Agenda item

To consider the annual report on progress against the Flood Risk Management Action Plan. 

86.1           Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 67-86, which provided an annual update on progress against the Flood Risk Management Action Plan.  Members were asked to consider the update.

86.2           The Head of Community Services explained that the action plan at Appendix 1 reflected the report that had been presented to the Flood Risk Management Group at its meeting on 26 February 2018.  The action plan was split into four main sections: live capital projects; Tewkesbury Borough Council’s programme of watercourse maintenance; future maintenance issues; and grant applications.  In terms of live capital projects, the action plan included one project in respect of Grange Field and the proposal was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.  With regard to watercourse maintenance, Members were advised that 98 projects had been undertaken across the borough during 2017/18 including desilting, unblocking, flail cutting and hedge cutting as well as reactionary work such as clearing fallen trees; this had amounted to £45,444.  The action plan also contained the programmed future maintenance works proposed in 2018/19 and included 37 projects amounting to a total of £22,868.  In terms of grant applications, the action plan detailed four existing schemes which were led by Gloucestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority and these were summarised in Paragraph 6.1 of the report.  In relation to funding bids in progress, there was a notional allocation of £3M for Gloucestershire under Priority Axis 6: Preserving and Protecting the Environment and Promoting Resource Efficiency under the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funding. The project would involve the betterment of areas of public open space of low ecological value into a network of mini-meadows which would provide multiple benefits in terms of flood risk, biodiversity, water quality, amenity and anti-social behaviour.  It was noted that the grant funding agreement was expected to be confirmed in the spring.

86.3           Another key project that had been overseen by the Flood Risk Management Group was the review of the Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  This document had been adopted by the Council and was now a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.  The Head of Development Services advised that the Council worked with Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (GRCC), and other partners, to help communities in Tewkesbury Borough increase their resilience to floods, this included flood warden training which had last taken place in January 2018; regular updates on this work were received by the Flood Risk Management Group.

86.4           A Member drew attention to Page No. 73 of the report which indicated that there was a provisional agreement to engage the services of expert staff responsible for creating the wildflower planting at Pitville Park and she pointed out that this would be very costly. The Head of Development Services explained that consideration had been given to various ways of developing the Grange Field project and she provided assurance that there had been a number of cost savings as well.  The project was being financed through grant funding so it was not Tewkesbury Borough Council’s money per se but the intention was to achieve the best value possible.  With regard to watercourse maintenance, a Member indicated that he had been led to believe from another meeting that there was some uncertainty as to which watercourses the Council-owned.  The Head of Development Services provided assurance that Tewkesbury Borough Council knew which watercourses and assets it owned and was responsible for but it was unclear who owned other parcels of land; land ownership was very complex across the borough. 

86.5           The Chair indicated that he was a Member of Flood Risk Management Group and he expressed the view that it was unnecessary to bring the same information that was reported at that Group to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  He suggested that the Chair of the Group could instead be asked to provide an annual summary report and the Committee agreed that this would be an appropriate way forward.  It was therefore

RESOLVED           1.  That the annual report on progress against the Flood Risk Management Group Action Plan be NOTED.

2.   That the Chair of the Flood Risk Management Group be asked to provide an annual summary report in future.