81 UPDATE
ON FUNDING FOR FLOOD RISK ALLEVIATION SCHEMES AND PROJECTS AND MATCH FUNDING - The following areas were considered:-
|
|
(i) Flood
Mitigation - The Authority had
received £4.5 million for flood mitigation works which had been allocated via
a four year programme. To date 150
schemes had been delivered whilst a number were nearing completion.
|
|
(ii) Phase
Two - The Council had identified a further £2 million for schemes and had
sought bids for this funding. The
result had been positive, although funding had been oversubscribed by £9
million. The Council had assessed the
needs and benefits of those submissions received and the schemes identified
would be implemented over a four-year programme. The assessment would give justification as to why the work was
required, following which there would be modelling and ultimately its
construction. As part of the
modelling process the Council would have to look at how the need arose and
understand why flooding occurred.
|
|
(iii) Partnership
Funding - Given the economic climate, the joint funding of schemes was
essential. Partnership funding
included sources such as the National Flood Defence Grant, local levy, European
grants and OfWAT determinations. The partnership
funding approach was more likely to attract Government funding as it
reflected a coming together of interested parties to the benefit of the
community. At a sub-regional level
the Council had made 59 submissions of the 105 being considered. The Council had adopted a comprehensive
approach to partnership funding in order to provide a co-ordinated approach
with Hull City, the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water. Following this there was a question and
answer session.
|
|
·
There were
some iniquities in the way national funding was distributed for flood
alleviation purposes. The Council’s view
had been made known on this as it was considered that the population density
distribution factor unfairly favoured urban areas which although affected by
flooding, was not necessarily at the same extent, but the density factor meant
that value for money was a factor that counted against rural areas where
flooding could be very severe but did not impact on the same density of population
to win funding.
|
|
·
The Council’s
voice was being heard and there was a need for this to continue in a
structured and ordered way in terms of influencing the distribution of
funding.
|
|
82 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT - UPDATE ON
THREE FLOOD RISK AREAS (GOOLE, BRIDLINGTON AND BEVERLEY) - The Council had identified three flood risk
areas of significance and had included them within its Flood Risk Assessment
despite not meeting the criteria being used for England within the
guidance. This proposal had been
rejected and although the Council had argued against this, the Environment
Agency had restated its original decision which had been endorsed by the
National Panel. This issue would be
the subject of further discussion at the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal
Committee as it was felt that there should be equity across the country.
|
|
The representative of the Environment Agency reported that the second
round of Flood Risk Assessments would commence in 2015, and offered an
opportunity to submit views to DEFRA regarding the inclusion of the three
flood risk areas of Beverley, Bridlington and Goole within the
assessment. As part of this process East
Riding MPs had been engaged and were fully behind the Council in its efforts.
|
|
83 FLOOD INVESTIGATIONS UPDATE - The Group was given an update on the
Council’s latest flood investigation which arose through its statutory duty.
|
|
(i) Goole
- There had been floods in Goole in July 2012. Approximately 300 homes within the Carr Lane catchment area had
been affected, of which 40 had experienced internal flooding. For some occupiers this had been the
second time within a year.
Geographically Goole was within a bowl and drainage was controlled by
a pumping station at Carr Lane. About
60% of the town’s drainage system ran through Carr Lane and although the rain
had not been considered exceptional there had been an operational failure at
Carr Lane. This failure reduced
pumping capacity and had resulted in water backing up into the town. There had been an extensive response from
all parties which had included the use of additional pipes to pump water into
the river. An interim report would be
submitted to The Cabinet in October 2012, whilst Yorkshire Water had agreed
to maintaining temporary pumps and pipes on site to provide some reassurance.
|
|
(ii) Swinefleet
- This had arisen on the same day as storms in Goole and had resulted in
external and internal flooding of properties. Investigations had revealed a high level of weed growth which
had hindered the flow from outfalls.
As a result of this incident work was being undertaken to remove
hindrances to flows.
|
|
(iii) Pocklington
- There had been disruption of nine commercial properties within the town
centre. There was a beck in the
middle of the town which had been culverted, however it was restricted and in
the event of too much water flow the beck could not cope and water was forced
into the town centre. This culvert
restriction caused problems as many drains discharged into the beck thereby
swamping the system. A number of
remedies had been identified including improvement to the culvert,
attenuation further upstream or an overland route.
|
|
(iv) Enforcement
- The Council carried out investigations and issued enforcement
requests. This included sending out
orders to riparian owners to undertake their drainage responsibilities. The Council had found that the best way of
achieving results was through dialogue with landowners rather than by the
serving of notices. Following this
there was a question and answer session.
|
|
·
In terms of
process work had to be commenced backwards from pipe outfalls towards the uppermost
branch of a drainage system to ensure all problems had been addressed.
|
|
·
The Council
was aware of flood issues in Hedon Main Street and St Augustine’s Gate and
was considering solutions.
|
|
·
Often with
drainage systems there was a problem further down stream and therefore the
Council was attempting to put pressure on those responsible for these
particular areas. Through the
enacting of various pieces of legislation a greater degree of responsibility
now rested with internal drainage boards who were responsible in undertaking
necessary remedial works.
|
|
·
The Council
had invested in new gully cleaning machinery and was also looking to fine tune
its schedule of works through the use of local knowledge to identify problem
areas.
|
|
·
The East Riding
area as a whole had to make itself more resilient and raise the threshold at
which flooding became a risk.
|
|
·
In terms of
those struggling with insurance costs as a result of flooding issues they
should be referred to the National Flood Forum for its specialist advice on
insurance matters.
|
|
84 COTTINGHAM AND ORCHARD PARK FLOOD ALLEVIATION
SCHEME (COPFAS)\WILLERBY AND DERRIGHAM FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME (WADFAS) - Each scheme was costed at over £10m and was
principally funded from national flood defence grant. Feasibility and modelling work had been
undertaken to prove the economic case for both schemes. The Willerby scheme had been submitted to
the National Assessment Team from which positive feedback had been
received. There was a likelihood that
European Union funding was likely and the Council was optimistic about its
various funding options. There were
also complementary schemes being undertaken by the Environment Agency for the
River Hull and the Humber frontage as well as the Hull sewerage system.
There
were seven watersheds that flowed into Hull.
Two intervention areas had been identified and the work to bring this
about was a partnership scheme with Hull City Council and the Environment
Agency. To date the flood model had
been completed and a series of tests undertaken to ensure the model worked
before identifying interventions. The
model would be used to fine tune the scheme as well as being used in the
future for other proposals within the East Riding area. The aim was to hold back the flows in
order to prevent flooding and then allow for a controlled release of
water. The scheme was designed at a
one in one hundred year eventuality plus 30% for climate change which was at
a level significantly higher than levels required by insurance
companies. It was anticipated that the
scheme would realise a series of lagoons to address flooding, however even at
this stage the scheme was still being developed which could realise further
change. There was also still a need
to achieve funding from the various funding bodies.
|
|
In
terms of the Cottingham and Orchard Park scheme, the aim was to develop
attenuation areas to hold and store water.
Following a consultation exercise an improved version of the scheme
had been developed in order to hold water to the west of the old railway
line. More work was required in terms
of the geology of the area as well as a possibility of constructing
lagoons. The aim was for both this
scheme and the Willerby scheme to be completed and operational by February
2015. As part of this work Yorkshire
Water had been heavily engaged and supportive of the process.
|
|
85 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - UPDATE - There had been weed cutting at drains,
which had been undertaken in liaison with internal drainage boards. One pump at Tickton was to be refurbished
which was part of a cyclical programme of maintenance. The same process would also ensue at
Wilfholme to ensure that the pump remained fit for purpose. The anticipated down time for this work
was four weeks. There were
contingency plans in place in the event of an emergency. There would also be pump refurbishment at
Winestead, however this work would need to be carefully planned because of
the significance of the station.
|
|
The River Hull/Humber frontage scheme would cost £30 to £40m and would
commence in 2014-15 once investigations had been concluded.
|
|
Work was also ongoing between East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Councils
regarding east coast erosion and tidal inundation in light of the anticipated
half metre rise in sea levels. Following this there was a question and answer
session.
|
|
·
Delegates
queried whether the Agency’s weed cutting exercise had been commenced too
late in the year and as a result outfalls had been blocked and water could
not drain away. The work had been
constrained by the weather, however comments of landowners would be taken
into account by the Environment Agency.
|
|
86 AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING:-
|
|
The following agenda items were identified for the Group’s next
meeting:-
|
|
·
Weed cutting
programme.
|
|
·
Emergency
contact numbers relating to flooding.
|
|
87 QUESTIONS - Only two questions had been received, one
of which had been addressed at the meeting.
A written response would be forwarded directly to Cherry Burton Parish
Council in relation to its question.
|
