Agenda item

Following scrutiny, members supported the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and Plan to Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Streetscene Scott Jones gave members an update on the report. he advised that the Council is acting as a lead local flood authority for the region and has a statutory duty to produce and develop a local Flood Risk Management Strategy and plan as stipulated under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

Members were advised that the authority published its first Local Strategy in 2014, setting out the overarching approach to managing local flood risk and that alongside the local strategy, the Flood Risk Management Plan was published in 2015.

Members were advised that the Flood Risk Management Plan developed the objectives, measures and actions outlined in the Local Strategy into a more detailed plan for managing flooding in the authority’s communities based on political wards.

The cabinet member explained that the document is the second Local Strategy and whilst the authority previously published the Local Strategy separately, this new Local strategy and plan integrates the two documents into one, reducing the complexity and duplication.

Members were advised that this document will work alongside other strategic plans for shoreline management, infrastructure and planning and to set out the direction the authority wants to take it.

Members were informed that the document explains how flooding will be managed across the Local Authority area consistent with the objectives, measures and related policies and legislation set out in the National Strategies.

The Cabinet member explained that the document was written in a way that it's usable and referable for both the wider public and flood risk practitioners.

The Cabinet member stated that it is the authority’s intention that a strategy and the plan will be reviewed every two years, and the action plan will be updated accordingly.

Officers advised members that this is a very important area within highways and drainage. A lot of investment has been made to the authority and staffing and forward planning through succession planning. Members were made aware that officers are in discussions with Welsh Government on a regular basis and that officers currently have a 10-year pipeline planned for schemes throughout the county borough based on need, which has a total value of £35,000,000.

Officers explained that these are dependent on Welsh Government funding because currently in the authority’s capital budget the authority only have an allocation of £300,000 per year, which has been eroded by inflation. Officers feel that the authority are at the forefront of flood risk in Wales and maybe in the UK and has a great team of individuals and are building for the future, but a lot of it will depend on grand funding going forward.

Members were advised that the authority has undertaken large amount of works throughout the county borough and that while Welsh Government supplies 85% of the funding, 15% of the funding must be found internally by the local authority. Officers advised that for the £35 million mentioned, the authority will need to find around £5.1 million over the next 10 years.

Officers stated that they think that the authority in a far better position today for flood risk than it was years ago.

Members were advised that there are approximately 64,000 properties within the authority and there is a potential flood risk to around about 24,500 properties within the authority from different means and of different risk levels.

Officers explained that the hydrology associated with sewerage, is capacity lead and through sustainable urban and drainage systems, the authority is trying to take water out of the main drainage systems. The misconception is often that the public often think the drains are blocked, but it is just a capacity issue.

Members noted that in the report, the actions that are listed are reliant on the Welsh Government and internal funding, but it doesn't say if these are aspirational projects or deliverable projects. Members were informed that funding had already been identified for the authorities 10-year action plan has been in theory agreed by Welsh Government.

Officers advised that these are not aspirational plans, and they should be able to be delivered as long as the funding streams continue. If the funding streams do not continue, they will be aspirational.

Officers gave the example of a scheme that was proposed to go on to a full business case this year, however the authority didn't receive the funding for it from Welsh Government so that's been put back onto the plan for next year.

Members noted that in 2018/19, the authority was able to secure funding to help protect the seawall in Aberavon and a ramp was built. Members raised their concern that at the point that the seawall ends, the erosion at the side of the seawall has continued quite severely in recent times and with the likelihood of sea levels rising and the erosion continuing, members wanted to know if officers had a specific plan in place with Natural Resources Wales and Welsh Government. Members also asked if the authority could push to try and bring in funding to extend the promenade or the sea defences from where it ends now to what is termed the ‘Naval Club’.

Officers advised that they are aware of this and explained that there is a ‘hold the line’ strategy which is associated with the seafront as it is the promenade there is a natural management which is associated with the rest of the seafront, which is that it erodes over time.

Officers noted that Scarlett Avenue would be impacted, and they will make representations to Welsh Government on this, however, funding streams have ceased since 2019 and that it relies on whether the Welsh Government funding is available to undertake further works.

Officers believe that Welsh Government are trying to balance coastal erosion and flood risk from a multitude of areas and officers will keep up the pressure on them, but there is no funding available.

Members highlighted that on page 211, it says that significant additional internal funding is required for this plan and asked if that's the £35 Million referred to by officers.

Members were advised that the £35 million is the investment required to undertake the schemes over the next 10 years and currently the authority needs to find 15% of that. Officers have had discussions with finance and there are provisions in the budget for this currently.

Members felt it would be useful to have this clarified in the report and felt that there was a lack of detail of how much things are going to cost and where the money is going to come from.

Members also asked if they could have an idea of the costs of not carrying out the schemes in the report and used the example of likely costs of businesses and households being flooded, or other damage.

Members acknowledged that the authority will likely be fighting for funding and that is why it would be important to be able to put a financial number on the cost and savings that would come from it.

Members noted that the money from the Flood Revenue Grant is going to be subsumed into the Revenue Support Grant (RSG), and the report states that it's hoped that the authority will still get the same level of funding. Members asked how realistic it was once the money has gone into the RSG.

Officers advised that they have been assured that the money that's gone into the RSG will remain within the highways and drainage services budget.

Members were informed that officers have got a broad outline of the schemes and have got priorities based on the calculations made by the team on potential flood risk with within the authority. Members were advised the assessments are based on a 1 in 30 years flood, a 1 in 100 years flood and a 1 in 1000 years flood.

Officers explained that calculations based on cost is difficult to do because assessing the cost to flooding in a community is not just financial but also the impact that it has on the social aspects such as people having to move out of houses etc. Officers did feel this would be useful to include as an appendix what the authorities 10-year pipeline looks like and what the associated costs are. Members were told that three years have passed and they have had some success delivering projects of over £3 million in localities and over the next 10 years they will deliver larger schemes the benefits these will bring long term will be immense to the locality and to the catchment as well.

Officers explained that it's not a case of us just go into Welsh Government and asking for the money for a scheme. Officers must do an outline business case, then a full business case. Then they must do another report which gets to funding, and these can take years.

Members were advised that in the plan, rather than looking at it in terms of political areas, they have decided to look at it in catchments instead. Members were given the example on how rainfall in the Cimla ends up at the sea just outside Britton Ferry. This means officers have got to look at all wards and all communities that it impacts on the way down, whether there's enough resilience in the grids or channels that the authority has there and then have to apply these calculations based on those flooding types. Members were advised that the 1 in 30 year flood is becoming quite regular and 1 in the 100 year flood is also becoming more prevalent as well.

Officers aren’t so concerned about continuous rain but they are seeing a lot more flash flooding, which puts a strain on all drainage systems wherever they are and there is run off in places we see in underground water where they have never seen it before.

Officers added some information to the issue of the cost impacts if the authority weren't to do the protective measures and advised that with the seafront coastal protection scheme that it's more about the cost and value to the assets protected as opposed to social impacts.

Members were informed that while there are social aspects generally if the flooding took place, the consequences would far outweigh that capital investment with damage to property and all of the social aspects associated with people having to move.

Officers advised that without doing the mitigation works, the costs would be massive compared to the capital investment. Members were advised that every local authority has got a set of schemes and as part of that cost benefit analysis, Welsh government tend to take a prioritisation view when looking at all the schemes.

Officers used the example of Sandfields area where 6500 properties are affected. That was a major impact and that scheme got quite close to the top of the investment being made available. This means it's about value of assets protected as opposed to consequential cost impacts, but they would be huge.

Cllr Hurley Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth provided feedback that the authority has a robust plan with everything in place ready to apply for the funding and stated that the only restriction on the works in the authority to protect the area and the borough is Welsh Government funding.

The Cabinet member advised that members need to lobby and help officers try to achieve that funding.

In relation to the seafront Cllr Hurley advised that they also have to take into consideration that beyond the ‘Naval Club’ is the old British Petroleum site, which is now Welsh Government land and is possibly earmarked for the Freeport and development, the cabinet member advised that the authority needs to raise the protection there otherwise that land will be unusable and that's going to be a huge loss to the area for region as well.

Following scrutiny, members were supportive of the recommendations.