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

Councillor Beer raised the issue of Heathrow expansion and stated the consultation started the previous week. He had noticed that Heathrow were trying to use land all around Heathrow to fabricate materials so there was no need to import. Councillor Beer added they wanted to dig up Ham Island for use as a gravel pit but, there were houses, a horse sanctuary and important sewage works that lived on that site. The Chairman explained the Aviation Forum had to respond by 25 March 2018 and he would get Aviation Forum feedback to the Flood Group. However, any response to the plans were part of the Aviation Forum’s remit. Councillor Beer responded the impact would fall within the Flood Group remit. Heathrow wanted to increase capacity and were looking at land grabbing all over to build bits of the third runway offsite. The Chairman said he would take the issue back to officers and see how the Borough could make the biggest impact. It was possible the best strategy would be a combined effort. The Principal Engineer (Flood Risk) requested Thames Water and the Environment Agency to go back to their offices and look into the matter to see if it had been flagged by other areas of their business.

Wraysbury Drain

PCllr Ian Thompson stated there had been some questions regarding the routing of existing channels in relation to channel one. He had done some work to see where existing channels ran and had clear maps which he said he would pass on to the EA. The maps had thrown up how water flowed and how the water courses connected with channel one. One concern that had been raised at the Red Hill meeting related to the height of water in the Thames at the time of flood with levels in the channel at the time of flood; lakes were connected to the watercourses and could flood Wraysbury, he added he would like to look at this with the EA. The Chairman requested the issue be followed up at the Red Hill meetings. PCllr Ian Thompson stated to clarify, he had walked channel one and the land was overgrown; it was easy to get disoriented. The watercourses were all at different levels which was the problem; PCllr Ian Thompson said he walked the route with Scott Salmon from the EA. He added they should go to site and put together safety bases to prevent the different levels flooding Wraysbury. Brianne Vally requested the Borough lead on the interaction so the team could focus on funding a project. No further work would be done on the design as they believed they had reached a certain point till more funding was secured. The Principal Engineer (Flood Risk) said he attended the Red Hill meeting and Mr Larcombe was correct. Concerns were expressed again regarding the different levels. The EA needed to consult the Borough before altering any watercourses and it would help to have conversations prior to that.

Mr Larcombe stated the Borough had spent £180k on sorting the Wraysbury Drain but it still did not work. The Principal Engineer (Flood Risk) explained that it had been dry for a number of years in the summer but, there was very little flow going into the Wraysbury Drain which is why it was dry. PCllr Mike Williams said it was dry at the moment, and the problem with it running dry was that it let things grow in it, the drain turns into a foot path and so compromises the effectiveness during floods. The Principal Engineer (Flood Risk) said the gravel pit quarry had planning permission and there would have been conditions attached. He needed to check how that might be affecting the dryness of the Wraysbury Drain.

v  Action – The Principal Engineer (Flood Risk) to investigate if the gravel pit quarry had conditions attached to its planning permission with regards to water being used which could cause the Wraysbury Drain to dry out.

RTS Funding

Brianne Vally, The EA, stated all information regarding funding for the scheme was available on the web

River Thames Scheme (RTS) Funding

Brainne Valley, EA, confirmed all available information was on the EA website. The cost of the scheme was £476m for the design and construction phase. The scheme was eligible for £212m of funding from central government and further communications on the scheme would be released in the next few weeks. Members could sign up to receive the RTS newsletter which provided regular updates.

The Chairman stated the cost was £588m and the original costs were based on the year 2000 prices. There was a £234m deficit with £354m of funding secured. The Chairman said there had been a meeting with the Chancellor the previous week with council leaders and the EA. Council’s informed the Chancellor that they needed to confirm the funding in 2018 so that a planning application could be produced and submitted in 2020. The works would be scheduled to begin in 2022 subject to planning permission. The Chairman added the cost benefit ratio was better than that of HS2 which confirmed how important the RTS was.

The Chairman stated his personal view was that the government wanted partners and businesses to contribute to the scheme. The Borough had committed £12m along with other councils but, it still was not enough. The worst case scenario would be that only two channels would be built and not three.

PCllr Ian Thompson said he had a meeting with the Chancellor in 2017 and he had said the project had gone past the tipping point. Ewan Larcombe explained his understanding was there was meant to be PPP funding arrangements in place. The EA asked Surrey for £103m, asked another council for £80m and then went to the government saying they could not afford the scheme so asked for a loan and to raise council tax to pay for it. The Chairman responded saying he did not know the outcome of the meeting last week and that the current position was not satisfactory. A decision before this summer had been requested. The Principal engineer (Flood Risk) confirmed the Borough had offered £10m but it was conditional on the whole scheme being delivered.