a) Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Public Protection and Parking:

The Jacob’s Report dated September 2014 identified the need for maintenance works on the Wraysbury Drain.  Significant RBWM expenditure (about £150k) failed to cure the problems.  As designated lead local flood authority RBWM has repeatedly failed to ensure riparian maintenance.  By what date will the problems be fixed please?

b) Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Public Protection and Parking:

Channel One of the River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) was removed from the project after RBWM was unable to meet the partnership funding contribution requirement.  My view is that the Environment Agency demand for partnership funding was ‘ultra vires’ and consequently invalid.  What do you think?

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with Member questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

a) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Public Protection and Parking:

The Jacob’s Report dated September 2014 identified the need for maintenance works on the Wraysbury Drain.  Significant RBWM expenditure (about £150k) failed to cure the problems.  As designated lead local flood authority RBWM has repeatedly failed to ensure riparian maintenance.  By what date will the problems be fixed please?

Written response:There are a number of workstreams for maintenance of the drain, including liaison with riparian landowners, enforcement action, direct works, and the Environment Agency partnership for Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, and Old Windsor wards. Each workstream has in common the goal of ensuring maintenance of the Wraysbury Drain is carried out.  As each has its own timeline and parties responsible for carrying out works, it is not possible to provide a definitive date by which problems will be fixed.    

Current activities include:

·         Enforcement activity commenced in July 2021 in line with the council's Land Drainage Enforcement Policy under advice from the Legal Services team.

·         Site investigations have taken place to identify blockages and works are programmed to take place in October/November on sections of the watercourse

Officers will continue to provide regular updates on the Wraysbury Drain, including at the quarterly meetings of the Flood Liaison Group. The next update will be provided at the FLG on 13 October 2021.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe thanked Councillor Cannon for his predictable reply.  He imagined the long-term failure of RBWM to ensure maintenance of the land drainage infrastructure was actually due to legislative shortcomings. 

After the 2007 floods and the Pitt Review, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 clearly identified the newly created Lead Local Flood Authority as the body responsible for ordinary watercourses, surface water and groundwater and with appropriate permissive and enforcement powers. 

Unfortunately there was no legal duty on the authority to monitor the condition of the ordinary watercourses or to use the available powers.

An ancient watercourse had ceased to flow properly and RBWM had failed for years to fix this problem.  There was no joined up thinking here and public money had been poured down the drain.  He would now go to the Ombudsman but invited the Cabinet Member to respond.

Councillor Cannon stated that he had not heard a question to which he could provide a response.

b) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Cannon, Cabinet Member for Public Protection and Parking:

Channel One of the River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) was removed from the project after RBWM was unable to meet the partnership funding contribution requirement.  My view is that the Environment Agency demand for partnership funding was ‘ultra vires’ and consequently invalid.  What do you think?

Written response: “Ultra vires” is a legal term which means that a person or body corporate has acted beyond its legal power or authority.

The Environment Agency derives its authority from the Environment Act 1995, and its specific flood risk management powers come from section 6(4) of that act:

“The Agency shall in relation to England … exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood and coastal erosion risk management, in accordance with Part 1 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.”

The River Thames Scheme itself, sponsored by the Environment Agency, clearly falls within its statutory flood risk management function. The funding of the River Thames Scheme was approved not simply by the Environment Agency itself, but by its sponsoring department, DEFRA, and by HM Treasury.

It is therefore difficult to see on what basis Councillor Larcombe claims that the Environment Agency has acted outside its powers in seeking partnership funding. If he has continued doubts about the funding of the scheme he should direct his enquiry to the Environment Agency.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Larcombe commented that it had been suggested that he should direct his enquiry to the Environment Agency but this returned to the old conundrum of ‘who polices the policeman’?

The Environment Agency demanded a £230m partnership funding contribution from Surrey and £50m from RBWM towards the River Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme.  Surrey agreed to pay but RBWM was unwilling/unable to contribute. 

After ten years of significant expenditure on development in July 2020 Channel One was removed from the project leaving Old Windsor, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury at continuing and increasing risk of flooding.

An Environment Agency objective was to maximise partnership funding receipts. Consequently: no partnership contribution; no flood alleviation scheme.

Councillor Larcombe thought that RBWM should satisfy themselves by confirming that the EA demands for partnership funding were legitimate.  If he had not been removed from the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee that would have been precisely the question he would have been asked at the meeting.

Councillor Cannon commented that he had not heard a question, and referred Councillor Larcombe back to the original question raised and the legal response received.