SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. At a meeting of the Land Drainage Advisory Group held on Tuesday, 24 January 2006

Transcription

1 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL At a meeting of the Land Drainage Advisory Group held on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 PRESENT: Councillor MJ Mason Chairman Councillors: J Shepperson EW Bullman BR Burling SM Edwards RMA Manning Mrs HM Smith NIC Wright and Councillor Mrs DSK Spink MBE, Environmental Health Portfolio Holder. Councillors MP Howell and SGM Kindersley were in attendance, by invitation. Also present were: Janet Lowther, Solicitor representing the residents of Fen Drayton Andrew Mozeley, Environment Agency Tim Parish, representing Swavesey Parish Council Orlando Scott-Cowley, from Fen Drayton Parish Council Ian Smith, Clerk to Swavesey Internal Drainage Board Keith Wilderspin, a Swavesey resident Members of the public from both villages. Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs J Dixon. 1. ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING It was noted that at the request of the portfolio holder the Vice-Chairman, Councillor MJ Mason, was chairing this meeting. The order of items on the agenda was altered to allow the Environment Agency to give their presentation directly after the Land Drainage Manager. It was noted that David Noble would not be in attendance but his advice had been distributed to Group members. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Mason declared a personal interest as a member of three internal drainage boards, none of which were directly relevant to the area under discussion. Councillor BR Burling declared a personal interest as the Council s representative on the Swavesey Internal Drainage Board and the Over and Willingham Internal Drainage Board. Councillor J Shepperson declared a personal interest as a resident of Swavesey and as the Council s representative on the Swavesey Internal Drainage Board. Councillor NIC Wright declared a personal interest as a member of Fen Drayton parish council. Councillor SGM Kindersley declared a personal interest as a member of the County Council. Councillor MP Howell declared a personal interest as an acquaintance of David Noble,

2 who was a former parish chairman of one of Councillor Howell s villages. The Head of Legal Services advised that Councillor Shepperson and Councillor Burling had complied with the Code of Conduct by declaring a personal interest. It was understood that the Swavesey Internal Drainage Board had not discussed the possible lowering of the bank on the Swavesey side of Covell s drain and that Councillor Burling and Shepperson were the Council s representatives on this Drainage Board. The Head of Legal Services advised that any members who have a personal and prejudicial interest should leave the Chamber whilst the relevant item is under discussion. County Councillor Mandy Smith left the chamber and took no part in the subsequent debate. 3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 October 2005 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments: The words but not at risk of flooding were removed from the first sentence in minute 5. The last sentence of the paragraph beginning Richard Johnson on page three was amended to read: It was unclear to the Chairman which bank was being referred to. The following bullet point was added to Minute 8: The 1 st Public Drain through the Science Park and to the river below Baits Bite Lock was in the wrong position and not shown as an award drain. 4. COVELL'S DRAIN, SWAVESEY 4 (a) Introduction, Representations and Questions It was understood that the portfolio holder and the Advisory Group had undergone a site visit to Covell s Drain and the Chairman thanked the local members and the land owners in both parishes for the assistance and access to property. The Chief Environmental Health Officer reported that the portfolio holder had convened the meeting following the Environment Agency s decision to decline the Advisory Group s request to grant an indemnity for the reduction in the height of Covell s drain bank, which the Agency had recommended. The Legality Of The Raising Of The Swavesey Side Of Covell s Drain The Council and the Environment Agency disagreed on whether the raising of the bank on the Swavesey side of Covell s Drain had been carried out lawfully. The Head of Legal Services reiterated his advice to Members that the Council had not acted unlawfully but that he was open to further discussion with the Environment Agency. The Chief Environmental Health Officer made the following points: Covell s Drain was an awarded watercourse and as such had special status and the Council had acted under the terms of the Awards. The raising of the bank had therefore been lawful. Andrew Mozeley from the Environment Agency, gave a brief presentation to the meeting, he explained that: Covell s Drain was covered under the Land Drainage Act and so required a flood risk assessment before any works were carried out. The raising of the bank had therefore been unlawful.

3 Their main concern was that the work was carried out without consulting all interested parties. The Head of Legal Services stated that: He had spoken to legal representatives from the Environment Agency about this issue and they had not alleged that the Council had acted unlawfully. It was reassuring that Swavesey Internal Drainage Board supported the Council s view. It was agreed that the legal teams from both the Environment Agency and the Council should liaise to determine the legal position regarding works on Covell s Drain. The Raising Of The Bank And Construction On The Flood Plain The Land Drainage Manager gave a presentation to the Group, which explained the history behind the raising of the bank: The bank had been badly breached in 1998 and required renovation. Mr J Johnson, a landowner on the Swavesey side of the drain, had volunteered to carry out repair work to the bank. The Council gave tacit approval for Mr Johnson s work in increasing the height of the bank on his side of Covell s Drain. The bank was renovated in conjunction with infilling work on the flood plain. Andrew Mozeley explained that: The Environment Agency expressed concern about the construction work being carried out on the flood plain. As a result the County Council received a retrospective planning application. The bank should be lowered to 5.6 metres to restore the status quo. The Chairman expressed his regret that no officers from the County Council were present. It was understood that Mr Johnson sent plans of the proposed work to the Environment Agency, who granted exemption certificates for the movement of the required materials onto Mr Johnson s land. These plans had been sent to the section concerned with exemption certificates and had not been seen by the section dealing with flood protection. Mr Mozeley accepted there had been a problem with internal communication within the Environment Agency, which had now been addressed. The work was carried out between 2001 and Possible Creation of Compensation Lakes The County Council had recently received a screening application to allow mineral extraction on Mr Johnson s land. This work would create compensation lakes that could help to alleviate flooding in the area. In response to concerns regarding underground water the Land Drainage Manager explained that the proposed work would have an impact and would require mitigation works as a consequence. A Holistic Approach The Land Drainage Manager advised that Covell s Drain could not be considered in isolation and suggested that a wider approach was required to address the risk of flooding in the area. Councillor Mrs Spink recognised that a more holistic approach was required but reminded the Group that the Council was only responsible for Covell s Drain. She expressed the hope that the Environment Agency would note these comments. Andrew Mozeley supported the notion that a holistic approach was required and the study that was planned in April would deliver this. However, he cautioned that there were practical limitations to any study.

4 The Height Of The Bank Before It Was Raised There were no conclusive records regarding the height of the bank before it was raised in The following arguments were made: According to the Environment Agency s records, the bank had been 5.6 metres high in The Land Drainage Manager stated that according to David Noble, the Environment Agency s records had an error margin of ±50cm. The Land Drainage Manager estimated that the bank had been approximately 6 metres high in Keith Wilderspin, representing the residents of Swavesey, stated that the bank was assessed as being 5.8 metres high after it was breached in 1998 Mr Wilderspin doubted that the bank had ever been as low as 5.6 metres. Keith Wilderspin produced correspondence between his father and the District Council from the mid 1970s which indicated that the bank at Covell s Drain had been raised to 19.5 feet (5.95 metres) and that an assessment had concluded that raising the bank would not have a detrimental effect on Fen Drayton s flood defences. Mr Missen, a retired South Cambridgeshire land drainage officer, confirmed this. Andrew Mozeley asserted that to accept the existing height of the bank as the status quo would set a dangerous precedent as it was the result of work carried out without consultation. It was for this reason that the Environment Agency s forthcoming study would be carried out under the assumption that the bank had been reduced to 5.6 metres. Councillor Howell suggested that if the bank were to be lowered it would require local knowledge to agree what height the bank had been before it was raised. Liability Solicitor Janet Lowther, representing the residents of Fen Drayton, stated If the Council failed to lower the bank at Covell s drain it would be liable for flood damage to Fen Drayton. The evidence of recent years showed that Fen Drayton was at greater risk of flooding than Swavesey and so both banks should be the same height. The Head of Legal Services explained that the Council would be at risk from litigation whether it lowered the bank in question or whether it took no action. He concluded that in the absence of proof that flooding in Fen Drayton would be more likely to occur if the bank remained at its current height, the most prudent course of action would be to not lower the bank. Threat Of Flooding To Swavesey It was understood that there had been no flooding of Swavesey since Tim Parish, ex-member of Swavesey Parish Council, spoke on behalf of Swavesey parish council and made the following points: The flood defences upstream at Hemmingford and St Ives contributed a greater flood risk to Fen Drayton than the height of the bank at Covell s drain. The computer models used by the Environment Agency were unreliable, as the information fed into the computer was incomplete. Examining the actual flow of water on the ground and relying on the local knowledge of those that have witnessed flooding in the area was the best way to assess flood risk. The flood defences at Cherry Trees estate was designed to deal with run-off from

5 the estate and did not protect the estate from flooding. Lowering the bank at Covell s drain would not protect Fen Drayton from flooding, it would only succeed in putting Swavesey at greater risk. Keith Wilderspin stated that the Environment Agency had supported the renovation of the bank in 2003, where it had assessed the bank as being at imminent risk of collapse, so he was surprised that the Agency were now asking that the banks be reduced. He stated that a number of homes in Swavesey were less than 6 metres above sea-level and so were at risk of flooding. Threat Of Flooding To Fen Drayton The Environment Agency s assessment that the raising of the bank would divert 350,000 cubic metres of water was discussed. Orlando Scott-Cowley, from Fen Drayton Parish Council, gave a presentation to the Group, which included pictures detailing the effect flooding had on the village of Fen Drayton. He stated that: Fen Drayton had flooded in 1998, 2001, 2002 and The raising of the bank made flooding more likely in the future as it would divert 350,000 cubic metres of water towards the village. Ian Smith, Clerk to the Swavesey Internal Drainage Board, stated: Due to relative levels, Swavesey was at a higher risk of flooding than Fen Drayton; It was unlikely that the raising of the bank would displace 350,000 cubic metres of water, as the entire capacity of the flood compartment between Oxholme Drain and Covell s Drain was only 954,000 cubic metres. The Atkins report of 2003, which was commissioned by the Environment Agency, confirmed that the flood risk to Fen Drayton was not influenced by the raising of the bank at Covell s Drain as it resulted in no significant loss to the flood plain. This report also stated that Swavesey would flood once every ten years if the bank was reduced to 5.7 metres. The Land Drainage Manager stated that in his opinion leaving the bank on the Swavesey side of Covell s drain at its existing height would have little or no impact on Fen Drayton. Andrew Mozley stated that the Environment Agency did not know what impact altering the height of the bank would have on flood risk in the area. The Chairman thanked all the representatives and members of the public for their attendance and contribution. 4 (b) Discussion by Advisory Group Members After asking a number of questions following presentations from each speaker, members then discussed the recommendation. Councillor SM Edwards suggested Mr Johnson should be served with an enforcement notice, insisting that the bank be lowered to 5.6 metres, but as the effects of lowering the bank were unknown, the notice should be suspended awaiting the report from the Environment Agency. The leader asserted and other Members concurred, that the proposed study should be undertaken with the situation as it currently stands and not some hypothetical past position.

6 The Land Drainage Manager reiterated that the Council had acted lawfully with regard to the work on Covell s drain, however it was asserted that Fen Drayton parish council should have been consulted. It was understood that the retrospective planning application applied to work carried out by the landowner behind the bank and not the work to the actual bank itself. The Land Drainage Manager assured the Group that although the flails could no longer reach the bottom of the drain, the ditch would still be properly maintained with other plant. The Group agreed that a holistic approach was required which took into account local knowledge. Councillor Howell expressed concern regarding the amount of time the study by the Environment Agency was likely to take and he suggested that the Council should request that the Agency fast track the Covell s drain part of the report. Councillor Manning proposed that no action be taken with regard to the Swavesey side of Covell s Drain, pending the result of the Environment Agency s report. Councillor Burling seconded this proposal. 4 (c) Consideration of Recommendations to Cabinet or Council By five votes to one, with one abstention the Group RECOMMENDED TO CABINET that (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) No action be taken at Covell s Drain until after the study by the Environment Agency has been completed. The Environment Agency be urged to fast-track the study of the Covell s Drain area. The Environment Agency be urged to carry out the study based on the existing state of the flood defences and protection in the area (not just the immediate area of Covell s Drain). The Environment Agency be urged to consult with all interested parties to ensure that local knowledge informs the study. Members to reconsider the work required to Covell s Drain once the study has been satisfactorily completed. Councillor NIC Wright asked that his vote against these recommendations be recorded. Orlando Scott-Cowley requested that the Council maintain the Fen Drayton side of the bank at Covell s Drain. The Meeting ended at 1.54 p.m.