Agenda item

The Committee requested a report on flooding in Oxfordshire, the various responsibilities of partners, and an overview.

The Committee has invited Cllr Dr Pete Sudbury, Deputy Leader of the Council with Responsibility for Climate Change, Environment & Future Generations, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Teresa Kirkham, Head of Environment and Circular Economy, to present the report.  The Committee has also invited representatives from the Environment Agency, Thames Water, and South Oxfordshire and the Vale of the White Horse District Councils.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee invited Cllr Dr Pete Sudbury, Deputy Leader of the Council with Responsibility for Climate Change, Environment & Future Generations, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Teresa Kirkham, Head of Environment and Circular Economy, to present the report.

The Committee was pleased to welcome external stakeholders, namely Evie Kingsmill, Evidence Manager at the Environment Agency (EA), Jake Morley, Government and Stakeholder Engagement Manager with Thames Water (TW), and John Backley, Technical Services Manager for South Oxfordshire District Council and the Vale of the White Horse District Council.  The Committee also welcomed the attendance of Terry Coupar, Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue, Sean Rooney, Head of Highway Maintenance, and Paul Wilson, Operations manager (Highways Operations), Clare Mills, Operational manager for Flood Risk Management, and Carol Mackay, Resilience Manager, to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Deputy Leader opened the flood response discussion by highlighting recent heavy rain and flooding. It was emphasised that, while the report covered river flooding, the latest incident was caused by rainfall. The difficulty of managing significant rainfall quickly was emphasised, with a warning of worsening conditions due to climate change. The need for a long-term water management plan in response was stressed.

Cllr Hicks arrived following the introduction from Cllr Sudbury

The Technical Services Manager presented the findings and lessons on the part of his district councils from Storm Henk, outlining future actions for pre- and post-flood events. The challenges were also discussed like communicating with displaced residents and improving community resilience through effective flood protection examples.

The Evidence Manager outlined the EA’s role during Storm Henk, covering flood risk management from main rivers, maintaining assets, mapping, and regulating activities. The EA forecasted floods, monitored river levels, alerted the public, ensured operational assets, and supported multi-agency responses. Key lessons learnt from the recent flooding included maintaining good responder relationships, effective coordination, forecasting challenges, resourcing issues, prioritizing flood warnings, the value of community officers in data collection, and high groundwater levels causing potential flooding.

Following the introduction, members raised a number of issues for discussion with internal and external officers including:

·       What work, along with the planning department, occurred to create a more preventative than reactive response to flood events?

It was explained that South and Vale had a team of land drainage specialists, who reviewed planning applications to address drainage issues and ensured developers' proposals met Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) requirements, which were legally required. It was the district council's responsibility to ensure new developments managed water properly, and district engineers-imposed planning conditions accordingly.  Constructions were inspected with flood modelling used to ensure developers' proposals managed water appropriately.

Members explored provision of sandbags across the county.  The Technical Services Manager confirmed that South and Vale District Councils do not provide sandbags for flood defence, stressing the need for property owners to take proactive protective measures. Officers explained that sandbags were seen as impractical due to resource limitations and that flood guards and barriers were more efficient in keeping floodwater out.  Some communities may have had access sandbags through local emergency plans, reflecting a collaborative approach between community preparedness and local authorities.

·       Following on from the discussion about the value of sandbags, members questioned what support and funding was available to individuals and communities to protect themselves from flood events.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) introduced several flood recovery grants after Storm Henk, including business rate relief and a community recovery grant which were administered by the city and district councils.  Those were now closed to new applications.  There was also a Property Flood Resilience grant of up to £5,000 administered by the Council to assist home and business owners to improve the flood resilience of individual properties when repaired after a flood.  This was available until the end of November 2024.  It was reported that COBRA's Resilience and Emergencies division was considering additional recovery grants for current flooding to aid affected communities.

Parishes and towns that created Community Emergency Plans and lay wholly within the Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks area could also apply for grants from them to enhance community facilities to support the local response to a significant emergency.

·       The Oxfordshire Flood Toolkit’s main role was to offer safety information and resources and was not there to manage real-time incidents. There was recognition of the need to improve its accessibility for communities and councillors. This involved keeping the information current and effectively promoting it to a broader audience.  The Resilience team had information packs which it was keen to distribute to parishes to boost awareness and usage of the toolkit and it was suggested that members could help to publicise this.

·       Members impressed upon officers the need for improved communication with councillors regarding flooding incidents. It was highlighted that councillors required more information on what actions to take, whom to contact for assistance, and how to support their residents effectively during flooding events and also needed timely and accurate information to prepare for expected flooding.

·       Members explored the process of releasing flood gates, and who was responsible for doing so.  It was explained that the local Resilience forum would most likely handle such a situation as part of the multi-agency response. Additionally, it was possible to monitor the Shoothill gauge map online, which was publicly accessible at www.guagemap.co.uk. It was possible to observe spikes in water levels, indicating flood alerts or warnings.

·       The frequency of drain clearance was raised and it was explained that the priority had been on ensuring the high-speed road network is maintained, which includes clearing gullies on these roads, as well as areas highlighted as vulnerable to flooding.

Shared ownership complicated maintenance and response efforts given that the Council owned a portion of the drainage network whilst Thames Water also owned a substantial portion.

It was emphasised that, even with frequent maintenance, the existing drainage system was unlikely to be sufficient to handle extreme weather events particularly with the increasing frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall, leading to flooding.

This discussion led to the questions of improving and upgrading various aspects of the drainage and sewage network, including pumping stations.

Thames Water’s Government and Stakeholder Engagement Manager addressed the complexity of such upgrades, noting that while they can increase capacity, they must also consider where the additional water will go, emphasising the need for comprehensive planning to manage the water effectively.  A wider range of preventative measures were needed to stop surface level watering entering the network.

·       The Committee explored Thames Water’s role and responsibilities related to post flood clean up and foul water discharge and was told that Thames Water was obliged to manage sewer overflows and ensure the network operated effectively. This included deploying tankers and crews to manage sewer overflows and clean-up efforts for excess liquids and debris.

The importance of multi-agency collaboration was stressed, to address broader water management and infrastructure improvement challenges. Whilst Thames Water used sewer depth monitors in certain areas to alert them when levels were too high, indicating a potential overflow, total monitoring coverage was not possible. There was a reliance on public reporting and reports from other services, such as Fire and Rescue, to manage issues effectively.

The Committee was advised there was no dedicated river dredging programme.  Instead, maintenance and repair of watercourses were generally the responsibility of the owner of the land along the river (i.e., the riparian owner).  The EA had some permissive powers to do maintenance on behalf of riparian landowners if necessary and had enforcement powers regarding maintenance to prevent flooding risks.

The Committee noted that the Lead Local Flooding Authority was required to compile a report under s.19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 but that agencies working closely together was key to the timely completion of such reports.  The Committee was concerned to hear that some reports were significantly delayed because some partners did not provide the relevant information.  The Committee considered it vital that all partners should work together very closely to ensure swift delivery of s.19 reports.

Members also discussed whether The Water Services Regulation Authority (OFWAT) could take action regarding potential breaches of s.94 of the Water Industry Act 1991which required sewage companies to maintain their sewers, ensuring that drain the affected area effectively.  The Committee asked if the Council had been in touch with OFWAT regarding any breaches of s.94 duties by sewage companies, given that enforcement by OFWAT could potentially lead to funding for infrastructure improvements.

Whilst officers agreed that it was a mechanism that had value and was worth exploring, collaborative work with partners, such as TW and landowners, was the priority to prevent flooding events and ensure flood preventing measures were implemented.

The Chair expressed the Committee’s thanks to all those who had attended from all relevant teams and agencies.

The Committee resolved to AGREE recommendations to Cabinet under the following headings:

·       That the Council should investigate how best to retrofit sustainable drainage systems, as well as other flood prevention measures, to Council maintained properties and streets.

·       That the Council should improve communications to Members, raising awareness of the flooding Toolkit as well as active flood measures.

·       That the Council should improve social media communication for residents during flooding and other emergencies.

·       That the Council should commit to working closely with partners to ensure that s.19 reports are completed swiftly.

·       That the Council should investigate the role and responsibilities of OFWAT and the potential for invoking s.94 measures.

·       That the Council should promote the benefits of creating of community emergency plans by parish councils and support the Resilience team to do that.