Agenda and decisions
PDF 55 KBVenue: Committee Room B, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2DN
Contact: Anne Gowing 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting. |
|
|
PROCEDURAL ITEMS
|
|
|
Member's Questions
The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (6 November 2014). |
|
|
Public Questions
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (5 November 2014). |
|
|
Petitions
Notice of Petitions
Petition 1 – received from Martin Cherrett, River Ash Action Group, 109 signatures
It states: ‘In February 2014 dozens of houses around the River Ash were flooded, when flood water spilled into it from the Thames Water Aqueduct. The thames Water Aqueduct carried flood water away from a remote, relatively unpopulated area into a residential part of Staines upon Thames. This was a repetition of a smaller incident that happened in 2003. Over 500 homes in Staines upon Thames are at risk of flooding if such floodwater is not contained in the Thames Water Aqueduct.
A. On 10 February 2014, Surrey County Council was party to a decision to ask residents in the area around the River Ash to evacuate their homes. It was also party to a decision to order Thames Water to close a sluice gate on their aqueduct on 12 February 2014 in accordance with a pre-existing Protocol to prevent flooding in the area. We believe such decisions should be carefully made and clearly documented.
The County Council should account for: (i) what factors were taken into account when these decisions were made? (ii) why were emergency measures not taken to contain the flood water in the aqueduct before residents were flooded on 11 February 2014? (iii) Why did it take until 12 February 2014 before the formal order to close the sluice gate was given to Thames Water by Surrey Gold Control?
B. The Flooding was caused by flood water spilling out from a facility wholly owned and operated by Thames Water. The subsequent costs to the community have so far been absorbed by local residents and local and national taxpayers. Surrey County Council should seek to recover that proportion of the public cost of dealing with the February 2014 floods that is attributable to Thames Water, taking legal action to recover these costs if necessary.
C. Surrey County Council should formally support ‘passive’ measures to prevent flood water spilling out of the Thames Water Aqueduct in the future. Preventative measures should not rely on mechanical infrastructure such as pumps and sluice gates but should be based upon substantial physical barriers to prevent flood water spilling into the River Ash in any circumstances.
Petition 2 – received from Joanne Breeden-West, 532 signatures
It states: ‘We are sending you this petition for road safety campaign outside the Sandcross School in Woodhatch. We have tried to call, send emails, asked and begged for help but it falls on deaf ears. What will it take before action takes place, a child to be hurt or even killed? Ever since the 2 Sandcross schools have been put on 1 site nothing has been done to aid the issues with road safety.
We need the parking laws to be enforced as many people are parking either on double yellow lines or parking on the pavement not leaving room for people to walk on the path. People are also stopping just before railings and allowing ... view the full agenda text for item 2c Decision: That the response, attached as Appendix 1, be approved. |