Agenda item

Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists, had authored the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy report and was in attendance to answer questions from the Committee.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that the finalised Strategy would be brought before the Select Committee again at a later date once the consultation period had concluded. Democratic Services would add this to the Work Programme. It was also agreed that details of the obligations of the Fire Service, the Police and the Council in respect of flooding would be incorporated into the Strategy as this information was currently missing. 

Members noted that, since the flooding in 2016, the number of permeable areas in Hillingdon had reduced significantly. It was confirmed that a section in the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy sought to encourage residents to understand their role in the management of flooding and the importance of maintaining gardens and limiting impermeable paving areas. Another part of the Flood and Water Management Act which was likely to be enacted at the end of 2024 would incorporate a separate planning process for all developers obliging them to demonstrate the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the asset register was constantly under review and regularly updated. It would be reviewed again at the end of the consultation period.

Members sought clarification regarding staffing noting that it was difficult to recruit staff with the appropriate level of expertise. The Committee was advised that recruitment was underway to fill the two posts currently vacant. Some promising candidates had applied, and interviews would be held in the near future. In the meantime, consultants had been employed to bridge the gap.

The Committee was informed that officers worked closely with Cllr Patel of Harrow Council to discuss Hillingdon’s ongoing relationship with Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. With regard to how Hillingdon was getting third party funding for natural flood management projects that the Council was entitled to as part of that Committee across NW London and beyond, Members heard that officers had made good headway with a number of projects across the Borough as listed in the Strategy. The Council was performing well in terms of project delivery and was adept at accessing funding from the Environment Agency. Three or four more bids would be going in shortly and there were currently eight or nine projects underway.

In response to concerns raised by the Committee, it was clarified that officers were predominantly concerned with preventing flooding from affecting communities and were exploring natural flood management techniques, such as allowing green spaces to flood for positive reasons. The potential impact of floods on wildlife was recognised but did not constitute a major part of the current Strategy. It was explained that most wildlife could adapt to short-term flooding, and the focus was therfore on preventing long-term impacts on communities.

Members heard that the Strategy had been launched on 22 January 2024 and had initially been promoted through the Communications team on the Council’s website and via social media. Further details would be provided to Members outside of the Committee. Residents’ associations had also been contacted by email. A review would be scheduled for the week commencing 19 February to consider the responses to the consultation thus far. The aim was to encourage people to engage with the process. The consultation period was not set in stone and, with the Cabinet Member’s agreement, could be extended if necessary.

Members sought further clarification regarding engagement with flood action groups (flags) and community groups. It was confirmed that officers were trying to balance their resources between assisting flood action groups and delivering projects. The Strategy proposed quarterly meetings with flags, but they would also be expected to meet independently on a more regular basis – the aim was to encourage communities to empower themselves. If the resource could be brought in-house, this matter would be explored in more detail.

Councillors raised concerns about issues with sewage and sewers in their wards and the difficulties residents faced when trying to contact Thames Water. Officers acknowledged these concerns and confirmed that they were trying to build a better relationship with Thames Water. The Council put pressure on Thames Water as much as possible and aimed to formalise the arrangements with them.  As part of the flags, attempts were being made to get more representation from Thames Water in the community, but this was challenging. The projects undertaken by the Council aimed to try to stop the flooding before it reached Thames Water, for example by holding water back within the Council’s network. It was acknowledged that the role of the local flood authority was to try and bring all parties together to achieve a more collaborative way of working. This was what the Strategy set out to do - good progress had been made but there was still work to be done both with Thames Water and with local communities. The Strategy would be reviewed annually and residents would be kept informed of progress.

Members enquired how the Environment Agency and Thames Water could be held to account. It was confirmed that the Environment Agency was the main source of funding for most of the work undertaken by the Council. Officers sought to bring all parties together to manage flood water as best they could.

The Committee noted that flooding did not affect everyone. However, it was pointed out that all residents used the roads, drains, and sewers, hence it was important to address all communities across the Borough, not just those with residents’ associations. Members heard that approximately 40,000 properties were at risk of surface water flooding within the Borough. Projects were located where the risk was greatest and were not necessarily undertaken in response to requests put forward by resident associations or concerns raised by flags. It was hoped that, in the future, more community groups would come together to talk about risk management and highlight their concerns to the Council.

Councillors expressed their concerns regarding the issue of frequent flooding in Dawley Road, Hayes and enquired what residents could do in these circumstances. It was explained that the root of the problem lay with Thames Water sewers whose statutory requirement it was to manage the drainage network. New sewers had a higher specification and increased capacity, while older sewers had reduced capacity hence could only manage what they had originally been designed to do. Where possible, Council officers would attempt to stop the water getting into the sewers in the first place – such a project was currently underway in Hayes End. In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that Section 106 money was collected to make a development appropriate and policy compliant and would not normally be used to solve an existing problem.

Members asked about the pressure that could be applied by the Council and the levers they had at their disposal. It was confirmed that the Council did not have any enforcement powers hence worked more collaboratively, relying on goodwill to some extent. Members were advised that they could contact the Head of Environmental Specialists in the first instance with any concerns. Officers would then approach Thames Water to establish a course of action. It was acknowledged that this was not the ideal way of working and the Strategy aimed to reformulate the way the Council worked with its partners.

It was explained that, in planning terms, when new developments came into the system, there was a requirement for them to manage their own surface water drainage system to a runoff rate. Rainfall was expected to run off at a controlled and restrictive rate.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the content of the Strategy.