Agenda and minutes

For information, disclosable pecuniary interests and registrable interests relate to entries that are included or should be included, on a councillor’s Register of Interests.  Non-registrable interests relate to any other matters.

No disclosures were made.

No declarations were made.

No questions were submitted.

To note the Scrutiny Scoping Document for the Panel, agreed by the Scrutiny Commission at its meeting on 5th February 2024.

Considered and discussed the scrutiny scoping document for the Panel, as agreed by the Scrutiny Commission at its meeting on 5th February 2024 and updated to list Panel membership.

Members considered the desired outcomes for the panel, and what might be excluded for consideration.  Noted that blocked drains could be considered as part of the panel.  The two main types of flooding were from water courses or surface water flooding off fields; blocked drains could be a reason for this or the volume of water resulting in the system being inundated.  It would be beneficial to review both or either of these types of flooding in relation to drains.

AGREED that the Scrutiny Scope Document be noted.

A briefing by the Head of Contracts: Leisure, Waste and Environment to provide information on the roles of different agencies for flooding incidents and prevention, (to include the role of the Borough Council).

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document, considered and discussed the roles of different agencies via a presentation by the Head of Contracts, Leisure Waste and Environment.

Key points of discussion:

·       determining ownership of water courses was challenging.  On purchase of any new property, conveyancing would identify any responsibility for water courses on the land.  Noted that some brooks located in the Borough changed ownership and responsibility along their course.

·       if a section of a water course was blocked, it was the responsibility of the riparian owner to remove the blockage.  Depending on the definition of the water course, this would identify who was responsible for enforcement.  If it was defined as a main river, it would be the Environment Agency’s (EA) responsibility.  If it was ordinary water course, it would be the responsibility of the County Council.  Consent to inspect water courses was not a legal requirement but it was likely to be sought.

·       the geographical area of water courses to be inspected was significant, the number of enforcement notices given by the County Council or whether there was an inspection programme was unknown.

·       parish and town councils did not have any flood responsibility other than as a riparian owner.

·       as part of the planning process for building of new housing developments, the green field run off rate (water discharge from fields into water courses) would be calculated to ensure that balancing ponds or Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) schemes implemented as part of the development would reduce the flood rate to slower than agricultural fields.  It was uncertain whether the calculation accounted for climate change over a 20-30 year period or when the process had been introduced as part of the planning process. 

·       it was the landowner’s responsibility to maintain the pond or scheme, however, identifying the owner could be complex.  Often there was a mix of owners for green spaces in a housing development.  The Borough Council or Parish/Town Council could adopt the SUDs scheme or a management trust could be established, requiring fees to be paid by home owners.  If the Borough Council took ownership an advance maintenance sum would be requested, management trusts tended to be the preferred option, and this would be highlighted during any conveyancing when purchasing a property.  Planning conditions could be in place to ensure the schemes were maintained.

·       it was important to consider if new foul sewers were built or that existing sewers could cope with additional housing.  Some older sewers were combined rain and foul sewers.  This could be discussed with Severn Trent.

·       Loughborough was considered to have a high flood risk, the Borough Council had established a Flood Board and liaised with other agencies to provide a response to an incident.  Flood Wardens and volunteers were not contacted directly; their role was to respond to the Flood Alert and proactively made residents aware of the risk. 

·       new ‘aqua sack’ sandbags were distributed to high risk parishes. They were easy to store flat, had a longer shelf life than sand  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To schedule the key tasks in the scrutiny scoping document to be considered at the next meeting of the Panel and to consider any work to be allocated to members of the Panel in advance of the next meeting.  Further scheduled meetings of the Panel are:

16 April 2024

21 May 2024

09 July 2024

20 August 2024

01 October 2024

Considered and discussed the key tasks in the scrutiny scope document and items raised during the meeting, to be considered at the next meeting of the panel and any work members of the Panel would undertake in advance of the next meeting.

Members considered the following:

·       a Review of draft LLFA Flood Risk Management Strategy.

·       resilience of the road system network, with particular reference to Mountsorrel – considered medium severity with a long term impact, the Head of Contracts; Leisure Waste and Environment agreed to discuss with Highways department.

·       the lessons learnt from previous Flood Scrutiny Panel and implementation of recommendations.

·       to invite the Environment Agency and Leicestershire County Council to attend a meeting and prepare questions in advance.

·       to consider difference between prevention and response / recovery.

·       Panel members to liaise with other councillors to determine concerns regarding flooding in their wards.

·       problematic areas within the canal and river network and whether the water courses were dredged regularly and sluice gates maintained.  An overview of the river networks could be beneficial for the Panel to consider and to invite the Canal and River Trust to attend a meeting.

AGREED that

1.     the Chair to prepare a report on the lessons learnt from the previous Flood Scrutiny Panel for consideration at the Panel’s meeting to be held on 16th April 2024;

2.     Panel Members to prepare a list of questions to ask the Environment Agency and Leicestershire County Council for consideration at its meeting to be held on 16th April 2024;

3.     the Head of Contracts; Leisure, Waste and Environment to prepare a report on the differences between prevention and response / recovery for consideration at the Panel’s meeting to be held on 16th April 2024;

4.     the Environment Agency and Leicestershire County Council be invited to attend the meeting to be held on 21st May 2024;

5.     Leicestershire County Council be asked to present the draft LLFA Flood Risk Management Strategy at the Panel’s meeting to be held on 21st May 2024;

6.     The work programme be updated to reflect discussions during this item.