Agenda item

Councillor Baker, who had requested that the committee to hear from this group had done so as he personally, had found their input and advice very helpful.  It was also his experience that officers had also found it helpful and with this in mind he hoped that the group would be given the same consultee status as organisations such as the Civic Society and Architects Panel. 

Martin Langdon, Trevor Gander and John Hughes from the Cheltenham Flood and Drainage Panel, formerly known as the Charlton Kings Flood Action Group, introduced themselves to the committee and talked through a PowerPoint presentation (Appendix 1) and key points included:

·         The panel was made up of flood victims, councillors, academics and experts, all of whom were rate-payers committed to improving Cheltenham. 

·         The panel had been formed as it was felt that flood risk was a complex issue which was not fully understood by the public.

·         The panel collated, checked and challenged.

·         Their interests ranged from borough catchments to future generations and ensuring that information was not lost over time.

·         One map showed borough rivers.  The Charlton Kings catchment generated its own flooding issues and the map showed some gaps which represented buried water courses which in some cases, the borough council and Severn Trent were not aware of.

·         Another map showed that all catchments covered more or less all of Cheltenham.

·         If it were possible to catch the water that ran downhill, right to left, it would be possible to avoid the town.

·         The third map showed flood alleviation.  Work had been completed over the years, most recently in Prestbury and Hatherley, but the panel felt that this had not always been successful.

·         Pictures showed the extent of the flooding experienced in the town in 2007, which the panel felt was likely to be repeated were the same levels of rainfall to be experienced again.

·         Since 2007 there had been no formal review of the catchment, 2103 houses had been built on brownfield sites, 405 on infill and greenfield sites and there would be an extra 15130 houses built by 2031 and it was unknown how many of these would be built in flood plains.  The risk was not just from rivers but from surface water where drainage would be an issue.

·         Severn Trent were undertaking sewer lining in the town and this would reduce the amount of water that could pass through the sewer.

·         Surface flooding was on the rise and there were questions as to whether there were the appropriate strategies in place to address this.

·         Some planning policies were in place and planning and building control assumed a role.

·         It was highlighted that Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) were only a requirement for developments with more than ten houses, but the panel felt that this meant that cumulative effect of many smaller developments was overlooked as a consequence. 

·         As a group, the panel had found that some FRAs were often inaccurate, having used inappropriate methods of calculation and they queried why this had not been identified by other parties.

·         The panel felt that the use of bonds rather than ‘management companies’ would be a more effective means of ensuring that developers addressed maintenance issues, rather than leaving the council to.

·         The panel were of the opinion that the best way to address third party impacts was through the Planning process.

·         There had been no Supplementary Planning Guidance since 2003.

·         In terms of the future role of the group the panel saw this as centring on education, raising public awareness and providing advice.

·         A particular concern for the panel at the moment was drainage issues on some tactile crossing, which they felt became unsafe after rainfall. 

·         Members were keen that the panel be given similar status to the Architects Panel. 

·         The group hoped that they would be able to help the council to put together reliable and accurate mapping of where flooding occurred.

·         Cambridge and Islington were two examples of where flooding was looked at more holistically and the panel felt that Cheltenham would benefit from a similar approach.

The following responses were given to member questions from the representatives of the panel:

·         This issue with FRAs was not due to a lack of guidance, as there was lots of guidance available, all of which was available online, although some was very technical.  The issue was that they were only required for development of more than 10 houses.  The panel also took issue with the fact that FRAs were commissioned by developers and could therefore, in the panels opinion, be a little too specific and not as broad reaching as they should be and many FRAs used generic and theoretical data rather than seeking local knowledge, which the panel felt they could provide. 

·         Details of any member that wanted an electronic copy of the presentation before it was due to be published with the draft minutes of this meeting, would be taken at the end of the discussion.

·         Issues were dealt with by the Environment Agency and Gloucestershire County Council, as the lead authority, as well as CBC and it was the involvement of so many organisations that could cause issues.  The council had previously had a dedicated team of officers which had in recent years reduced to one individual and the panel felt that they could therefore offer a level of expertise. 

Members of the Planning Committee had asked for training on drainage and flooding issues and asked that this request be put to Officers again.

Having raised the matter for consideration by the committee, Councillor Baker commented that this was a serious issue that would likely get worse rather than better.  He felt that the discussion had been successful in raising awareness of the expertise of the panel and hoped that it would be given similar status as the Architects Panel

The Chairman explained that it was not within the gift of this committee to make any decisions but that Planning Officers would be asked to respond, at a future meeting, to the issues that had been raised, namely:

·         Whether comprehensive flooding and drainage training could be arranged for officers and members of the Planning Committee, and if so, when?

·         Officers would be asked to give a view as to if and how the CFDP could be given similar status to the Architects Panel.   

·         Provide a summary of the councils responsibilities in terms of planning (policies, roles, FRAs, SuDS and s106 agreements).

The Chairman thanked the representatives of the CFDP for their attendance and a very interesting and informative presentation.