Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Communities and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 1st August 2024
10:00 AM
Thursday, 1st August 2024
10:00 AM
End:
Thursday, 1st August 2024
2:00 PM
Thursday, 1st August 2024
2:00 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Thursday, 1st August 2024
12:00 AM
Thursday, 1st August 2024
12:00 AM
Finished:
Thursday, 1st August 2024
12:00 AM
Thursday, 1st August 2024
12:00 AM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Location:
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Adults, Wellbeing and Culture
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Planning and Public Health
Guest
UNISON
Jim Board
UNISON
Not required
Secretary
Senior Governance Officer
Christine Rothwell
Not required
Vice-Chair
Councillor Nigel Cannings
Absent
Committee Member
Councillor Aimee Dickson
Absent
Committee Member
Councillor Debbie Hutchinson
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Emma Muddiman-Rawlins
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Thomas Noon
Present, as expected
Agenda
0
A. Reports where the public and press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for absence.
2
To consider the extent to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
Councillor David Nevett declared an interest in Agenda Item 6 by virtue of being a member of the Danum Drainage Board.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 15th February 2024
Attachments:
Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 15th February be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Public Statements.
(A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up to 5 members of the public on matters within the Panel’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be considered or contribute towards the future development of the Panel’s work programme).
Minutes
There were no public statements made at the meeting.
6
Assessment of Flood Risk Management Responsibilities and Partnerships: Progress and actions since the 2019 Floods
Attachments:
- Document Flood risk report for C and E 010824 24 Jul 2024
- Document OS Flood Risk presentation 24 Jul 2024
- Document Doncaster Overview and Scrutiny - EA - No Video Ver 2 24 Jul 2024
- Document IDB presentaiton 010824 24 Jul 2024
- Document YW Presentation 24 Jul 2024
Minutes
The Panel received a report which examined the concerted efforts in flood risk management in Doncaster following the severe floods of 2019. It detailed the roles and collaborative actions taken by the flood risk management authorities. These actions comprise investigations of past flooding incidents, and the implementation of new flood resilience measures. The report aims to present a clear picture of progress and ongoing efforts, underscoring the strategic intent to bolster Doncaster’s preparedness against future flood risks.
There were 4 presentations for this item, and each were taken in turn. Members were afforded the opportunity to make comments and ask questions following each presentation. These were as follows: -
City of Doncaster Council – Highways Authority
Adam Porter, Flood Risk Manager attended the meeting and shared with the Panel, the Council’s presentation.
In response to a question regarding challenges in maintaining highway drainage and steps taken to mitigate flooding on roads, the Panel were advised that the main challenges arise from pressures from the revenue budget and the increases in intense rainfall due to climate change. It was reported that traditionally the Council operate gully cleansing programme, where gullies would be cleansed on a ward-by-ward basis before the cycle repeats which would take around 2 years. Members were advised that over the last few years, mobile technology has recorded the silt level within the gullies. This information will be used to make the process more efficient and looking to produce a risk-based programme where those gullies that are blocked more frequently can be cleansed more frequently.
In terms of funding, flood risk management is mainly focussed on capital projects and the Council will shortly be bidding for internal capital funds to increase the number of repairs and maintenance and replacements can be done for effective drainage to reduce the amount of standing water on the roads and to combat the effects of climate change. Allowances are incorporated into designs to ensure that new drainage system are effective for the lifeline of the development.
Further explanation and details regarding the process for cleansing of gullies was shared with the Panel. A member raised a particular area within their ward and asked that this be investigated outside of the meeting.
Clarification was sought in relation to the process following a road closure due to flooding. Officers understood the frustrations that arise from road closures however, specific checks need to be made on the roads prior to them being opened to the public because they often contain hidden dangers, i.e manhole damage. It was advised that there were specific processes for the re-opening of roads, these were explained to the Panel, following those works, the highways inspector would visit the site and check for any defects and repair where necessary, at that point the highway traffic management measures would be removed, and this would be communicated to the public. Officers explained that work would be carried out in the evenings and at weekends when a lot of road closures happen to ensure they are checked regularly because of the delays caused on the road network. Officers would go away and look at how communication with the public regarding road closure/maintenance can be improved.
Discussion took place regarding Section 38 adoptions for housing estates and whether the pipe work and gullies installed meet the adoption criteria for the Highways Act and whether the right size and depth of gullies were being installed. It was advised that technical appraisals are carried out when a road is adopted on new developments. The standards worked to are design manuals for roads and bridges for highways gullies. Specifications can be supplied outside of the meeting.
In terms of developing and future proofing, it was noted that allowances are built into the Councils design standards to allow for changes in the climate. These are designated nationally and are continually updated. It was acknowledged that there is a significant amount of infrastructure and in relation to flood resilience which is ageing and were done at a time when the climate was different, and the challenges faced environmentally were different. In going forward if looking at planning reforms in relation to recent government announcements and having more houses there needs to be consideration given in the environmental considerations particularly around drainage and infrastructure. It was noted that what can be evidenced is that the Council are committed to what they can do going forward within legislation and the relevant policies of planning policy however, Doncaster covers 47% of South Yorkshire and it does have the latent challenge with old infrastructure.
Environment Agency.
Ben Brass and Victoria Townend attended for the Environment Agency to share their presentation with the Panel.
Comments and questions were as follows:-
Reference was made regarding the flood warning system, and it was asked whether any improvements had been made to the warning system for Doncaster since 2019. It was advised that as alluded the efficacy of a flood warning system is very much dependent on communities and individuals understanding of that. A lot of work has been carried out with partners in the Doncaster area to ensure that people do understand what the flood warning service means. It was noted that flood warning is validated following each issue. The environment agency will look at how the warnings are triggered and how this is processed, therefore they urge all Members to engage with communities to ensure they understand that when a flood alert is notified, they need to be ready. It was advised that the flood warning service cannot be offered to individual properties, it is done by area. Whilst the agency does not always get it right, they are dependent on the forecast received and the models that they feed into. Following each incident, the forecasts will be looked at and how effective they have been, which will then be fed into a programme of works where improvements can be identified and made.
Regarding monitoring and effectiveness of existing defences, the Panel were advised that the environment agency was responsible for existing assets. It was noted that a lot of the assets are old, these are inspected annually, and specific activities would be carried out i.e., maintenance in combatting erosion, vermin damage etc. It was noted that a post incident inspection would feed into the recovery works. It was advised that there had been some slips reported on embankments however, there are issues with legacy embankments as its not known why they were built so high and how they were built. The team also carry out works in preparing for winter, ensuring large debris and trees are removed and sandbagging areas.
Further comments regarding ageing infrastructure were made by the drainage board, it was suggested that the further discussion should take place at a future meeting regarding funding.
In terms of the primary sources of funding, it was noted that this would come from the Primary Flood Defence Grant. It was noted that the Environment Agency, IDBs and the Council all work under the same funding framework, where funding is more pushed towards new schemes that reduce flood risk to communities that do not have existing flood risk schemes. In terms of the old, ageing systems, there are flood defences already in place, thus making it the preferred option to maintain those systems.
Reference was made regarding pumping stations and whether these were monitored annually or more frequently as some concerns had been raised by farmers. In terms of the pumping station visited by EA at Bentley, it was advised that this was an IDB/coal authority asset which had been handed over to the EA because of its flood risk benefits and protects many homes within that area ensuring the EA could create flood defence and aid. Whilst there was still a shortfall, the EA manage to secure contributions from the Coal Authority, Yorkshire Water, and other partners. In terms of pumping stations in remote places and as already alluded to some of them are probably defunct, these are Coal Authority/IDB owned. It was advised that the IDB could seek funding from Defra to carry out work on the asset. However, unless you can show that the asset is reducing flood risk to several properties you will not receive the flood defence grant to make a successful project prevail.
The EA advised that they do work with IDBs in terms of joint pumping operations and exceedance planning. If the EA have large assets, pumps will the sent out to help the IDBs to set up temporary pumping to remove the water off fields and back into the rivers. However, the EA’s primary driver is the protection of flood risk for homes and properties. It was also advised through recent government announcements, £75m had been set aside for IDBs to enable them to pay for unforeseen bills and work on assets. Danum IDB had placed a bid for the funding, and it is believed this had been successful.
In response to a question regarding river and canal level monitoring and effects of flood gates on the river Don, the EA advised that in terms of warning, this comes from telemetry and the EA have a team called the National Telemetry Service, which deals with the automated collection and transmission of information for example, a remote point would provide information to a central hub. It was noted that Canals are measured by the Canals and Rivers Trust which they monitor and is predominantly for canal users. In terms of flood gates, the EA advised that there were no flood gates in Goole that are connected to the river Don. The river Don drains naturally into the Humber Estuary. There are dock gates in Goole however, the connection from there out to sea is from the river Aire and the dock gates are primarily there to maintain water levels to allow ships in and out on different tides. In terms of the river Don, it is tidally influenced and from the tidal signal that goes up to Kirk Bramwith. The EA stated that the tidal influence on the river Don effects the ability of the river to drain out, therefore if there is a lot of water existing in the river and there is a tidal system stopping the water from draining you have the effects of what happened in 2019.
Following on from the presentation and the length of time of 8 years for a new idea to come to inception, it was asked whether this could be completed quicker. The Panel were advised of all the elements involved within the project, from identifying the problem in the first instance, options appraisals, engagement with communities and all the way through to the testing of project to ensure that it was the best solution for that location. It was acknowledged that whilst the process was long the length of time would be dependent on the project.
In response to a question regarding drain doors, the EA stated that they would need to look at the specifics surrounding the drain door. It was advised that the EA must take a pragmatic approach on how and when it delivers alongside the money that they must deliver within. The EA would prioritise the work based on the risk of not doing the work. It was acknowledged that a lot of what had been talked about at the meeting was around policy and that each partners needs to work within a framework and we each do the best we can within that framework.
A question was raised around sandbagging as part of the winter maintenance, why they had been removed from Fishlake and whether anything has been done to raise the banking in this area. The EA advised that the sandbags were removed as they were causing damage to the asset so in longer or medium term there was a risk of failure. In the longer term a more sustainable option is required. The Panel were advised that Fishlake already have a good standard of protection. To increase the standard of protection, economic benefits behind that and the policy the EA work within would say that you are better off maintaining what they have now. It is not argued that the banking did overtop however contingencies are in place if this was to happen again.
Doncaster East Internal Drainage Board
Andrew McGill, Chief Executive, Chris McGuinness, Chairman of the Board and Robert Brown, Senior Engineer for the Doncaster East Internal Drainage Board were in attendance to share their presentation with the Panel.
Comments and questions were as follows:-
In response to a question regarding water levels and how they are managed to balance flood risk reduction and environmental conservation, the IDB advised that they have their own environmental officer, and they have a statutory obligation to protect and enhance the environment. Whilst it looks like some of the work undertaken is intrusive within the water course to keep channel operating for its primary function to convey water, the IDB do consider the environment and we try to alternate works each year to enable fresh habitat to come in. Environmental record monitoring is undertaken on the wildlife habitat and mitigation works are also carried out. The IDB try not to let watercourse dry out, there are summer and winter levels and whilst silt is kept at a level, water can be evacuated before a storm arises.
Clarification was sought on what strategies were in place against landowners to maintain proper flow in watercourses. The IDB advised enforcement action would be undertaken if there was injury caused by riparian drain to another person. For example, if a person had not maintained their watercourse and it was backing up and causing an issue on another person land or injury action would be taken by written correspondence or meet with the landowner to find a satisfactory solution. If not resolved, the IDB would carry out the works and recover the money from the person. Out of catchment of the IDB, the Council or EA would be responsible.
In answer to a question regarding pumping stations and whether they were electrically powered, the IDB stated that all of Doncaster East were electrical and for those stations that were prone to cut off, the electrical equipment is raised outside of the expected flood level.
Clarification was sought as to why water cannot be pumped into the river Don. It was explained that it wasn’t that it can’t, the hydraulic catchment that Doncaster East Board look after has been designed to go to the river Torne and ultimately the river Trent. Danum and Black Drain Drainage Board do discharge into the river Don.
Further discussion took place regarding the length of time the systems have been in place and whether the existing infrastructure should be invested in. However, it was acknowledged that this would be a huge undertaking financially but with the ever-changing weather and climate conditions this type of thinking needs to be looked at.
Discussion took place regarding planning applications and whether IDBs should be consulted particularly regarding housing developments and flow offs. Whilst IDBs were not a statutory consultee, officers at IDBs would trawl through planning lists for all councils and make representations as we can under the Land Drainage Act. It was suggested that IDBs be added as a statutory consultee for Planning applications.
The Chair announced a further online meeting would be taking place with drainage boards where those suggestions and discussions could take place. She also asked that the Isle of Axholme Flood Risk Strategy be shared with the Panel following the meeting and this could be further discussed at the on-line meeting.
Yorkshire Water
Adam Ashman and Sarah Robinson from Yorkshire Water attended to share their presentation with the Panel.
Comments and questions were as follows:-
In terms of improvements made to manage the risk of flooding from sewage systems, it was advised that Yorkshire Water have two approaches, a maintenance approach, where they will go out and check and inspect equipment, sewers and pumping stations and invest in keeping those maintained. In addition, enhancement activities will be undertaken for example investing in a greater level of protection i.e., pumping stations.
It was again acknowledged that Yorkshire Water was not a statutory consultee when it came to working with developers on Planning applications. Whilst comments are made separately on surface and foul water systems, it is important particularly with the increase of housing to come that this be revisited to ensure that collectively we are all involved in the process.
Discussion took place regarding reducing the effects of combined sewer overflows into rivers. Yorkshire Water explained that this was a huge focus for them now, stating that they operate a largely combined sewer network at present which is not the case for some water companies. Within the North it has the largest proportion of storm overflows, with Yorkshire Water having over 2000. It was advised that the discharges to the water course are permitted. It was noted that a lot of the debate recently has been about moving away from that as a feature. There is a plan to reduce the number of CSOs that spill to the environment, which is set down in the Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction Plan. By 2035 discharges will need to of been reduced by 75%. The Panel were advised of a map that has been recently published, this can be viewed on-line. It was acknowledged that there were several approaches however, the key approach was how the surface water can be separated out of the combined system and transfer to a discharge through to river, the worst case would be to build storage tanks.
In terms of cracked pipes, officers undertook to explain to the Panel the process undertaken to repair pipes. It was explained that the biggest issue with pipes was wet wipes in the system. There has been speak of banning wet wipes and the use of them, this was still not in place and would be something good to get over the line and introduced. If there were any specifics, Yorkshire Water would be happy to discuss individual cases outside of the meeting.
Discussion took place regarding discharge of clean water to the sea. It was explained that ultimately the natural environment is that water falls as rain and discharges out to the sea. There is opportunity to look at how we treat the system. As Yorkshire Water, are interested in a large part of the water cycle, they want to protect the raw water sources to use as drinking water and ensure there is enough. Looking into the future, the impact of climate change and housing growth as a region we could see that we don’t have enough water. Yorkshire Water are working on how the actions taken today build capacity into the systems for the future.
As already discussed today, regarding the age of infrastructure and equipment, it was asked whether this was the same for Yorkshire Water and was there are budget to bring ageing pipework up to standard. It was advised that Yorkshire Water business planning process operates every 5 years, which looks to agree a rate of base maintenance i.e., replacement of existing infrastructure and then the enhancement. It was noted that the level of base maintenance funding that is allocated is targeted at a certain rate of replacement. Challenges have been made over several years over the level of funding that is provided. Yorkshire as a region need to invest in replacing water supply pipes however, Yorkshire have received one of the lowest rates of funding across all the water sector for that pipe renewal rate. Discussion also took place around reduction and waste in terms of spillages from overflows and officers explained how this was monitored. Yorkshire Water advised that information on the figures is published annually, and people can log on to the website to view the data. It was noted that this would be shared with the Panel following the meeting.
General questions were put to all authorities and answered by officers including: -
· How authorities co-ordinate with agencies to ensure road safety & minimising disruption;
· How current flood risk management strategies were being adapted for the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events as a result of climate change;
· Lessons learnt from partnerships.
In terms of lessons learnt, from the Councils perspective whilst things have progressed since 2019 not everything is perfect. It was suggested that some of the areas where improvements can be made in terms of flood warning and alerts, the co-ordination of flood alerts at the time it hits on communities, the Council need to be engaged in that process, so they are aware because the community need to know what they need to do and what the position is with the Council. It was advised that in February 2021, there was learning surrounding the consistency on the calls and the sharing of the knowledge. Whilst this is much better, there were still some challenges. It was noted that some of the other difficulties encountered are relating to funding elements i.e. we receive capital but not revenue. An example was shared with the Panel relating to Storm Bibet costing £1m. However, Government advised that the Council were not eligible for relief because they were below the threshold with only 18 houses flooded. The level of resources needs to be looked at. Lessons could also be learnt regarding the deployment and picking up of sandbags.
From a Yorkshire Water perspective there were 2 big challenges that are bigger than the partnership itself. One being the approach and standards for planning and ensuring that houses that are built today are fit for the future. Secondly funding and the regulatory cycle that partners operate within that are not aligned which creates a difficulty when applying for funding.
Comments from the Environment Agency were from an incident perspective and peace time. During an incident dramatic improvement have been made. It was advised that often roles and responsibilities do need to be revisited. When a multiagency response is required, this is exercised well. In terms of peace time huge improvements have been made however, the one thing that will go against partnership working will be the differing priorities we all need to work under. When the shared priority is found, flood risk could be something minor against something we all want to do collectively.
No further comments were made by the Drainage Board.
The Chair and Panel thanked all officers for their attendance and contributions at the meeting.
RESOLVED that:-
(1) Collaboration between flood risk management authorities be enhanced to leverage collective expertise and resources including discussion on funding;
(2) Specific measures be implemented in identified high-risk areas to mitigate flood risk effectively including identifying risks to existing infrastructure and assets;
(3) Community engagement and awareness programs be expanded to ensure that citizens are well-prepared for flood events; and
(4) review and further discussion be undertaken regarding additional consultees on planning applications i.e Yorkshire Water and Drainage Boards.
There were 4 presentations for this item, and each were taken in turn. Members were afforded the opportunity to make comments and ask questions following each presentation. These were as follows: -
City of Doncaster Council – Highways Authority
Adam Porter, Flood Risk Manager attended the meeting and shared with the Panel, the Council’s presentation.
In response to a question regarding challenges in maintaining highway drainage and steps taken to mitigate flooding on roads, the Panel were advised that the main challenges arise from pressures from the revenue budget and the increases in intense rainfall due to climate change. It was reported that traditionally the Council operate gully cleansing programme, where gullies would be cleansed on a ward-by-ward basis before the cycle repeats which would take around 2 years. Members were advised that over the last few years, mobile technology has recorded the silt level within the gullies. This information will be used to make the process more efficient and looking to produce a risk-based programme where those gullies that are blocked more frequently can be cleansed more frequently.
In terms of funding, flood risk management is mainly focussed on capital projects and the Council will shortly be bidding for internal capital funds to increase the number of repairs and maintenance and replacements can be done for effective drainage to reduce the amount of standing water on the roads and to combat the effects of climate change. Allowances are incorporated into designs to ensure that new drainage system are effective for the lifeline of the development.
Further explanation and details regarding the process for cleansing of gullies was shared with the Panel. A member raised a particular area within their ward and asked that this be investigated outside of the meeting.
Clarification was sought in relation to the process following a road closure due to flooding. Officers understood the frustrations that arise from road closures however, specific checks need to be made on the roads prior to them being opened to the public because they often contain hidden dangers, i.e manhole damage. It was advised that there were specific processes for the re-opening of roads, these were explained to the Panel, following those works, the highways inspector would visit the site and check for any defects and repair where necessary, at that point the highway traffic management measures would be removed, and this would be communicated to the public. Officers explained that work would be carried out in the evenings and at weekends when a lot of road closures happen to ensure they are checked regularly because of the delays caused on the road network. Officers would go away and look at how communication with the public regarding road closure/maintenance can be improved.
Discussion took place regarding Section 38 adoptions for housing estates and whether the pipe work and gullies installed meet the adoption criteria for the Highways Act and whether the right size and depth of gullies were being installed. It was advised that technical appraisals are carried out when a road is adopted on new developments. The standards worked to are design manuals for roads and bridges for highways gullies. Specifications can be supplied outside of the meeting.
In terms of developing and future proofing, it was noted that allowances are built into the Councils design standards to allow for changes in the climate. These are designated nationally and are continually updated. It was acknowledged that there is a significant amount of infrastructure and in relation to flood resilience which is ageing and were done at a time when the climate was different, and the challenges faced environmentally were different. In going forward if looking at planning reforms in relation to recent government announcements and having more houses there needs to be consideration given in the environmental considerations particularly around drainage and infrastructure. It was noted that what can be evidenced is that the Council are committed to what they can do going forward within legislation and the relevant policies of planning policy however, Doncaster covers 47% of South Yorkshire and it does have the latent challenge with old infrastructure.
Environment Agency.
Ben Brass and Victoria Townend attended for the Environment Agency to share their presentation with the Panel.
Comments and questions were as follows:-
Reference was made regarding the flood warning system, and it was asked whether any improvements had been made to the warning system for Doncaster since 2019. It was advised that as alluded the efficacy of a flood warning system is very much dependent on communities and individuals understanding of that. A lot of work has been carried out with partners in the Doncaster area to ensure that people do understand what the flood warning service means. It was noted that flood warning is validated following each issue. The environment agency will look at how the warnings are triggered and how this is processed, therefore they urge all Members to engage with communities to ensure they understand that when a flood alert is notified, they need to be ready. It was advised that the flood warning service cannot be offered to individual properties, it is done by area. Whilst the agency does not always get it right, they are dependent on the forecast received and the models that they feed into. Following each incident, the forecasts will be looked at and how effective they have been, which will then be fed into a programme of works where improvements can be identified and made.
Regarding monitoring and effectiveness of existing defences, the Panel were advised that the environment agency was responsible for existing assets. It was noted that a lot of the assets are old, these are inspected annually, and specific activities would be carried out i.e., maintenance in combatting erosion, vermin damage etc. It was noted that a post incident inspection would feed into the recovery works. It was advised that there had been some slips reported on embankments however, there are issues with legacy embankments as its not known why they were built so high and how they were built. The team also carry out works in preparing for winter, ensuring large debris and trees are removed and sandbagging areas.
Further comments regarding ageing infrastructure were made by the drainage board, it was suggested that the further discussion should take place at a future meeting regarding funding.
In terms of the primary sources of funding, it was noted that this would come from the Primary Flood Defence Grant. It was noted that the Environment Agency, IDBs and the Council all work under the same funding framework, where funding is more pushed towards new schemes that reduce flood risk to communities that do not have existing flood risk schemes. In terms of the old, ageing systems, there are flood defences already in place, thus making it the preferred option to maintain those systems.
Reference was made regarding pumping stations and whether these were monitored annually or more frequently as some concerns had been raised by farmers. In terms of the pumping station visited by EA at Bentley, it was advised that this was an IDB/coal authority asset which had been handed over to the EA because of its flood risk benefits and protects many homes within that area ensuring the EA could create flood defence and aid. Whilst there was still a shortfall, the EA manage to secure contributions from the Coal Authority, Yorkshire Water, and other partners. In terms of pumping stations in remote places and as already alluded to some of them are probably defunct, these are Coal Authority/IDB owned. It was advised that the IDB could seek funding from Defra to carry out work on the asset. However, unless you can show that the asset is reducing flood risk to several properties you will not receive the flood defence grant to make a successful project prevail.
The EA advised that they do work with IDBs in terms of joint pumping operations and exceedance planning. If the EA have large assets, pumps will the sent out to help the IDBs to set up temporary pumping to remove the water off fields and back into the rivers. However, the EA’s primary driver is the protection of flood risk for homes and properties. It was also advised through recent government announcements, £75m had been set aside for IDBs to enable them to pay for unforeseen bills and work on assets. Danum IDB had placed a bid for the funding, and it is believed this had been successful.
In response to a question regarding river and canal level monitoring and effects of flood gates on the river Don, the EA advised that in terms of warning, this comes from telemetry and the EA have a team called the National Telemetry Service, which deals with the automated collection and transmission of information for example, a remote point would provide information to a central hub. It was noted that Canals are measured by the Canals and Rivers Trust which they monitor and is predominantly for canal users. In terms of flood gates, the EA advised that there were no flood gates in Goole that are connected to the river Don. The river Don drains naturally into the Humber Estuary. There are dock gates in Goole however, the connection from there out to sea is from the river Aire and the dock gates are primarily there to maintain water levels to allow ships in and out on different tides. In terms of the river Don, it is tidally influenced and from the tidal signal that goes up to Kirk Bramwith. The EA stated that the tidal influence on the river Don effects the ability of the river to drain out, therefore if there is a lot of water existing in the river and there is a tidal system stopping the water from draining you have the effects of what happened in 2019.
Following on from the presentation and the length of time of 8 years for a new idea to come to inception, it was asked whether this could be completed quicker. The Panel were advised of all the elements involved within the project, from identifying the problem in the first instance, options appraisals, engagement with communities and all the way through to the testing of project to ensure that it was the best solution for that location. It was acknowledged that whilst the process was long the length of time would be dependent on the project.
In response to a question regarding drain doors, the EA stated that they would need to look at the specifics surrounding the drain door. It was advised that the EA must take a pragmatic approach on how and when it delivers alongside the money that they must deliver within. The EA would prioritise the work based on the risk of not doing the work. It was acknowledged that a lot of what had been talked about at the meeting was around policy and that each partners needs to work within a framework and we each do the best we can within that framework.
A question was raised around sandbagging as part of the winter maintenance, why they had been removed from Fishlake and whether anything has been done to raise the banking in this area. The EA advised that the sandbags were removed as they were causing damage to the asset so in longer or medium term there was a risk of failure. In the longer term a more sustainable option is required. The Panel were advised that Fishlake already have a good standard of protection. To increase the standard of protection, economic benefits behind that and the policy the EA work within would say that you are better off maintaining what they have now. It is not argued that the banking did overtop however contingencies are in place if this was to happen again.
Doncaster East Internal Drainage Board
Andrew McGill, Chief Executive, Chris McGuinness, Chairman of the Board and Robert Brown, Senior Engineer for the Doncaster East Internal Drainage Board were in attendance to share their presentation with the Panel.
Comments and questions were as follows:-
In response to a question regarding water levels and how they are managed to balance flood risk reduction and environmental conservation, the IDB advised that they have their own environmental officer, and they have a statutory obligation to protect and enhance the environment. Whilst it looks like some of the work undertaken is intrusive within the water course to keep channel operating for its primary function to convey water, the IDB do consider the environment and we try to alternate works each year to enable fresh habitat to come in. Environmental record monitoring is undertaken on the wildlife habitat and mitigation works are also carried out. The IDB try not to let watercourse dry out, there are summer and winter levels and whilst silt is kept at a level, water can be evacuated before a storm arises.
Clarification was sought on what strategies were in place against landowners to maintain proper flow in watercourses. The IDB advised enforcement action would be undertaken if there was injury caused by riparian drain to another person. For example, if a person had not maintained their watercourse and it was backing up and causing an issue on another person land or injury action would be taken by written correspondence or meet with the landowner to find a satisfactory solution. If not resolved, the IDB would carry out the works and recover the money from the person. Out of catchment of the IDB, the Council or EA would be responsible.
In answer to a question regarding pumping stations and whether they were electrically powered, the IDB stated that all of Doncaster East were electrical and for those stations that were prone to cut off, the electrical equipment is raised outside of the expected flood level.
Clarification was sought as to why water cannot be pumped into the river Don. It was explained that it wasn’t that it can’t, the hydraulic catchment that Doncaster East Board look after has been designed to go to the river Torne and ultimately the river Trent. Danum and Black Drain Drainage Board do discharge into the river Don.
Further discussion took place regarding the length of time the systems have been in place and whether the existing infrastructure should be invested in. However, it was acknowledged that this would be a huge undertaking financially but with the ever-changing weather and climate conditions this type of thinking needs to be looked at.
Discussion took place regarding planning applications and whether IDBs should be consulted particularly regarding housing developments and flow offs. Whilst IDBs were not a statutory consultee, officers at IDBs would trawl through planning lists for all councils and make representations as we can under the Land Drainage Act. It was suggested that IDBs be added as a statutory consultee for Planning applications.
The Chair announced a further online meeting would be taking place with drainage boards where those suggestions and discussions could take place. She also asked that the Isle of Axholme Flood Risk Strategy be shared with the Panel following the meeting and this could be further discussed at the on-line meeting.
Yorkshire Water
Adam Ashman and Sarah Robinson from Yorkshire Water attended to share their presentation with the Panel.
Comments and questions were as follows:-
In terms of improvements made to manage the risk of flooding from sewage systems, it was advised that Yorkshire Water have two approaches, a maintenance approach, where they will go out and check and inspect equipment, sewers and pumping stations and invest in keeping those maintained. In addition, enhancement activities will be undertaken for example investing in a greater level of protection i.e., pumping stations.
It was again acknowledged that Yorkshire Water was not a statutory consultee when it came to working with developers on Planning applications. Whilst comments are made separately on surface and foul water systems, it is important particularly with the increase of housing to come that this be revisited to ensure that collectively we are all involved in the process.
Discussion took place regarding reducing the effects of combined sewer overflows into rivers. Yorkshire Water explained that this was a huge focus for them now, stating that they operate a largely combined sewer network at present which is not the case for some water companies. Within the North it has the largest proportion of storm overflows, with Yorkshire Water having over 2000. It was advised that the discharges to the water course are permitted. It was noted that a lot of the debate recently has been about moving away from that as a feature. There is a plan to reduce the number of CSOs that spill to the environment, which is set down in the Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction Plan. By 2035 discharges will need to of been reduced by 75%. The Panel were advised of a map that has been recently published, this can be viewed on-line. It was acknowledged that there were several approaches however, the key approach was how the surface water can be separated out of the combined system and transfer to a discharge through to river, the worst case would be to build storage tanks.
In terms of cracked pipes, officers undertook to explain to the Panel the process undertaken to repair pipes. It was explained that the biggest issue with pipes was wet wipes in the system. There has been speak of banning wet wipes and the use of them, this was still not in place and would be something good to get over the line and introduced. If there were any specifics, Yorkshire Water would be happy to discuss individual cases outside of the meeting.
Discussion took place regarding discharge of clean water to the sea. It was explained that ultimately the natural environment is that water falls as rain and discharges out to the sea. There is opportunity to look at how we treat the system. As Yorkshire Water, are interested in a large part of the water cycle, they want to protect the raw water sources to use as drinking water and ensure there is enough. Looking into the future, the impact of climate change and housing growth as a region we could see that we don’t have enough water. Yorkshire Water are working on how the actions taken today build capacity into the systems for the future.
As already discussed today, regarding the age of infrastructure and equipment, it was asked whether this was the same for Yorkshire Water and was there are budget to bring ageing pipework up to standard. It was advised that Yorkshire Water business planning process operates every 5 years, which looks to agree a rate of base maintenance i.e., replacement of existing infrastructure and then the enhancement. It was noted that the level of base maintenance funding that is allocated is targeted at a certain rate of replacement. Challenges have been made over several years over the level of funding that is provided. Yorkshire as a region need to invest in replacing water supply pipes however, Yorkshire have received one of the lowest rates of funding across all the water sector for that pipe renewal rate. Discussion also took place around reduction and waste in terms of spillages from overflows and officers explained how this was monitored. Yorkshire Water advised that information on the figures is published annually, and people can log on to the website to view the data. It was noted that this would be shared with the Panel following the meeting.
General questions were put to all authorities and answered by officers including: -
· How authorities co-ordinate with agencies to ensure road safety & minimising disruption;
· How current flood risk management strategies were being adapted for the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events as a result of climate change;
· Lessons learnt from partnerships.
In terms of lessons learnt, from the Councils perspective whilst things have progressed since 2019 not everything is perfect. It was suggested that some of the areas where improvements can be made in terms of flood warning and alerts, the co-ordination of flood alerts at the time it hits on communities, the Council need to be engaged in that process, so they are aware because the community need to know what they need to do and what the position is with the Council. It was advised that in February 2021, there was learning surrounding the consistency on the calls and the sharing of the knowledge. Whilst this is much better, there were still some challenges. It was noted that some of the other difficulties encountered are relating to funding elements i.e. we receive capital but not revenue. An example was shared with the Panel relating to Storm Bibet costing £1m. However, Government advised that the Council were not eligible for relief because they were below the threshold with only 18 houses flooded. The level of resources needs to be looked at. Lessons could also be learnt regarding the deployment and picking up of sandbags.
From a Yorkshire Water perspective there were 2 big challenges that are bigger than the partnership itself. One being the approach and standards for planning and ensuring that houses that are built today are fit for the future. Secondly funding and the regulatory cycle that partners operate within that are not aligned which creates a difficulty when applying for funding.
Comments from the Environment Agency were from an incident perspective and peace time. During an incident dramatic improvement have been made. It was advised that often roles and responsibilities do need to be revisited. When a multiagency response is required, this is exercised well. In terms of peace time huge improvements have been made however, the one thing that will go against partnership working will be the differing priorities we all need to work under. When the shared priority is found, flood risk could be something minor against something we all want to do collectively.
No further comments were made by the Drainage Board.
The Chair and Panel thanked all officers for their attendance and contributions at the meeting.
RESOLVED that:-
(1) Collaboration between flood risk management authorities be enhanced to leverage collective expertise and resources including discussion on funding;
(2) Specific measures be implemented in identified high-risk areas to mitigate flood risk effectively including identifying risks to existing infrastructure and assets;
(3) Community engagement and awareness programs be expanded to ensure that citizens are well-prepared for flood events; and
(4) review and further discussion be undertaken regarding additional consultees on planning applications i.e Yorkshire Water and Drainage Boards.
7
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Attachments:
- Document MASTER WORK PLAN FINAL 202425 24 Jul 2024
- Document Printed plan Forward Plan for the Period 1st August to 30th November 2024 Cabinet 24 Jul 2024
Minutes
The Chair reported that the work plan and forward plan was attached for members consideration. She stated that members will be informed in due course regarding additional dates for road safety and race management.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in