(Director of Neighbourhoods) To receive a presentation from the Council’s Engineering, Drainage and Water Team, which is comprised of two sections:
· Land Drainage; and
· Water Supply / Contaminated Land.
Minutes:
The Technical Services Assistant Director, K Durrani, introduced his officers – S Stranders (Land Drainage Manager), T Baker (Land Drainage Engineer) and S Bell (Land and Water Quality Officer).
Land drainage
The Land Drainage Engineer made a presentation on the work of the Engineering, Drainage and Water Team (EDWT). The EDWT was on call 365 days a year to provide a discretionary emergency flood response around the roads of the Epping Forest district. Officers would monitor and respond to incidents and worked closely with the Environment Agency (EA), Essex Fire and Rescue, Essex County Council (ECC) and relevant water companies.
Recent incidents had involved a burst water main in Loughton and Nazeing, a low lying area which was prone to flooding. The Council was proactive in investing in flood alleviation schemes. Examples given included Thornwood Brook (Thornwood Common), and Church Lane and Thornhill (North and South) in North Weald. This showed how contained water was let through in controlled flows. The rates at Thornwood and Thornhill were remotely monitored by telemetry and fixed image CCTV systems. Church Lane, North Weald worked by the use of a bypass channel alongside the road with a controlled runoff into the brook. Also Loughton Brook Reservoir, on City of London Corporation Land, had latterly passed to the EA.
The team also monitored and maintained 50 storm grilles, which helped to protect key surface pipes, and 2,500 kilometres of ordinary watercourses. The Council’s contractor checked this on a bi-monthly basis.
Since 1983 the Council had its own Land Drainage Byelaws to help control development along water courses, and was the only district within Essex to have such byelaws. The Council currently issued consents for this type of work (under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and delegated from Essex County Council), and charged an administration fee of £50. The Council also had enforcement powers under this Act, which were used when necessary.
The EDWT worked within the National Planning Policy Framework to reduce flood risk. It had assessed over 1,200 planning applications last year for flood risk and drainage concerns. It had also worked with Planning Policy during the draft Local Plan process to ensure policies on the management of flood risk and drainage were robust.
Members were also apprised of different ways that the EDWT used to manage flood risk as it was very proactive in the District. One way was through Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP). ECC had determined that Loughton was a ‘Tier 1’ location and in 2016 the Loughton, Buckhurst Hill and Theydon Bois SWMP was completed. This identified seven Critical Areas of Drainage to help manage predicted flood risk. Waltham Abbey (Tier 2) would be the next area for a SWMP. The Council uniquely had its own Flood Risk Assessment Zones (FRAZs). These were zones derived from the catchments of ordinary watercourses where there was a particular risk of flooding to help alleviate flood risk. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) was also explained as a way to manage flows back upstream to the source to reduce flash floods, and on new development sites to lessen their impact on existing drainage systems. Lastly ECC assessed flooding proposals it received and had made grants available for this purpose, which were delivered by a local scheme promoter.
Land and water quality
The Land and Water Quality Officer reported that the Council had a duty to risk assess and sample water quality and enforcement powers to ensure private water supplies were safe for human consumption and without risk to human health. This covered water extracted from boreholes, the 78 known private water suppliers, of which 38 had been inspected, and there might be other unknown water supplies. Problems could arise for instance where there might not be a sewage system and that where this was privately maintained, it did not impact on private water supplies. The Lee Valley sustained a large horticultural nursery industry so it was important that water used to irrigate crops was not then used for public consumption. Many nurseries did not have effective contamination reductions in place. Water towers also needed to be inspected. The Drinking Water Inspectorate considered these sites were the most high risk in the UK.
The Council was statutorily required to inspect and assess contaminated land under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There were several thousand potentially contaminated land sites. These included former landfills, ex gas works, factories, brickworks and munitions stores. It also investigated the pollution of watercourses to maintain and improve water quality.
General drainage issues
The Land Drainage Manager spoke about general drainage issues and that her officers liaised with the water companies (Thames Water and Affinity Water), the EA and other organisations. The Council operated and maintained seventeen treatment plants and pumping stations. The Council had a statutory requirement under the Building Act 1984 and Public Health Acts that to ensure buildings had adequate drainage. In October 2011 most private sewers transferred to Thames Water. The Council was also responsible for all rural drainage systems, misconnections and other problems. The Council had ongoing capital projects and managed its own assets. Bobbingworth Nature Reserve, a former landfill site, was one such successful project in operation. Other matters covered replying to Freedom of Information and Environment Information Requests and environmental consultations. She explained that income was generated in several ways including, land drainage consents and sponsorship of six roundabouts. There was also the potential for other income generators.
Councillor N Bedford thanked the officers for their presentations. An opportunity for members to ask questions then followed.
Councillor S Neville asked about the 38 inspections served and 21 enforcement notices issued, and whether this was on each of the sites or more than one notice went to certain sites. He also asked when the report would be finalised for Cascade Road, Buckhurst Hill.
The Land and Water Quality Officer replied that the sites were often owned by multiple people so each owner would be issued with a notice. At Cascade Road, the residents had been issued with two newsletters about the elevated organic materials found, which had necessitated further analyses of samples and dealing with householders’ letters.
Councillor H Brady asked about the problems encountered in Stapleford Abbotts where effluent from a traveller site often leaked onto the road outside. She was asked to provide further details after the meeting, so it could be investigated.
Councillors J H Whitehouse referred to the Thornhill scheme in North Weald and asked what contributions developers made towards flood alleviations.
The Land Drainage Engineer said that the Council was unlikely to allow development in a designated flood zone, especially if it was identified in the Local Plan and they would look at using S106 monies.
Councillor N Avey asked to what extent did the Council recommend porous hard surfacing. The Engineer replied that the Council absolutely required permeable paving on any development unless there was a good reason.
Councillor R Baldwin said that soakaways were a solution for flooding in gardens and asked why couldn’t the sewerage system be used as a drainage system. The Engineer replied that soakaways were not suitable for the Epping Forest district. They could happen in rural areas but not in urban areas, so the Council did not encourage this.
Councillor M Sartin asked if their working relationship with the EA was amenable? She was advised that if you could engage with an officer then they were helpful but their staff resources were very stretched. On real every day issues it would be difficult and very rarely would the EA take enforcement action. This was why the Council would take the necessary action to resolve an issue because if they had not taken action then the Council would have been criticised by the ombudsman.
Councillor A Patel was concerned that Buckhurst Hill residents often complained that the drains were blocked in The Meadway and Stradbrook Drive and asked about the maintenance programme for this area.
The Land Drainage Engineer advised that Thames Water primarily served this area but after a flood the Council’s EDWT would check to see if there was a problem with their system. The EDWT was proactive if the water courses were causing issues but by and large it was Thames Water’s responsibility. P Charman, the Emergency Planning Officer, had carried out some training on this to improve education awareness.
Councillor N Bedford asked about misconnections. The Land Drainage Manager replied that these occurred, for example, when at a domestic property the washing machine had been plumbed incorrectly into the water supply. It was down to the local authority who had the powers to correct. Surface water to foul water was undetectable, but misconnecting foul water going into water courses was a health hazard that needed to be resolved.
Councillor N Bedford asked about flood alleviation in North Weald regarding the plans to improve the scheme if it was filling up to 75 per cent, and would a grant be applied for to help resolve this problem.
The Land Drainage Engineer replied the scheme was designed to work. It could be breached but it was designed not to flood and had been in place for twenty years.
Councillor R Baldwin was concerned that there were seventeen sewerage and pumping stations nearing the end of their life and asked if Thames Water was responsible for these stations.
The Land Drainage Engineer replied that when the Council would need to replace a sewerage treatment plant, it would look to replace the plant and units. There was ‘Housing’ capital funding available.
Councillor W Breare-Hall said that the Drainage Team were very committed professionals. They had spoken about SuDS and their importance in the LP and asked if the long term maintenance and management of SuDS was difficult.
The Land Drainage Engineer replied that there were various mechanisms that could be used, such as getting managing agents to act when it was their responsibility and local authorities using their own vehicles to maintain those sorts of assets. The Council could also secure funds via S106 agreements.
The Technical Services Assistant Director advised that as part of the development of the LP, the Council was actively looking at this, i.e. that a land trust could adopt a SuDS after its development. As the LP went through public examination, this would need to be investigated. It was likely that a third party would be taking over full responsibility to manage / maintain, and would be required to be legally bound to an agreement As there were many small sites below the threshold , the Council would therefore be looking for external third parties to take on this work.
Councillor J Jennings asked if the Council encouraged the recycling of rainwater, as brown waste, to flush toilets etc. in new developments.
The Land Drainage Engineer replied that there was a policy that would be backed up by the LP for internal water systems. This was not yet at a commercial price except for large developments.
Councillor N Bedford thanked the officers again for attending the Neighbourhoods SC meeting.