Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration.

On the 13th September 2016, extreme rainfall events hit parts of south west England and the south Pennines, with significant flooding observed across Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Staffordshire, and also in parts of west Cornwall.  The rainfall event significantly affected Stockport, with the borough receiving approximately 44% of its total monthly rainfall in just one day. Leading up to this day Stockport had experienced a period of warm dry weather and as a result ground conditions were not saturated and water levels within the local watercourses were quite low. However, the volume and intensity of rainfall overloaded the local drainage system, causing surface water flooding throughout large parts of the borough.

This report presents the various aspects of the flood events in September and specifically incorporates a draft Independent Section 19 Investigation Report in accordance with the Flood & Water Management Act (FWMA) on the investigation into the flooding events undertaken by Jacobs Consulting Engineers.

The Area Committee is recommended to comment on the draft Jacobs Section 19 Report for the September 2016 floods in Appendix A and recommend that the Executive approves the final report.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161-474-4351 or email: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing the opportunity for Councillors and members of the public to comment on the Council’s response to the extreme rainfall event which occurred on 13 September 2016 as well as on the draft Independent Section 19 Investigation report.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         Concerns were expressed that ward councillors were given insufficient notice of correspondence being sent to residents about matters relating to flooding, particularly when they contained potentially contentious information.

·         Given that services and contact centres are often overwhelmed when flooding occurs, could the Council and other agencies be more proactive at contacting those in high risk communities at the beginning of these incidences? In response it was confirmed that discussions were taking space about how best to ensure extra capacity was available in these instances, and to enhance community resilience and resources to allow communities to take greater charge of the situation.

·         The report gave the impression that United Utilities ‘got off lightly’ as no recommendation were made for them to do anything above and beyond what they should be doing anyway. Other agencies appeared to be far more proactive in taking preventative measures.

·         Did the recommendations mean that there was not already an efficient system? Will the measures mean that insurance premiums go up? How were landowners with water course running through them going to be encouraged to check weather reports? In response, it was stated that it may be that insurance premiums would increase but there were schemes for home owners who might struggle to avoid insurance. It was also stated that the environment agency and Met Office provided various alert facilities that the public could sign up to.

·         Concerns were expressed that there remained a number of blocked drains and gulleys which undermined confidence that there had been learning from previous flooding incidents. In response it was stated that the Council sought to target resources on areas of highest risk and most frequent blockages. It was acknowledged that there was scope for the Council to better understand the causes of blockages at particular locations to take preventative measures. It was also commented that given the volume of rain fall in the incidents under consideration, blocked gullies were unlikely to have been a significant contribution factor.

·         It was queried why Rochdale and other areas were receiving more generous levels of government support for residents in providing property level protection. In response it was stated that the matter had been raised with the appropriate Government department but the Council had been told that local flooding was not as severe as that experienced in Rochdale so would not attract similar funding support.

·         There were farming and land management measures that could be employed to reduce flood risk and this should be encouraged.

·         The development of the Local Plan should ensure that inappropriate development on flood plains and in flood risk areas was discouraged or prevented.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.