Agenda item

The City Highways Director submits a report updating the Commission on the response to the flooding impacts in the City arising from Storm Henk.

The City Highways Director submits a report updating the Commission on the response to the flooding impacts in the city arising from Storm Henk.

Key points included:

• The briefing note provided background to the incident.  This was a rapidly developing issue as the situation had gone from a steady state on the Monday to rapid flood warnings overnight.  The flooding did not manifest itself until the following day and it was not understood until the early hours of the Wednesday as to where the impact was.
• Calls had been responded to and activities had been coordinated.   Teams had monitored river levels.
• A number of streets had been badly affected.  This had been very distressing for residents.
• The Fire Service had been worked with, especially on Thurcaston Road and Beaumanor Road where people had needed to be evacuated by boat ant taken to Rest Centres or other accommodation such as staying with family or friends.
• During the recovery phase, the Council had been very active in affected areas, speaking to people about support needed and cleanup needed and helping them to get back to a situation that was as normal as possible.
• Internally flooded houses would take time to deal with.
• The Council were looking to help people gain access to government grants to help.  The Council could also help people to contact insurers and landlords.
• Drop-in sessions were being held in Rushey Mead with partners who could help.
• An email had been sent to all members setting out financial support for residents and businesses.  In the long term there would be support for property resilience.
• Work had been undertaken to improve the flow of the River Soar.  Had this not been done then the situation would have been worse.
• In terms of defending properties, there were economies of scale which needed to satisfy the Government cost-benefit tests for funding.  Sometimes it could cost more to defend a house from flooding than the house was worth.
• Property Resilience Grants were a way forward for some properties to protect themselves.
• The level of rainfall had not been exceptional, but other weather events such as Storm Babet in October 2023 and subsequent rainfall had left the ground saturated.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• In terms of access, residents known to be flooded were contacted directly.  There was also a website whereby people could obtain links and information and the details they needed. 
• There was a community recovery grant of up to £500 available for residents who had been flooded internally.  To be eligible for this grant, water would have needed to have entered living space and made a dwelling unliveable for 48 hours.  Further to this, eligible houses would receive a Council Tax discount for a minimum of three months.  If they had temporary accommodation in the meantime (that was not a second home), the discount might also apply to that.  There was financial support for businesses available of up to £2500, details of this offer were available on the Council website. 
• If residents enquired with the Council in need of support, officers could help.
• In terms of lessons learned and preventing future incidents, the criteria for a Section 19 investigation under the Water Management Act had been triggered.  This would take time as the Environment Agency was responsible for flood risks from rivers.  Most causes of flooding in Leicester during Storm Henk were from the River Soar where there had already been meaningful interventions through previous work with the Environmental Agency and it was thought that all meaningful interventions that would currently satisfy the government criteria for getting funding under the current thresholds had been exhausted.  It was possible that the government may change the thresholds in future.
• Funding from the government had not increased with inflation.  This was a concern.  There was a levy scheme whereby the council contributed the Environmental Agency to support a strategic approach to investment across East Midlands Councils.
• A partnership between the insurance industry and the government was ongoing and would remain in place into the 2030s. This partnership was aimed at providing insurance to people struggling to get insurance in flood risk areas.  Additionally, members could help residents to look at insurance options.
• The machinery available to the Council for unblocking drains and clearing gullies was adequate.  It was further clarified that the flooding that had occurred in June 2023 was due to surface water flooding following an extreme thunderstorm, whereas the current flooding issues were mostly due to river flooding where river levels had risen due to prolonged and steady rainfall.
• A process had commenced for a more targeted approach gully cleansing, going to specific areas and organising road closures where roads were heavily parked. 
• Thurnby brook had burst its banks on Tuesday 2^nd January.  This was classed as a main river.  Managing flood risks from rivers was the responsibility of the Environment Agency, however, the Council worked with them.
• Since it was unclear who residents needed to contact regarding flooding issues, it was suggested that it needed to be made clear who was responsible for which aspects, or to have a single point of contact to direct people. 
• There was lots of information on the LCC website, however, it was acknowledged that it was a challenge to help understanding amongst the public.
• It was suggested that residents could sign up to the Environment Agency Flood Warning process.  Further to this, the Commission were informed that there was a lot of advice on flood plans available from the Environment Agency.  Another option for residents in an emergency flooding situation was to contact the emergency services.  Another option in less urgent situations was the Council’s out-of-hours phone number.
• New planning applications needed to go through the Flooding and Drainage team.  Development on flood plains was restricted, and due process was given to ensure that such developments were not at risk of flooding.  If building on a flood plain, part of the planning process looked at mitigating impacts and compensation.
• A point was raised regarding one-way valves in water gullies. This would be discussed outside the meeting.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.