Meeting documents

Flood Liaison Group
Thursday 15 March 2012 6.00 pm

ROYAL BOROUGH FLOOD FORUM
15TH MARCH 2012
18.00 COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, MAIDENHEAD

MINUTES

Present
Cllr Jesse Grey (Chair)
JG
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillor
Cllr John Lenton
JL
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillor
Cllr Richard Kellaway
RK
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillor
Doug Hill
DH
Environment Agency
Lindsay Newton
LN
Environment Agency
David Perkins
DP
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Simon Lavin
SL
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Lisa Morgan
LM
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (minute taker)
Ralph Green
RG
Parish Flood Liaison Group
Andrew Davies
AD
Parish Flood Liaison Group
Ian Thompson
IT
Parish Flood Liaison Group
Ewan Larcombe
EL
Parish Flood Liaison Group
Carol Long
CL
Parish Flood Liaison Group

ITEMDESCRIPTIONACTION
1.0Welcome & Introductions
1.1JG welcomed everyone to the Town Hall, Maidenhead and asked everyone to introduce themselves.
2.0Apologies
2.1David Burfitt, Parish Flood Liaison Group
2.2 Fiona Hewer, Parish Flood Liaison Group
3.0Minutes of Previous Meeting (Accuracy)
3.1Agreed as a true record.
3.2AD requested that format of minutes be PDF or doc not dat file.
4.0ABI thoughts on the future of flood risk insurance – presentation by Matt Cullen – Policy Adviser ABI
4.1Matt Cullen agreed to provide an electronic copy of the presentation and agreed that this could be distributed to members of the forum.MC / LM
4.2JG attended the recent National Flood Forum national conference and this conference included a good explanation of the insurance industry point of view. Richard Benyon, the Under Secretary of State for the Environment and Fisheries, also gave a speech at this conference.
4.3EL asked whether the tightening of planning policy and the introduction of a new insurance model could lead to insurance blight (specifically referring to villages like Wraysbury which is downstream of the Jubilee River). MC stated that the model they have developed seeks to avoid this and that they are attempting to get the Government to adopt this or a similar model.
4.4MC made it clear that the ultimate goal was to have affordable flood risk insurance. He feared however that Richard Benyon, the Under Secretary of State for the Environment and Fisheries, may be moving more towards a free market position. JG commented that insurance companies should not, in his opinion, be able to cherry pick insurance premiums.
4.5JL suggested that a flood premium tax would be easier to administer. RG suggested using a similar model to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation model. MC stated that finding a happy medium would be difficult.
4.6IT raised issue of flood risk being based on post coding, which he considers to be unfair. While he accepts that the Environment Agency needs to prepare mapping for the 1 in 100 year event, he considers risk should be based on historic data. MC responded stating that he believes that insurance companies do also consider historic data using the best historic data that is easily available.
4.7DP thanked MC for his presentation and MC stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Any queries to be emailed to DP or JG and they will pass them onto MC. DP/JG
5.0Flood & Water Management Act Update
5.1SL provided a brief update on the Borough’s actions in response to the Flood and Water Management Act and explained that the RBWM GIS Team is producing a map which will give details such as the location of ditches / culverts and that this will link with the DEFRA spreadsheet.
5.2SL explained that the Berkshire Strategic Group and supporting Technical Group are exploring the use of a consultant to prepare generic sections of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. A number of consultants have recently been interviewed to assess technical capability.
5.3It is anticipated that the consenting role on ordinary water courses will transfer to the LLFAs in April 2012. RBWM has yet to adopt a formal policy relating to this and applications will initially be viewed on a case by case basis.
5.4It is also anticipated that powers to designate private structures and features, with a significant affect on flood risk, will come into affect in June 2012. Once designated, a private structure or feature cannot be removed or altered without the designating authority’s formal consent.
5.5DP commented that RBWM is trying to compile a top ten list of important issues and all need to work together to share/input valuable information.
5.6JG stated structure already created, flood risk not laid out, communication lines will be kept open.
6.0Battle Bourne Embankment Scheme Update
6.1DH provided an update on the Battle Bourne Embankment Scheme reporting that work had commenced on site and that the scheme would be fully funded by DEFRA. The tree works have now commenced.
6.2DH explained that the scheme will restore the existing flood embankment that alleviates flood risk to approximately seven hundred properties.
6.3JG stated that the objectors to the scheme had been talked round with the agreement of replanting of shrubs, DH stated that EA have full involvement with the replanting.
6.4RG stated that, while welcome, the recent clearing of the downstream section of the Battle Bourne had caused some confusion in the village. DH admitted that this was unfortunate timing and JG commented that works need to be coincided.
7.0Parish Flood Group Update
7.1Flood Risk Insurance had already been discussed under item 4.0
7.2 RG stated that he understood that senior executives from the Environment Agency had recently visited the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council to discuss the progression of the Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy and asked whether the Borough staff in attendance were aware of this.
7.3DP stated that there probably needs to be a consortium formed including the Chief Executives, Leaders and portfolio holders from all of the benefitting authorities.
7.4DP stated that there is a £165 million shortfall which is obviously a huge sum of money and JG stated that this funding could not be found in isolation. A joint effort will be required.
7.5Potential developer contributions also need to be explored.
7.6RK commented that RBWM will give full support.
8.0Future Meetings
8.1Next flood group meeting at Guildhall, Windsor on 12th June 2012 at 18.00.
8.2Venues now booked for future meetings 18th September 2012 Council Chamber, Town Hall, Maidenhead. 18th December 2012 Guildhall, Windsor and 19th March 2013 Town Hall, Maidenhead.
9.0Any Other Business
9.1IT reported that he had recently undertaken an inspection of a number of flood prevention assets in Datchet and had written to SL with a number of concerns. SL confirmed that he had received this letter and confirmed that a site meeting had been arranged between IT and SLSL / IT
9.2 IT raised a number of concerns regarding Datchet Common Brook, including siltation below the Datchet Road bridge and possible fly tipping further downstream. DH stated that he was aware that the Environment Agency’s inspector for the area had looked at this and undertook to provide an update at next meetingDH
9.3Having reviewed the recent DEFRA consultation relating to amendments to the Reservoirs Act, IT expressed concern regarding the reservoir inspection regime. DH offered to arrange for IT to attend an annual inspection of an Environment Agency reservoir.DH / IT
9.4EL asked whether Thames Water will abstract water from the Thames during flood events, when the river is carry sediment. DH explained that they will, but have sensors that will shut down the off take if too much sediment is present.