Agenda and minutes

Venue: May Room - Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Wendy Binmore  01628796251

Audio-recording: To listen, click here or to download and listen later, right click and save as an mp3

Items
No. Item

82.

Appointment of Chairman

Minutes:

Resolved unanimously: That Councillor Kellaway be appointment Chairman for this meeting.

 

A minutes silence was held in memory of Councillor Jesse Grey.

83.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor David Cannon and Parish Councillor Fiona Hewer.

84.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 83 KB

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2018 be approved.

85.

Actions from Previous Meeting

To receive an update on actions carried out from previous meeting.

Minutes:

The Principal Commissioning Officer (Highways & Transport) to request large paper flood maps from the EA.

 

Brianne Vally from the EA confirmed a full update on this would be given during the update from the Environment Agency item.

 

Cyril Mitkov to provide an update on whether repairs were needed to remedy the foul sewer problems raised by Martin Coker.

 

Cyril Mitkov from Thames Water confirmed he would provide a full update during the Thames Water update item.

 

EA Temporary Flood Defences update to be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

 

The EA arranged a presentation for the Flood Liaison Group this evening.

 

The EA to provide feedback on how the expansion at Heathrow would affect the River Thames Scheme, should there be a flooding event.

 

The EA would provide an update on their position during the EA Update item.

86.

Update from the Environment Agency

·         Update on LIDAR and flood mapping

·         Temporary flood defences.

Minutes:

Tina Donaldson from the EA gave Members a presentation on Temporary Flood Barriers (TFB) which included the following key points:

 

Ø  Tina Donaldson’s team were rolling out TFB plans and her main role in that was in communicating those plans to Local Authorities (LAs), Parish Councils and local communities.

Ø  The TFB were a national project which was started following a major flooding event in 2015.

Ø  The EA looked at the situation from a national perspective and decided TFB were the way forward.

Ø  There were 150 locations with 40 metres of TFB which were backed up with pumps nationally.

Ø  The TFB would be stored in seven hubs across the country.

Ø  Eddie Stobbart held the contract to deliver the TFB within 12 hours of notification.

Ø  The nearest hub for the local area was in Sunbury.

Ø  There were five TFB locations identified in RBWM which were:

o   Bisham

o   Wraysbury

o   Datchet

o   Old Windsor

o   Windsor, Clewer

Ø  Flood barriers were one metre in height and consisted of a metal A-frame.

Ø  100 operatives could erect 100 metres of barrier and then it they would be covered with tarpaulin.

Ø  The barriers had to be able to protect more than five properties from a one in 30 year flood.

Ø  The TFB had to ensure they did not increase the impact of flooding elsewhere.

Ø  The TFB also had to ensure they would not encircle and therefore, isolate the community they were meant to protect from additional support.

Ø  There were three potential triggers that would mobilise the TFB which were river levels, forecasts and modelling.

Ø  The EA worked with the Met Office and checked gauges on the river. They also used in-house mapping and forecasting teams that knew the area.

Ø  Stage one was to consider if the TFBs should be deployed. That would be before any flood alert or flood warning was issued by three or four days.

Ø  The second stage was to mobilise and send the TFBs to site.

Ø  The final stage was to deploy and erect them in their chosen locations.

Ø  Any decisions to deploy would be made in conjunction with a Local Resilience Forum

Ø  The alignments of where the barriers would be placed was constantly under review and subject to change. The EA could not guarantee to erect a flood barrier as it was not just an EA decision.

Ø  If there was a wide scale flood event, it would be a difficult decision to make as to whether to deploy, or not.

Ø  Surrey Resilience Forum did an exercise to look at what locations they could erect TFBs and that showed how difficult it was to place them.

 

Cllr Beer asked who represented the RBWM on the Local Resilience Forum. Simon Lavin, Flood Risk Manager confirmed Carolyn Richardson was the RBWM representative as part of a shared service with other LAs.

 

Ø  In order to facilitate deployment, it was necessary for the following to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

87.

Update from Thames Water

·         Planned sewer repairs in Cookham.

Minutes:

Cyril Mitkov from Thames Water confirmed to Members there were a couple of areas on the planned maintenance programme in Cookaham which were the Sutton Road area and the West Wood Green area.

 

The Bin it Don’t Block it campaign was being rerun and Cyril had liaised with Cookham Parish Council as part of that. He added the Lower Cookham Road had some investigative work carried out on the gullys but, nothing was found and there was nothing on the system to suggest any flooding in 2017. Dick Scarf said tree debris and rubble washed down in the area, the Flood Risk Manager said he could not see why there would be issues. Dick Scarf said the pipe was big enough but, the gullys got blocked. He wanted them cleaned twice a year instead of just once per annum. The Flood Risk Manager said he would get the commissioning team to increase the gully clearances

 

Cyril Mitkov stated flooding occurred in the White Ladies area in the summer so he went over the records and they had all been single events due to blockages so, Thames Water reran the Bin it Don’t Block it campaign in that area and also carried out a root cut to help ease the blockages. The Thames Water team had that added to their work programme so they could keep on top of the situation regularly.

 

The blockages at Broom Hill Estate – Cyril Mitkov stated he was unable to find anything on that so he needed more information. The Flood Risk Manager said Broom Hill Estate came along at the end of the White Ladies area so it might be linked to the White Ladies Lane blockages.

 

Councillor Beer stated there was a proposal for the sewage works on Ham Island to erode the works for a borrow pit. If that went ahead, the works would not work and there would be thousands of new homes but there would be no way to deal with the sewage. He asked if Thames Water would be objecting to the proposals of gravel extraction from Ham Island  and that if it meant the system would grind to a halt, then why wouldn’t Thames Water not object. Cyril Mitkov explained Thames Water did not identify it as a gravel extraction site; there was a company there exploring the site currently and once that work had been completed, Thames Water would assess if it was a viable site. If it was viable, Thames Water would still have to give permission s Thames Water owned the lane and the property tem would look at that and assess any benefit and weigh up local views and evidence. All of that was still several stages away. If Heathrow or another company was interested in pursuing gravel extraction, Thames Water would need to go through a process before making any decision.

 

Ian Thompson stated there was the Datchet barrel arch and there was also the Datchet Common Brook which linked into the recreation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

88.

Update from RBWM

To receive an update from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

Minutes:

The Flood Risk Manager stated he had undertaken a review of the Flood Risk Management Strategy and a consultation would be due to begin in the new year. Councillor Beer said he wanted advance notice of that. The Flood Risk Manager said it would be after the next Flood Liaison Group.

 

The works at Avenue Ascot had been completed and pipework was had been laid alongside the watercourse.

 

A downstream assessment had been carried out for the Waltham Road drainage scheme proposals and that was now with the commissioning team.

 

The proposed works at Coningsby Road were delayed by ecology and land ownership issues.

 

Scoping studies had been carried out to Cox Green Road and two other areas to assess a number of options to mitigate the flood risk. The Flood Risk Manager added if anyone had any potential capital schemes to put forward, they needed to submit them to Sue Fox at the Borough.

 

Harry Clasper stated he had hoped the Flood Risk Manager was going to address the Wraysbury Drain problem; a document had been circulated on the Drain by Ewan Larcombe. Councillor Lenton confirmed he had submitted a question to the next Full Council meeting. Mike Williams stated he saw contractors had visited the Weir Sluice. Ewan Larcombe stated the Wraysbury Drain worked ok for many years but diggers moved in and broke it. A sluice was put in the middle of the boards and it sort of got it working again. It was replaced in 2007 with a gate system that that made it worse. Contractors went in and spent £180k and that made it stop working altogether. The radial weir had been eroded and water ran straight past it and not through the Wraysbury Drain.

 

Councillor Lenton stated the question he was submitting to Full Council was when would the Drain be fixed and how much would it cost. The Flood Risk Manager said he worked for the Council since 2003 and he had looked at the lack of water in the drain and seen next to no flow coming into the Borough. If no water was coming into the Borough then there would be no water going into the drain. Ewan Larcombe responded that he was born and bred by the Wraysbury Drain and there was enough water in the area to drive the drain. The Flood Risk Manager said he had been out to site loads of times and there was little to no water coming into the Borough. He had photos showing no water coming into the Borough and there was no water going into the sluice either. Councillor Lenton said the Wraysbury Drain was misleading. It was a flood relief channel so the Borough needed to know if it would work in times of flood.

 

Councillor Beer stated the Flood Liaison Group was an outside body and not a council body, he found that out when the meeting was postponed. The Group needed to be recognised as an official Council body  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

89.

Parish Flood Group Update pdf icon PDF 565 KB

·         Partnership Funding for the River Thames Scheme.

Minutes:

Report on Partnership Funding and the River Thames Scheme

 

Ewan Larcombe read out his report on the funding of the River Thames Scheme (RTS) and Brianne Vally responded as follows:

 

Ø  The EA had identified resources of £335m which was more than half the funding required.

Ø  The EA were working with partners to find further funding.

Ø  While funding negotiations took place, a number of studies were being carried out; some were archaeological, some were environmental impact assessments.

 

The Flood Risk Manager said the Council made an annual commitment of £250k at Full Council for design works and a further £10m subject to the whole scheme being built. Ewan Larcombe responded he had been concerned for some time. After the 2014 flooding, the government asked for a funding review. The report was suppressed for 18 months and when it went through committee, there was a lot of criticism directed at the EA and the way it handled money. He added partnership funding isn’t possible and there was no provision for maintenance after the scheme had been built.

 

Councillor Kellaway said after the work was done and the scheme built, the EA was responsible for the maintenance. The Flood Risk Manager said there were imaginative ways to get the maintenance done. Brianne Vally said the EA response to the report was available on Google and she would circulate the response to Members.

 

v  Action – Brianne Vally from the EA to circulate the EA’s response to the report on the RTS.

 

Brianne Vally stated as a result of the Peer Review, the EA would implement a maintenance plan. £22m was required over five years and the EA was working towards the International Accreditation for Management of Physical Assets. Feedback was requested for their asset management plan and she would send an email to request the feedback to Members.

 

v  Action – Brianne Vally to send the weblink to Members so they can provide feedback on the EA’s asset management plan.

 

Ewan Larcombe stated the River Thames and its bed was an asset but the bed was ever rising and had not been dredged for over 20years. Harry Clasper asked what the current shortfall for the RTS was. Brianne Vally confirmed the shortfall was more than half the required amount. The Flood Risk Manager confirmed it was circa £200m and the figure was available on the RTS website. Councillor Kellaway said the Borough was doing the best it could to get the scheme moved forward. Ewan Larcombe responded when a boat scraped the bottom of the Thames River bed, the EA came with a barge and dug it out but then went up stream and dumped it back in again. Brianne Vally said she would bring an item on dredging to the next meeting.

 

v  Action – Brianne Vally from the EA to bring an item to the next Flood Liaison Group on dredging of the Thames.

 

90.

Dates of Future Meetings

To note the details of future meetings:

·         24 January 2019

·         2 April 2019.

Minutes:

Members noted the dates of the following meetings:

 

Ø  24 January 2019

Ø  2 April 2019.