A presentation will be provided as part of this item on improving flood resilience.
Minutes:
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources the purpose of which was to present the Corporate Risk Register for approval and to provide an update on County Fraud initiatives. The Committee also received a presentation on improving flood resilience as part of this item. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, and the presentation slides is filed with these minutes.
Arising from discussion, the following points were made:
Presentation – Improving Flood Resilience
(i)
The County Council had done a lot to support
residents during and after flooding events. It was questioned,
however, what efforts were made during the planning application process to
proactively seek to prevent flooding in the first instance. It was noted
that the County Council was only a consultee to the planning process and only
in respect of surface water drainage impacts from major planning
applications. It highlighted its concerns where flooding was predicted to
be a risk, based on predictive data and data received through enquiries or
reports from residents. However, recent floods had been in communities
that had never previously been affected. Residents were encouraged to come
forward with any information about past flooding to help improve data held by
the County Council which could then be used when responding to future
applications.
(ii)
A Member emphasised that local knowledge about
past flooding could be critical, particularly in respect of proposed locations
for new developments. However, they commented that local residents objections were often not given adequate weight in
the planning process.
(iii)
A Member commented that some residents made
changes to their properties which was perhaps not helpful in preventing
flooding, such as tarmacking driveways and replacing grass with artificial
alternatives. It was suggested that this could increase flood water run off. Members noted that it was not known how much
flood water run off increased over time once a development had been completed as a result of such individual changes being made.
This was not currently monitored by any agency.
(iv)
In response to a question, the Director advised
that the Council could not seek funding from other agencies for the costs of
repairing roads damaged by flood water, even when it was found that their
actions or inactions may have caused or contributed to the flood
occurring.
(v)
The publication of a leaflet which was being
shared with residents was commended. This provided very useful
information, particularly in terms of where responsibility lay across the
different agencies, and who to contact both before, during and after a flood
event.
(vi)
The Environment Agency (EA) was the strategic
lead for flood risk management across the UK and was responsible for major
watercourses including reservoirs. The EA had taken the lead across the
East Midlands in the response to Storm Henk.
(vii)
If a watercourse ran through someone’s property they would be responsible for this this as the
owner of that land and watercourse. A Member commented that reduced work
by the EA on main rivers which had previously helped reduce and/or prevent
flooding from local watercourses was having a negative impact on individual
properties that had a watercourse running through or near to it.
(viii)
A Member raised concern at the increased number
of roads and sewers constructed on new developments that were not being built
to standard and therefore not being adopted by the County Council or Seven
Trent which was having an impact on residents that purchased properties on
those new developments. The Director assured members that developers were
made aware of the standards required for adoption and the Council could not
afford to take responsibility for those not adequately constructed. This
would therefore be a private matter for residents, taking appropriate legal
advice, with developers, or for district councils as the local planning
authorities with enforcement powers if it was shown that the development had
not been built in line with planning conditions.
Risk Register
(ix)
It was proposed that the presentation provided
at the next meeting should focus on risks to the Council relating to
recruitment, difficulties faced and the increased use of costly agency staff.
(x)
A Member suggested that the biggest risk facing
the Council was the lack of Government funding which could result in future
years to the issuing of a section 114 notice as had happen in other
authorities. It was noted the Council’s
Medium Term Financial Strategy was closely monitored by the Scruitny Commission
and five other departmental related Scruitny bodies.
(xi)
A Member questioned what the completion rate was
for staff undertaking the fraud awareness e-learning module. The Director undertook to provide this
information after the meeting.
RESOLVED:
(a) That
the current status of the strategic risks facing the
County Council be approved;
(b) That
a presentation on the risks relating to recruitment pressures and the costly
use of agency staff be provided at the next meeting as part of this item;
(c)
That the update regarding counter fraud be
noted.
Supporting documents: