Agenda and minutes

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Items 3, 5 and 5 by virtue of the fact that she was the flood warden for East Ilsley, but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matters.

Purpose: To provide details of the impact of the flooding over the period January to June 2024, the lessons identified following the debrief process, and an outline programme of activities in relation to these recommendations in readiness for winter 2024/2025. 

The Chairman explained the format of the meeting. It was agreed that because of the inter-relationships between the items, questions and debate would be deferred until after all of the presentations had been received. A summary of the discussions is provided in the Minutes for Agenda Item 5, ‘Thames Water and Environment Agency’.

Councillor Stuart Gourley (Executive Portfolio Holder: Environment and Highways) and Carolyn Richardson (Service Manager – Joint Emergency Planning Unit) gave a verbal update on the Winter 2024 Flooding Debrief (Agenda Item 4). Their presentations may be viewed on the recording:

Scrutiny Commission, Thursday, 17 October 2024 (youtube.com)

RESOLVED to note the report.

Purpose: To present the investigation into the flooding across West Berkshire during the early part of 2024 in accordance with section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

Jon Winstanley (Service Director – Environment) introduced the 2024 Section 19 Report (Agenda Item 3). The presentation may be viewed on the recording:

Scrutiny Commission, Thursday, 17 October 2024 (youtube.com)

Questions and debate for Agenda Items 3 to 5 were deferred until after all the presentations had been received. A summary of the discussions is provided in the Minutes for Agenda Item 5, ‘Thames Water and Environment Agency’.

RESOLVED to note the report.

Purpose: To understand how Thames Water is upgrading its water supply and foul water networks to support planned development and prevent pollution incidents in West Berkshire, and how the Environment Agency is holding Thames Water to account.

Danny Leamon (Performance Director – Waste) and Shelly Hartnoll (Area Network Manager) provided an update on behalf of Thames Water. The presentation may be viewed on the recording:

Scrutiny Commission, Thursday, 17 October 2024 (youtube.com)

It was noted that Thames Water had provided written responses to questions submitted by West Berkshire Councillors, Flood Wardens, Action for the River Kennet (ARK) and the Angling Trust. These were provided within one of the supplementary agenda packs.

Maddy Adams (Thames Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager) and Dave Willis (Area Environment Manager, Thames Area) provided an update on behalf of the Environment Agency. The presentations may be viewed on the recording:

Scrutiny Commission, Thursday, 17 October 2024 (youtube.com)

The Commission noted the following updates on Actions 141 and 143 from the Scrutiny Commissions Action Log:

·       Action 141 – No response had been received in reply to letters to Ministers of the previous government. It was confirmed that letters would be sent to Ministers of the new administration. Also, the MP for Newbury had written to Ofwat about sewage related issues. Meetings had taken place between the Council and Thames Water around larger infrastructure projects and plans. Work was also progressing on joint comms initiatives.

·       Action 143 – Thames Water had undertaken water tests in Northbrook. A walkover had been undertaken with the Environment Agency, and further testing had been agreed.

Members of Scrutiny Commission and local Ward Members asked questions of WBC Officers, Thames Water and the Environment Agency, and were given the following answers:

·       The government’s threshold of 50 homes in order to be eligible for flooding support was more challenging for small local authorities to achieve than for larger counties. Representations had been made to central government on that point. However, this highlighted the importance of residents coming forward to say that their property had been affected by flooding.

·       Provision of immediate support to households affected by flooding would require central government to change their approach.

·       The Council had recently updated its phone system, which would allow for more flexible approaches to emergency community support. An emergency phone number could be provided for residents to call for flooding support, but the preference was for people to report issues online where possible.

·       While it was difficult for the Council to provide detailed/real-time flooding information to residents, officers agreed to look at how future comms could be improved.

·       The Environment Agency (EA) acknowledged that there were issues with service users accessing their flood warning maps. When going through the Gov.uk website, visitors had to click on a hyperlink to access the map - this was done for accessibility reasons. While some flood warning areas covered relatively large areas, the EA tried to give more detail within the wording of the warning itself.

·       It was explained that (with limited exceptions) the Council’s policy was not to provide sandbags, since they were ineffective, expensive, and became contaminated by flood water. It was better to have property level protection measures such as air brick flood covers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.