Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update on floodwater management and the highways gully cleaning programme. The report was introduced by Mark Stevens, Assistant Director of Direct Services, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 53 to 64. By way of introduction, officers set out that the Borough had suffered from two bouts of significant flooding in July 2021 and August 2022 and that since then the Council had cleaned all 16,000 gullies within its network. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

1. Members enquired about the water tank in Priory Park and what was happening with it. In response, officers advise that there was an ownership dispute taking place with Thames Water about whose responsibility it was to manage and maintain it. Part of the dispute emanated from the transition process from the National River Authority to the Environment Agency in the 1970s. The Council had challenged Thames Water’s assertion that it was not their responsibility and were waiting for a further response.
2. In response to a follow-up question, officers advised that the tank was not functional during the severe flooding incidents in July 2020 and August 2021 and that subsequent photographs had showed that the tank was completely dry.  In relation to a further follow-up around timescales, officers advised that it was being handled by the Council’s legal team and that there were no firm timescales at present. There was a flood alleviation scheme planned for Priory Park but that this would be undertaken following resolution of the issue with Thames Water. Without the tank being properly maintained there was a risk of the water being stored but not dissipating in the right way.
3. In response to a question about the balance between cyclical and reactive cleansing, officers advised that the Council’s highways contractor Marlborough Highways carried out reactive maintenance as well as planned maintenance.  Cleansing in response to yellow flood warnings was undertaken and there was a degree of judgment required from officers about how and when this was undertaken and the associated costs. 
4. The Panel sought assurances that the Council was not effectively doing Thames Water’s job for them. In response, officers advised that as the lead local authority for flooding, the Council could looking into the causes of an incident of flooding. It was noted that a lots of the issues were caused by the fact that there was a capacity issue with the Victorian sewage system in London. Officers commented that there was some consideration needed of how the pressure on the sewar system could be alleviated and that fact that the Council had allowed people to pave over their gardens which has caused problems with surface water run-off. Officers advised that they were looking into whether enforcement action could be taken under the Highways Act.
5. The Panel queried what could be done in respect of digital poverty and the fact that the useful advice section on flooding was all online. In response, officers acknowledged that was challenge and it was a challenge that was not limited to just highways or flooding. Officers advised that social media updates had also been provided around flooding. Non-digital forms of communication, such as lamppost banners, were perhaps better suited to more general information. The Chair highlighted the importance of maintaining a level of communication to people whilst it was still relatively fresh in their minds.
6. The Panel queried whether a piece of work could be done to identify resident associations in high-risk areas and meet with them to discuss flooding. In response officers advised that this was something they would consider going forwards.
7. Officers advised that there was still a piece of work to be done around improving flood reporting and that this would form part of the multi-agency flood plan.
8. The Panel raised concerns about flooding on Seven Sisters Road and that this did not seem to be one of the priority areas mentioned in the report. In response, officers advised that this was a TfL managed road and that did create some problems in terms of getting things done. Officers agreed to provide a written response to officers on what was being done to push back to TfL about flooding on their road network. (Action: Mark Stevens).
9. The Panel sought clarification about whether the entire gully network would be cleaned every two years. In response, officers advised that they had completed the first cycle and that all gully networks had been cleansed as part of this. The second tranche was underway which was risk based, with High, Low and Medium priority levels.
10. In response to a question about cleaning of the footway gullies on Harringay Passage, Mark Stevens agreed to speak to the team and provide an update on what was happening in relation to cleansing footway gullies. (Action: Mark Stevens).
11. In relation to gullies on the highway, officers set out that rainwater gardens may be more appropriate in some circumstances. Cllr Cawley Harrison agreed to let officers know of any specific gullies he was concerned about.
12. In response to a follow up question, officers acknowledged that they would be willing to receive recommendations from Members about possible locations for potentially removing a parking bay and installing a rainwater garden or a pocket park.

RESOLVED

Noted