Item 8(i)
Mr Stephen Cooksey (Dorking South and the Holmwoods) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This council wishes to place on formal record its thanks to all staff and its contractors, who working tirelessly in partnership with other councils, agencies and the emergency services to respond to the recent and current flooding to do as much as possible to protect residents’ homes and businesses.
While recognising this weather has been exceptional by past standards, the County now has a statutory duty to investigate flooding and the need to understand better the impacts of the recent events. The Council must now plan for similar occurrences and learn from any omissions or failures which may have contributed to the scale of the flooding-related problems in Surrey. Particular attention should be paid to how the resilience of the county’s infrastructure against recurrence of such events can be strengthened, especially on gully maintenance, and whether any improvements can be made in cross authority and cross agency working.
Council notes:
1. That Government has a Severe Weather Recovery scheme and that the European Union has a Solidarity Fund to which the UK has contributed and is designed to provide emergency aid after such natural disasters. In addition European Union Regional Development Funds can be used towards flood prevention infrastructure in the future.
2. The date of the most recent published wetspots list, where past flooding incidents have been reported, on the County Council website is February 2012 even though an update was promised to members to be completed by February 2013.
3. That the statutory Flooding Asset Register which includes key assets (structures and features such as a wall, ditch or bridge) that are known to cause or allow the major flooding of properties, critical infrastructure or block major roads when the asset is not functioning to an adequate level was last updated in December 2011 and only contains 65 items for the whole county.
Council calls for:
i. The Flooding Asset Register and the wetspots list to both be completed and updated urgently, and at most within six months.
ii. A review of the maintenance of highway drainage assets such as gullies, soakaways, ditches, channels, drains, grills and outlets. In particular, a review of the adequacy of the policy of gully cleaning at least once per year and put together a ditching programme in rural areas.
iii. A programme of tree planting on higher ground, in particular to replace trees that have been lost, to help trap and slow down the movement of water.
iv. The County Council to work with boroughs and districts to develop planning policies not to build on flood plains.
v. Flood damaged roads and bridges to be repaired.
vi. The Leader to apply for any additional funding the County Council requires from the Severe Weather Recovery scheme, the European Union Solidarity Fund and the Regional Development Fund.’
Item 8(ii)
Mr Peter Martin (Godalming South, Milford and Witley) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council:
1. Notes and recognises the seriousness of the recent severe weather and flooding in the County and the impact it is having on residents’ homes and businesses, with many thousands damaged, in some instances severely, as well as much of the County’s infrastructure, for which the estimated repair bill currently stands at over £10m
2. Expresses sympathy and concern for the residents, businesses and livelihoods affected
3. Commends the County’s Fire & Rescue Service, Surrey Police, our District and Borough Council colleagues, HM Armed Forces, SCC staff, and the large number of individuals and community and voluntary organisations on their response to this major incident
4. Acknowledges and welcomes the Government’s commitment to support local authorities in helping those residents and businesses affected by providing Council Tax relief
5. Recognises that Surrey’s economy, at £32.7 billion GVA, is substantial and creates a very significant net contribution to the Exchequer
This Council therefore resolves:
a) To continue working alongside our partners to help Surrey’s residents and businesses with advice and assistance and to ensure any future incidents are met with a rapid, comprehensive multi-agency approach.
b) To assess the viability of longer term engineering and environmental solutions for Surrey in conjunction with utility companies, the Environment Agency, other Local Authorities and appropriate Government departments.
c) To call on Government to help protect, and demonstrate the government's commitment to, this key part of the UK economy by fully funding the Environment Agency's Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme.’
Minutes:
ITEM 8(i)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council decided it wished to hear further before agreeing whether or not to debate this motion.
Mr Cooksey made a short statement giving reasons why the motion should not be referred. He considered that his motion had been submitted three weeks ago and was similar to the motion proposed by Mr Martin. His motion had identified areas for improvement and made suggestions, whilst Mr Martin’s motion just reflected the comments made in the Leader’s statement made earlier in the meeting.
The Leader of the Council made a short statement saying that whilst he welcomed Mr Cooksey’s comments in relation to staff and partners, he proposed to refer this motion to Cabinet because some of the work proposed was already underway and some of the suggestions would need to be considered by the proposed Environment and Transport Select Committee’s task group, who would then report back to their select committee before submitting their recommendations to Cabinet.
20 Members voted for debating the motion today but 47 Members voted against debating it today.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
That this motion be referred to the Cabinet, for determination. Under Standing Order 12.6, the Cabinet must report back to County Council at the earliest possible meeting.
ITEM 8(ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Peter Martin moved the motion which was:
‘This Council:
1. Notes and recognises the seriousness of the recent severe weather and flooding in the County and the impact it is having on residents’ homes and businesses, with many thousands damaged, in some instances severely, as well as much of the County’s infrastructure, for which the estimated repair bill currently stands at over £10m
2. Expresses sympathy and concern for the residents, businesses and livelihoods affected
3. Commends the County’s Fire & Rescue Service, Surrey Police, our District and Borough Council colleagues, HM Armed Forces, SCC staff, and the large number of individuals and community and voluntary organisations on their response to this major incident.
4. Acknowledges and welcomes the Government’s commitment to support local authorities in helping those residents and businesses affected by providing Council Tax relief
5. Recognises that Surrey’s economy, at £32.7 billion GVA, is substantial and creates a very significant net contribution to the Exchequer
This Council therefore resolves:
a) To continue working alongside our partners to help Surrey’s residents and businesses with advice and assistance and to ensure any future incidents are met with a rapid, comprehensive multi-agency approach.
b) To assess the viability of longer term engineering and environmental solutions for Surrey in conjunction with utility companies, the Environment Agency, other Local Authorities and appropriate Government departments.
c) To call on Government to help protect, and demonstrate the government's commitment to, this key part of the UK economy by fully funding the Environment Agency's Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme.’
Mr Martin made the following points:
· Reference to the Leader’s statement in relation to the recent flooding. He also informed Members that they would receive an information pack regarding the Council’s response to it.
· He thanked all organisations and the public who helped with the flooding emergency and welcomed the Government help for financial assistance.
· That it was vital to get Surrey back to ‘business as usual’.
· Highways repairs were likely to be in excess of £10m.
· That the Environment Agency had described the Lower Thames area (Datchet to Teddington) as most at risk, affecting 21,000 people and that the Government should fully fund the Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme.
· There was a very high threshold for applications for European Union funding and it could only be applied for by Government.
· The County Council had created a Flood Recovery Co-ordination Group and officers would be available to answer Member questions over the lunchtime period.
· Finally, he commended the motion to Council
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Harmer who stressed that the County Council should as far as possible be self sufficient in funding its needs. However, the Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme was different as the scale of funds required was beyond Surrey County Council’s resources.
He outlined the remit of the task group and confirmed that Local Committees and Local Members would be consulted, along with Borough and District colleagues and other agencies if appropriate. Finally, he said that the proposed task group would report to the full Environment and Transport Select Committee prior to making recommendations to Cabinet.
Three Members spoke on the original motion, making the following points:
· Nearly 1000 properties had been affected in Spelthorne
· Surrey Fire and Rescue had been assisted by Fire and Rescue teams from other areas
· That officers had put in long hours and some had worked ‘round the clock’ to deal with the flooding emergency. Thanks were expressed to them and in particular to Ian Good from the Emergency Planning team, the Gold Command and Surrey Community Action
· 80% of those affected lived in Spelthorne – 200 members of the public had attended its local committee meeting on 17 March
· Setting up the task group was welcomed
· Concern that several Boroughs and Districts were currently putting together Local Plans which need County Council input
· Assurance that any further building on flood plains would be carefully considered
· The importance of lessons learnt and the need for action
Mr Beardsmore then moved an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mr Cooksey) which was to insert two additional paragraphs into the original motion (points 6 and 7) and also six further points after (c) as follows:
(6) Notes that the date of the most recent published wetspots list, where past flooding incidents have been reported, on the County Council website is February 2012 even though an update was promised to Members to be completed by February 2013.
(7) Notes that the statutory Flooding Asset Register which includes key assets (structures and features such as a wall, ditch or bridge) that are known to cause or allow the major flooding of properties, critical infrastructure or block major roads when the asset is not functioning to an adequate level was last updated in December 2011 and only contains 65 items for the whole county.
And after (c), this Council therefore resolves:
(d) The Flooding Asset Register and the wetspots list to both be completed and updated urgently, and at most within six months.
(e) A review of the maintenance of highway drainage assets such as gullies, soakaways, ditches, channels, drains, grills and outlets. In particular, a review of the adequacy of the policy of gully cleaning at least once per year and put together a ditching programme in rural areas.
(f) A programme of tree planting on higher ground, in particular to replace trees that have been lost, to help trap and slow down the movement of water.
(g) The County Council to work with boroughs and districts to develop planning policies not to build on flood plains.
(h) Flood damaged roads and bridges to be repaired.
(i) The Leader to apply for any additional funding the County Council requires from the Severe Weather Recovery scheme, the European Union Solidarity Fund and the Regional Development Fund.
Mr Beardsmore made the following points:
· The substantive motion should be expanded so that it included some of the issues that pre-dated the setting up of a task group
· A need for increased capital funding for this issue and a requirement for an upto date wet spot register and improved gully maintenance and cleaning
· Recognition of the good work from the Emergency Services but that preventative work could have been done which may have minimised the extent of the flooding
In seconding the motion, Mr Cooksey said that the current Administration had not given priority to these areas of maintenance / cleaning in recent years and stressed the need to act together to consider future options and cost. He said that lessons needed to be learnt which is why he proposed a six point action plan in his motion and therefore, urged Members to adopt this amendment and work together with Borough and Districts to reduce the consequences from future heavy rainfall.
Three Members spoke on the amendment before Mr Kington moved, under Standing Order 23.1:
‘That the question be now put’
20 Members stood in support of this request. The Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate and agreed to the request.
The amendment was put to the vote with 17 Members voting for and 44 Members voting against it. There were 3 abstentions.
Therefore the amendment was lost.
Returning to the original motion, six Members spoke and made the following points:
· Thanks to staff and in particular, the Chief Fire Officer who was Chairman of the Resilience Forum
· That over 32 agencies had been involved in the response to the flooding
· Support for the request for Government to fund the Environment Agency’s Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme
· Recognition of the work of local residents helping themselves and others in their neighbourhood
· Thanks to the Community Highways Officers in affected areas
· Confirmation that Project Horizon would continue, despite additional pressures on the Highways budget for repairs due to flooding damage
· A need to look at climate change
After the debate, the original motion was put to the vote and it was:
RESOLVED:
That this Council:
1. Notes and recognises the seriousness of the recent severe weather and flooding in the County and the impact it is having on residents’ homes and businesses, with many thousands damaged, in some instances severely, as well as much of the County’s infrastructure, for which the estimated repair bill currently stands at over £10m.
2. Expresses sympathy and concern for the residents, businesses and livelihoods affected.
3. Commends the County’s Fire & Rescue Service, Surrey Police, our District and Borough Council colleagues, HM Armed Forces, SCC staff, and the large number of individuals and community and voluntary organisations on their response to this major incident.
4. Acknowledges and welcomes the Government’s commitment to support local authorities in helping those residents and businesses affected by providing Council Tax relief.
5. Recognises that Surrey’s economy, at £32.7 billion GVA, is substantial and creates a very significant net contribution to the Exchequer.
This Council therefore resolves:
a) To continue working alongside our partners to help Surrey’s residents and businesses with advice and assistance and to ensure any future incidents are met with a rapid, comprehensive multi-agency approach.
b) To assess the viability of longer term engineering and environmental solutions for Surrey in conjunction with utility companies, the Environment Agency, other Local Authorities and appropriate Government departments.
c) To call on Government to help protect, and demonstrate the government's commitment to, this key part of the UK economy by fully funding the Environment Agency's Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme.