To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies received from Parish Councillors David Burfitt (Hurley PC) and Louivanne Kneen (Bray PC).

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 10^th July 2023 were a true and accurate record.

To confirm the actions from the previous minutes.

To receive the above verbal update.

Brianne Vally, Environment Agency (EA), introduced the item by informing that Stuart Mollard, Environment Agency (EA), would be presenting an update on Datchet to Hythe End Flood Improvement Measures (DHEFIM).

Beginning with the Project Lifecycle, Stuart Mollard informed that the Project had passed the Strategic Outline Case (Gateway 1) at the end of May 2023, moving into the Appraisal Stage. It had then moved through to the Outline Business Case (Gateway 2) which would conclude in Summer 2026. The subsequent phases included presenting a Final Business Case (Gateway 3) and then the Delivery (Gateway 4).

Stuart Mollard explained that the long and vague timescales for Gateways 3 and 4 because the preferred option was not known at this stage. If the preferred option was simple or was a series of options, it would then be quicker to design and then construct compared to a more complex option.

Stuart Mollard further elaborated the project background by summarising the Strategic Case, which then lead, once it was approved, to the Business Outline Case. There was a number of properties (around 2,500) within the Project area which were at risk of flooding from the River Thames, including houses, schools, a fire station, places of worship, civic buildings, and critical infrastructure like railways, roads and utilities. Whilst there were some isolated flood risk management assets present, it was accepted that there were large parts of the Project area remained undefended.

From this, the EA sought to align the Project with both national and regional business strategies which called for measures to be undertaken to reduce flood risk in the Project area. In addition to flood protection, DHEFIM had the potential to deliver other benefits, namely several environmental, sustainability and social improvements.

The EA had been working in partnership with RBWM to seek out solutions which worked for communities and their environment, working together under a combined project team and a joint project board.

Stuart Mollard conveyed that the project team had made good progress in the last three months in taking the project forward.; however, he highlighted that the objective of DHEFIM project was to reduce the risk of flooding rather than unfeasible eliminate all the risks in its entirety. Nevertheless, he reassured that the EA were committed as part of the joint team in delivering flood alleviation works.

Stuart Mollard then moved onto summarising key activities in the last three months, namely working through the Appraisal Stage. The EA had finalised its contract with its framework consultant and technical supplier, Jacobs; and had been working with them in doing some significant technical work around project objectives, confirming the study area and investigating other sources of flood risk. Alongside flooding from the River Thames, the EA were looking into the risks associated with surface water flooding and ground water flooding.

The EA had also investigated other partnership funding sources. Whilst there was confirmed funding from the EA and RBWM, EA hoped to find alternative potential interested parties who would likely be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

To receive the above verbal update.

David Harding, Thames Water, gave a general update. He stated that the fortunes of Thames Water were similar to the EA, whereby they were weather dependent. The only news from Thames Water was that it was preparing its BR24 Business Plan. Major investment was being submitted and there would be local consultations in due course. David Harding conveyed that there was not much to update.

The Chair asked if he was in regular contact with the Borough and other bodies when doing his projects. David Harding confirmed this, stating that he had regular communication with Ben Crampin, RBWM Flood Risk Manager. He added that whenever there was a significant project, the project team would do their own communications with all the local stakeholders.

Parish Councillor Ian Thompson asked why Datchet was being ignored by Thames Water for many months on the clearing of Datchet Common Brook, particularly as the winter flooding season was approaching. He explained that the Borough has been clearing the siltation in the Barrel Arch system to allow capacity within the centre of Datchet. He then conveyed that the Datchet Recreational Ground ditch fed into the Barrel Arch system as well as directly linked to the Datchet Common Brook. From this, when floods took place, siltation flowed from Datchet Common Brook into the Recreational Ground ditch and Barrel Arch system.

On this basis, Parish Councillor Ian Thompson conveyed that he was unable to receive a response from Thames Water in regard to resolving these issues, asserting that this was being dealt with at cost of Datchet Parish Council and the Borough.

The Chair then asked David Harding what Parish Councillor Ian Thompson could do in regard to communication.

David Harding responded that he was aware of the issue, which was on one of Thames Water’s reservoir sites, and that it was being dealt with by his predecessor. He stated that he tried to have conversations with his colleagues regarding this with little success. He suggested that Parish Councillor Ian Thompson email him the following day and pick it up from there. He added that it would likely be a conversation which would involve the EA because the issue was not a flooding mechanism that he had much knowledge on, nor did the officers who managed the reservoir site.

The Chair suggested to add this action for the next meeting.

ACTION: Parish Councillor Ian Thompson and David Harding to communicate with each other on the flooding issues in Datchet.

In regard to landowners in Eton Wick receiving financial contributions for weed clearance from Thames Water, Councillor D. Davies asked if this was something which David Harding was aware of and whether Thames Water would be able to meet this request in spite of their financial situation. David Harding replied that he had sent an email to the landowners earlier in the day that Thames Water had made a financial contribution and that it was an ongoing discussion about the extent in which stakeholders contribute financially.

Councillor D. Davies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

To receive the above verbal update.

Ben Crampin presented an update which covered an overview of the flood investigations in the last quarter, an update on some projects and work on Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

In the last quarter (August-October 2023), the weather had been much dryer with less rainfall; as a result, there had been a decrease in the number of Total Drainage Cases compared to the previous quarter. This, Ben Crampin stated, provided the Flood Team a chance to “catch [their] breath” for a brief period compared to the high number of cases earlier in the year. Some of the themes which were identified over the year relating to these cases included an increase of surface water highway flooding. As a result of this, there were many cases whereby highway systems were acting as catchments, whereby water would flow to a low point and then overwhelm the existing systems.

The RBWM Flood Team had been working closely with VolkerHighways in addressing the issues throughout 2023, such as blocked drainage systems and gullies. In addition, it was also identified that there were areas in which the system worked well but it was prone to collecting a lot of surface water from highways, which then posed a risk to property. From this, the RBWM Flood Team was ensuring that property floods were being recorded into a new Property Flood Database so that it could start bidding for money towards, for example, Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) to investigate any scheme which could be implemented to reduce flood risks. The evidence being collected from these investigations would allow the Flood Team to be able to determine the areas which required work and then to move onto some flood mitigation schemes.

Moving onto the DHEFIM short-term measures, starting with the Datchet Barrell Arch, Ben Crampin reported that the contractors notified him that most of the work had been completed, though he was waiting for the reporting from them to confirm the completion of the maintenance work before taking the next steps. He expected a report on the removal of siltation, including CCTV surveys of the system following the silt removal. The report would also identify any areas for other necessary remedial works or any structural issues, which would then be forwarded to the relevant stakeholders (e.g., National Highways, landowners etc.) or the Flood Team. Ben Crampin then offered to catch up with Parish Councillor Ian Thompson on the report once the former had reviewed the information.

ACTION: Ben Crampin to catch-up with Parish Councillor Ian Thompson on the contractors’ report on the Datchet Barrell Arch.

On the Wraysbury Drain, Ben Crampin reported that he had investigated the issue, which included reviewing planning application to see if there was any recorded detail of the downstream areas to identify what enforcement (if any) was possible and appropriate. In addition, Ben Crampin conducted an on-site inspection where the Wraysbury and Horton drains split and towards Douglas Road Bridge and publicly accessible points at the Splash and Windsor Road.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

To receive the above verbal update.

Referring to the report he had earlier raised concerning flood management at Battlemead Common from January 2021, Dick Scarff conveyed that the paper suggested that Cookham would receive a hydrological management plan for Battlemead but nothing had been materialised yet. Ben Crampin requested for the report to be forwarded to him and he would then ask officers who were present at the time on the status of this.

ACTION: Dick Scarff to forward the report on flood management at Battlemead Common to Ben Crampin, who would then investigate its status.

The Chair requested for the presentations to be circulated to Flood Group members, to which Laurence Ellis confirmed he would do.

ACTION: Meeting presentations to be circulated to attendees after every Flood Group meeting.

The Chair commented that Stuart Mollard’s DHEFIM presentation did not cover the effect of transport links as part of the project background, stating that it was a key point to take into consideration when looking into the project. Brianne Vally replied that this had been picked up through various discussions and was being investigated as part of the Outline Business Case of the DHEFIM.

Before closing the meeting, the Chair requested for a pre-meeting a few weeks before the next scheduled Flood Group meeting (23^rd January 2024) with himself, Councillor D. Davies as Vice-Chair, and the Flood Group officers, to keep a check on the arising matters. Ben Crampin confirmed that he was happy to have these pre-meetings be organised. Laurence Ellis added that having pre-meetings were possible, though added that it was up to the availability and commitment of the interested parties. The Chair, Vice-Chair and the officers confirmed their commitment.

ACTION: Pre-meetings with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Flood Group officers to take place before each scheduled Flood Liaison Group meeting.