To consider the attached report.

Ben Smith introduced the item and gave an overview over of the River Thames Scheme (RTS), which was an Environment Agency (EA) led project to reduce flood risk, by building a new flood channel alongside the River Thames in three sections. There were several partners, local authorities and organisations like Thames Water on the RTS. Channel 1 was within the borough, which contributed £52.7 million of the overall £635 million project to deliver Channel 1. In 2017, the Council approved £10 million funding, with some sums paid pre-2017. There was a funding gap of £40 million and the financial strategy was to apply for a flood levy that was awaiting approval by central government, which was approved by Council. The legislative change did not happen and therefore the levy option for funding was unavailable.

At the time of the meeting, the RTS was at the point of submission of the consent order, which was the planning, design and procurement stage of the scheme. The project required a commitment from the Section 151 (S151) officer that the borough would be able to meet its full commitment; however, the S151 was not in the position to commit as the flood levy was not secured. The sponsoring board for the RTS decided to proceed with Channels 2 and 3 downstream without Channel 1. The EA committed to work with borough to explore other local flood measures that could provide flood protection. The solutions and costs were yet to be deciphered, but the funding was available to deliver local measures.

The Chairman asked what progress was made in finding local solutions and the Panel was informed that a meeting with the EA was diarised. The EA would present the options available and the impact they would have on flood mitigation. The options would be relatively low cost and have a short timescale for delivery.

The Vice Chairman asked why there was reliance on the flood levy as a means of financing Channel 1 when this was not approved by the government. The Panel was informed that the paper submitted to the Council in 2017 stated the financing was subject to the new legislation being enacted, with positive commitments from the government. Since then, the cost of the scheme was altered as more work needed to be done. The Vice Chairman said that over the five years, the borough invested £1.5 million of the total £50 million, therefore alternative sources other than the flood levy was not sought. He felt backup plans should have been put in place.

The Chairman asked if other local authorities in the RTS were impacted by the lack of flood levy. The Panel was informed that Surrey County Council supported the borough in lobbying the government to allow a flood levy so that the RTS could be funded. Surrey County Council made the decision to proceed with the scheme through other sources within their council and pay their commitment in full.

Councillor Larcombe said the EA website illustrated that the RTS was still fully funded and cost £640 million, with the Surrey County Council partnerships contribution of £237 million. He said the borough’s press release on its participation in the RTS on 30^th March 2020 said the scheme was currently estimated to cost £475 million and had committed to £10 million and an additional £43 million for the Berkshire section. He said the press release was can longer available on the website.

In March 2020, Councillor Larcombe was made aware for the first time of the £43 million shortfall. In August 2020, Councillor Cannon, Lead Member Public Protection and Parking, announced that Channel 1 would not be progressed due to the lack of partnership funding, after a meeting with EA in July 2020. Councillor Larcombe was awaiting copies of the agenda and minutes of the meeting with the EA and sponsor groups since September 2020.

Councillor Larcombe referred to the report that mentioned the borrowing costs were considered unacceptable and said this had not been discussed before and felt this was another failure of the financial governance. He felt residents downstream were denied the opportunity for effective flood defences. He referred to the report where alternative local flood defences to protect Datchet, Wraysbury and Old Windsor were being considered with the EA and said this included reprofiling the Thames to increase the cross-sectional areas and reduce the rugosity. He said Plan Thames dredging for conveyance purposes was abandoned by the EA in the mid-1990s and all equipment was sold or scrapped. Councillor Larcombe asked:

·         Who were the individuals involved in the discussions with the EA and why Councillor Larcombe was not involved or informed of the meetings?

·         What the RBWM forecast borrowings of April 2021 and a detailed explanation as to why borrowing £41.275 million was unaffordable and unacceptable.

·         To confirm that £10 million approved was readily available to spend on Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor’s flood defences.

·         Who was involved in the consideration of the alternative local flood defences for Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor, as he was not invited?

·         When the downstream villages would benefit from the investment?

The Chairman said the requisite answers were not available in the meeting and therefore a response would be given offline.

ACTION: Ben Smith to respond to Councillor Larcombe’s questions offline.

The Panel noted the item.