To consider the above report

Councillor Dudley introduced the report and explained that the Jubilee River costs were covered by the EA. Following the 2014 dreadful flooding in Datchet and Wraysbury, lots of work had been carried out by the EA on flood prevention. Page 189 of the agenda pack showed the areas that will be protected by the RTS and those areas included Datchet and Wraysbury.

There were several local authorities that the scheme covered, including Surrey and Councillor Dudley had attended meetings regularly on advancing the project. It was a major undertaking to protect 15k homes, with 2,300 of those homes in the Royal Borough. Councillor Dudley stated that during the flooding event of 2014, he was told that if it had rained for one more day, the situation would have been significantly worse than it was.

Councillor Dudley explained that there were several manmade channels that linked with lakes and other channels. Costs identified for the scheme came to £476m and funding of £240m had been sought from central government but, there was a significant shortfall. The Borough was committed to protecting homes and businesses; and there was a checkpoint meeting which will discuss if the scheme was viable to continue with. Each local authority was asked for support to try and plug the funding gap and the Borough should show very clearly, its commitment to the scheme.

The EA had no budget for the operation and maintenance of the scheme so that had to be paid for and there was potential for a flood levy on local authority residents to pay for the operation and maintenance of the flood scheme. That could equate to 1% for each resident of the Borough.

Councillor Dudley stated the report would be going to Cabinet Regeneration Sub-Committee before going to Full Council; he proposed composing a letter of support to go to the Treasury; all local authorities were going forward with the maximum amount of money they could offer. He added that both Windsor and Maidenhead MPs were hugely supportive of the scheme and the EA had confirmed that the flooding seen in 2014 had a high chance of returning again.

The Chairman stated the scheme had been discussed before and had been supported. He added there was a risk element in the form of a funding gap of £208m and that costs could go up. As a Council, he was happy to contribute towards the scheme but queried what other local authorities were doing to support the scheme. Councillor Dudley stated that was a good question for the other local authorities to answer but, he did not want it to be see that the Royal Borough was not supporting the scheme to protect residents. Councillor Hunt agreed and hoped the scheme would go ahead. She noted the £2.5m per year for four years and stated the Borough only had a small limited area of the Thames but, the Council were offering £10m; whereas other local authorities were only paying £6m each. Councillor Dudley said he did not want to make it so that the scheme could not go ahead.

Councillor Dudley confirmed that the Borough was prepared to cover costs of operating and maintaining the scheme and the levy of 1% would be for all homes, not just those specifically affected by flooding.

Councillor Da Costa stated it was a very serious commitment, with the impact of flooding on businesses and residents very significant. He question how less likely people would be flooded if the scheme went ahead. Councillor Dudley assured Councillor Da Costa that the information would be in the public domain when it was available.

Councillor Dudley confirmed the proposals would go to Full Council which would then allocate budget for the scheme. The EA were to build the scheme so there was no design or delivery risk to the Council. The Borough was part of a group to fund the scheme and he was sure any concerns could be raised with the EA.

Ben Smith, Head of Highways and Transport confirmed there was a lot of modelling carried out and workshops had taken place to provide information on the areas affected; there had been a building up of knowledge which the Council, in conjunction with the EA could walk people through. Councillor Dudley confirmed the paper was requesting an in principal decision on the scheme.

Ben Smith confirmed that there was a chance the scheme was not deliverable and that was a risk. It was not just due to funding that the scheme might not be delivered, but land ownership issues. However, each risk would be looked at over time to reduce and remove risks. At this early, there was always going to be risks but, Ben Smith was trying to give comfort that the risks were being addressed.

Councillor Da Costa asked if there were any other feasible options. Ben Smith responded the EA were the experts and this was their preferred option with the maximum benefit. It was also the most deliverable option. Councillor Sharpe stated it seemed there was no other option as the weather was different now and would continue to be so. Councillor Dudley commented the scheme was not a nice to have scheme but a must have scheme.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Panel endorsed the recommendations.