would be scheduled for January in the future | BS /SL |
| 3.6 | Point 8.1 (17th December meeting) - The agenda for the Borough Flood Forum has not always been available on the Borough website in the past. This has been addressed and copies of the agenda and past minutes will appear on the Borough’s website. It has also been agreed that copies of the Minutes from Regional Flood and Coastal Committee meetings and River Thames Scheme meetings would be added to the Borough’s website, following a Council motion | SL |
| | |
| 4.0 | Update from RBWM | |
| 4.1 | DP stated that part of his new role is to work closely with Ward Members and Parish Councils on issues that are important to them. DP also stated that a number of meetings were to be set up in early July to discuss what went well and what didn’t go so well during recent flood events. It was anticipated that these meetings would involve Ward Members, Parish Council representatives, flood wardens and key local people. A total re-write of the Borough’s Flood Plan and the Community Flood Plans is also proposed, with a review to producing Community Resilience Plans | DP |
| 4.2 | SL stated that it is anticipated that the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy will go to the Lead Member and senior officers next week for review, with a view to finalising the document ready for public consultation in July. HC asked whether a short summary of the plans purpose and objectives could be prepared and circulated and it was agreed that this would be done | SL |
| 4.3 | SL also stated that all outstanding flood risk management activities are currently be added to a prioritisation and resourcing “tracker” and are being split into functions such as strategy / policy, scheme delivery, studies, operational issues and community engagement | |
| | |
| 5.0 | Update from Environment Agency | |
| 5.1 | The EA had provided a written response to questions raised during the previous meeting, held on 13th March 2014. This response had been circulated shortly before the meeting and some members indicated that they had not had an opportunity to fully consider its content. HC stated that he had reviewed this response and had a number of issues he would like to raise during the meeting. IT stated that he had also reviewed this response and that Datchet Parish Council intends to respond directly to the EA. | |
| 5.2 | JC stated that the EA had recently held meetings with residents and Thames Awash to discuss the operation of the Jubilee River. | |
| 5.3 | BA and Mike Piotrowski have also recently met Bisham Parish Council to discuss flooding experienced in that area and possible flood alleviation scheme options | |
| 5.4 | The EA flood report relating to the January and February 2014 floods has now been completed and is out to consultation with professional partners. This report should be available to the public in July. JC stated that she was happy to make a presentation relating to the content of this report at the next Borough Flood Forum meeting. A number of actions were identified during the preparation of this report and an internal actions list has been prepared and is being programmed. This actions list will not however form part of the public document. One of the identified actions will involve a review of the operating procedures for the Jubilee River. The findings of this review will be shared with interested parties. | |
| 5.5 | EL asked why Clive Onions recommendations relating to the operation of the Jubillee River, contained in the Mechanisms of Flooding Report prepared following the January 2003 floods, have not been implemented. EL also stated that he considered the vertical scaling of the telemetry plots for the Jubilee River site to be misleading. A response to the two points raised by EL is being prepared by the EA | JC |
| 5.6 | JC stated that the EA had recently undertaken a number of community demonstrations indicating how maintenance works can be undertaken to reduce flood risk from smaller watercourses The EA were happy to set up similar demonstrations for interested communities with the RBWM area | |
| 5.7 | JC undertook to circulate an update on the River Thames Scheme to the Thames side Parish Councils 536 properties have expressed an interest in Property Level Protection measures to be provided as part of the scheme (throughout the scheme area) Work on the development of the Major Incident Plan continues | JC |
| 5.8 | The potential short fall in partnership funding of the River Thames Scheme was raised. JG stated that Oxfordshire County Council was exploring a scheme to achieve funding of a major flood defence scheme in their area. RBWM was in the process of reviewing this funding scheme and assessing whether it could be applied to the River Thames Scheme. The intention was to explore whether funding could be achieved over a period of time. HC stated that this appeared to be a significant change in the Borough’s previous position. JG confirmed that this was the case, stating that the Borough had written to the Government expressing the view that the River Thames Scheme should be considered to be nationally important infrastructure and as such should be fully funded by the Government. The Government had however responded stating that they would not fully fund the scheme and means of achieving the necessary partnership funding were therefore being explored. | |
| 5.9 | HC asked who was responsible for ensuring that the defective bunds in the Datchet area were reinstated? The EA written response states that it is “assumed” that the Eton End School was undertaking the repair of the bund at the school. JC stated that this bund was a third party asset, and that the EA were providing details of flood levels. The EA ultimately has enforcement powers, but using these powers was not the preferred option. IT reported that the school were keen to reinstate the bund and that the necessary works were planned for the summer break. | |
| 5.10 | HC raised the issue of the reinstatement of the bund at The Populars in Southlea Road. JC stated that this bund was not indicated on their records as a formal flood defence and that they had, to date, failed to contact the landowner. They were therefore unable to take this matter any further at this stage. IT stated that the bund at The Populars originally linked into the bund in the Thames Water site, and that it must therefore have formed part of the fluvial flood defences protecting southern Datchet. HC / IT suggested that the EA should undertake the works and charge the landowner, placing a charge on the property if necessary. JG stated that the Borough would investigate and pursue the reinstatement of this bund. | SL |
| 5.11 | IT stated that the control of flows through the large culvert below the railway line to the west of the Eton End school also needs to be resolved. JC stated that this issue was to be investigated as part to the River Thames Scheme. | |
| 5.12 | DB asked whether the culvert at the eastern end of Shepherds Lane was also riparian owned and SL confirmed that this was the case. However, as the culvert was on the line of an ordinary watercourse (as opposed to a “main river” watercourse) the Borough has enforcement powers. | |
| 5.13 | MB stated that Cookham Parish Council was disappointed that there would appear to be no planned maintenance works on Strand Water, White Brooke, or the Maidenhead ditch, and asked for confirmation that these watercourses had been inspected this Spring. It was agreed that the EA’s Operations Team would contact Cookham Pairsh Council. | JC |
| 5.14 | MB / MC raised an issue relating to the watercourse crossing North Town Moor (York Stream?) stating that this watercourse needed re-profiling. SL explained that this issue had been reviewed following the January 2003 floods and that there was a control structure incorporated into the north Maidenhead bund that was designed to restrict flows through this section of watercourse. The EA investigated flood risk in the Cookham area following the January 2003 flood event and the Strand Lane Scheme subsequently undertaken by the EA was intended to restore flood risk in the Strand Lane area to pre Maidenhead Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme levels | |
| | |
| 6.0 | Update from Thames Water | |
| 6.1 | HM provided an update on Thames Water’s actions since the winter flood events. Approximately £1m has been spent so far on infrastructure improvements. Friary Road Pumping Station – has been fully refurbished. The station has been sealed and made water tight. An additional sump pump has been fitted and a flood door will be installed at the entrance to the building. A quote has been received for full flood protection around the site and funding is being sought in order to progress with this work. Planning permission will be required to undertake these works. All vacuum pit heads have been replaced with new Godfrey Valves which are deemed to be more resilient to bad weather – but are not designed to work when fully submerged by flood water. Customers affected by loss of service at the vacuum stations have received a good will payment. The Avenue Pumping Station – has also been fully refurbished and all vacuum heads have now been replaced. A quote for £100K has been received to provide full flood protection and a decision is awaited on funding. Planning permission will also be required to undertake these works. Hythe End / Ferry Lane Pumping Stations – The pumps ran throughout the event but a survey has identified the potential to increase the pump output. New pumps have been ordered and will be installed shortly. The sewerage network around Ferry Lane has been fully CCTV surveyed and cleaned. The site itself suffered damage to trees and fencing during the storms and repairs will be undertaken in the next few weeks. Ham Lane – the pumps ran throughout the event. The pumps have however now been replaced and the electrical panel has been raised. A potential issue with odour has arisen and is being investigated. Shurlock Row Pumping Station - The pumps ran throughout the event but an investigation has shown that the pump output could be increased very slightly. New pumps have been ordered and will be installed shortly. One pump has however recently failed (post event) and is currently out of service. This will be replaced. 500m of the local sewerage network has been de-scaled and surveyed. CCTV footage is being reviewed and an action plan developed. A Non Return Valve has been fitted at Fullers Cottage. We are still looking at options to seal the manholes but it should be noted that there is still significant groundwater infiltration and surface run-off issues getting into private drains and gullies. Shepherds Lane Pumping Station – this station was completely submerged throughout the event. Both pumps have now been replaced with submersible pumps. DB stated that he understood that sealed covers were to be provided in the vicinity of the pumping station in Shepherds Lane and BC confirmed that he would investigate this. Little Marlow Sewage Treatment Works – the works had been affected by the winter storms and the planned refurbishments had been delayed. Refurbishment of the first stage tanks would however now proceed shortly. The planned open day had also been delayed but has now been scheduled for the 8th September. Ham Island Sewage Treatment - The bund had been trodden down by livestock but has now been repaired, and a fence will be provided to keep livestock off of the bund. Currently there are odour issues being experienced from the sludge lagoon. Odour consultants have been employed to measure concentrations of hydrogen sulphide and early results from investigations indicate that odour generated from the site do not present any risk to health. As soon as the ground dries out sufficiently the field will be ploughed. A pump will also be installed near the entrance of the storm lagoon. This will speed up the drying process and may reduce any further odour from that area. It is still planned to remove the need to use the storm lagoon by the construction of a new storm water pipe. Thames Water’s engineering contractors are currently developing a more detailed proposal to give a better idea of costs and timescales. TW still aim to have this in place by the end of the year. A letter providing an update will be sent to the residents of Ham Island BC stated that the provision of chemical dosing at Straight Road pumping station was also being investigated. This station discharges to Ham Island and has a long rising main (leading to long retention times in the main and possible septicity issues) HM also stated that Thames Water was recruiting a number of Customer Coordinators and that part of their role would be liaison with Parish Councils. | BC HM BC |
| 6.2 | MB raised issues experienced at Lightlands Lane pumping station, and MC stated that water had passed under the bund surrounding this station and that the station was submerged. HM stated that she was unaware of the impacts on this particular station or actions taken. She would however investigate. | HM / BC |
| 6.3 | DB asked whether the issues experienced at Hurley Sewage Treatment Works had been resolved. JL stated that the process issues had been resolved (there would however remain a need for periodic visits by a tanker) | |
| 6.4 | BC stated that Thames Water had undertaken a quite large investigation in the Slough area and had identified quite a few “dual” manholes (manholes through which both foul and surface water pipelines pass with a weir arrangement separating the different systems). Approximately 20 to 30 manholes have been identified and it is likely that these manholes contribute to the pollution issues experienced in the Myrke during wet weather. A further investigation to assess options will now be undertaken | BC |
| 6.5 | IT raised an issue relating to flood water entering Thames Water’s systems and its impacts elsewhere in Datchet. IT suggested that a multi-agency meeting should be set up at Datchet Parish Council’s offices and it was agreed that such a meeting should be set up. HM confirmed that Thames Water would be keen to attend this meeting | DP |
| | |
| 7.0 | Parish Flood Group Update | |
| 7.1 | HC stated that the items he wished to raise had been covered | |
| | |
| 8.0 | Future Meetings | |
| 8.1 | BS stated that he would like the Council’s Democratic Services Team to undertake the scheduling and administrative support of future Borough Flood Forum meetings. BS also stated that he needed to gain a better understanding of how the various flood groups interacted and that he would like to review the Terms of Reference for the Borough Flood Forum (as they are out of date) | BS BS |
| 9.0 | Any Other Business | |
| 9.1 | IT raised the issue of the Borough not having a dedicated Emergency Planning Officer in post. JG and DP responded stating that while the Borough may not have a dedicated EPO in post it has a number of officers who are trained and able to respond in an emergency situation. DP also stated that he was happy to be the first point of contact on emergency planning issues. | |
| 9.2 | IT asked whether Cllr C Cox, Cllr S Dudley and Cathryn James were still appropriate contacts to approach regarding funding of flood defence schemes and it was confirmed that Cllr C Cox was still the Lead Member for Flooding, Cllr S Dudley was still the Lead Member for Finance and Cathryn James was the Strategic Director of Operations | |
| 9.3 | IT raised an issue relating to the removal of the temporary flood defence bund at Ruscombe Gardens stating that this bund should be reinstated and it was agreed that this issue would be discussed at the multi- agency meeting to be arranged at Datchet Parish Council’s offices | |
| 9.4 | EL stated that he had attended a public meeting, held at Spelthorne, to discuss flooding issues and that 800 residents attended this meeting. | |