Malvern Hills

District Council

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Agenda

Tuesday, 19th February, 2008

2.00 pm

Committee Room, The Council House, Avenue Road, Malvern, WR14 3AF

ACCESS TO DECISION-MAKING INFORMATION

The public and the press have a right to:

• attend all Council, Committee and other public meetings unless the meeting would disclose “confidential information” or “exempt information” (this will be indicated on the agenda) • inspect agendas and reports for public meetings at least five working days before the meeting. Agendas and reports can be viewed on our website at: www.malvernhills.gov.uk and copies will also be available at meetings • inspect minutes for up to six years following a meeting. Minutes can be viewed on our website at: www.malvernhills.gov.uk • inspect background papers used in the preparation of reports for up to 4 years following a meeting. Background papers are available for public inspection upon request to the Contact Officer shown on the report, or through Democratic Services on 01684 862449 or e-mail: [email protected]. • obtain the names, addresses and wards of all District Councillors and details of the membership of all Committees, Sub-Committees and Panels. These details can be found on our website at: www.malvernhills.gov.uk • inspect a list of powers which the Council or its Committees has delegated to its officers

More detailed information regarding the rights of citizens and how the Council operates can be found in the Council’s Constitution, which can be viewed on our website at: www.malvernhills.gov.uk or at:

Malvern Customer Service Centre or: Tenbury Area Office The Library Tenbury Library Graham Road 24a Teme Street Malvern WR14 2HU WR15 8AA

If you require this in an alternative format i.e. by e-mail, on disc, in large print or Braille please contact Democratic Services on 01684 862449 or minicom 01684 862186 or by email [email protected]

If you have any special requirements in order to attend a meeting e.g. signing facilities, please contact Democratic Services. Calls are welcome via Typetalk, please prefix our telephone number with 18001.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Tuesday, 19th February, 2008, 2.00 pm

Committee Room, The Council House, Avenue Road, Malvern, WR14 3AF

Members: T.A.L. Wells (Chairman), M. R. Morgan (Vice-Chair), Mrs B. J. Behan, J. Smith, R.J. Sutton, M. D. G. Soley and J. Campbell.

Agenda 1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Personal or Prejudicial Interests

3. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meeting (Pages 1 - 2)

4. Chairman's Announcements

5. Public Participation A maximum of 30 minutes has been set aside at the beginning of the meeting for members of the public to ask questions, make a statement or present a petition. Any issue that relates to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the community can be raised and 5 minutes per person is allowed.

6. Scrutiny of Revenue and Capital Budgets 2008 - 09 (Pages 3 - 30) Committee to scrutinise detailed Revenue and Capital Budget proposals 2008 – 09.

Heads of Service, Portfolio Holders, Leader and Deputy Leader have all received an invitation to attend the meeting (Apologies received from Portfolio Holder for Customer Focus).

Findings and Recommendations arising from this meeting to be reported by Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee to Executive Committee on 19 th February 2008.

7. Review of the District Council's Response to the Summer (Pages 31 - 78) Floods 2007 In order to learn lessons into how the District Council responded to the floods during the summer of 2007, Executive Committee (31 st July 2007) requested Overview and Scrutiny to conduct a Review.

Attached are the Findings and Recommendations of the Task and Finish Group established to conduct the Review.

Recommendations to be reported to Executive Committee 19 th February 2008 by Chairman of Task and Finish Group.

Page 31 Agenda Item 7

Review of the District Council’s Response to Flooding Summer 2007

Overview and Scrutiny - Flooding Task and Finish Group

February 2008

Page 32

Contents Page No.

Acknowledgements 33

Introduction/Background 33

Recommendations 34

Conclusion 36

Appendices:

Detailed Findings – Appendix 1 37

Task & Finish Working Groups Terms of 45 Reference – Appendix 2

Analysis of Sandbag Alternative - 47 Appendix 3

Extract from Pitt Report – Appendix 4 49

Questionnaire sent to Parish/Town 57 Councils – Appendix 5

Analysis of Returned completed 61 Questionnaires – Appendix 6

Page 33 Flooding Task and Finish Group

Acknowledgements

The Committee would like to thank the Parish & Town Councils who took the time to complete and return the questionnaires sent out. This information provided a valuable insight into how the District Council’s response was received District wide, and has led to many of this Task & Finish Group’s recommendations.

I would also like to pay thanks to Mary Dhonoe, Chief Executive of the National Flood Forum, who met with us and passed on information from a national perspective, regarding response to the floods.

Finally I would like to thank all officers and Councillors who have helped with this review. I would like to pay special thanks to those Members who made up this first Task and Finish Group, including those who were not Members of Overview and Scrutiny Commitee, who worked tirelessly in compiling the evidence which forms the basis of this Review. Introduction/Background

Members will recall the devastating floods of June/July 2007 during which both flash (pluvial) and river (fluvial) flooding affected our District. Rest Centres were established in areas worst affected. Properties and infrastructure within the District suffered damage and a Flood Relief Grant Scheme was set up to help those affected – both domestic properties and businesses.

In order to learn lessons into how the Council responded, Executive Committee (31 st July 2007) requested Overview and Scrutiny to review the District Council’s response to the floods.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting of 21 st August 2007 resolved that a Task and Finish Group be set up to investigate the Council’s approach to the June/July floods, and to report back to Executive Committee.

The Flooding Task and Finish Group comprised 6 Members:

Councillors M.R. Morgan (Chairman), Mrs B.J. Behan, M.R. Biddle, D.G.C. Hull, R.J. Sutton and J.B. Waring .

Process Followed

The Flooding Task and Finish Group, at its first meeting on 10 th October 2007, agreed to establish a number of two-member working groups to look at various aspects of the Council’s response to the June/July flooding. Details of the groups and an outline of the areas that they were to look at are set out below:

The Working Groups were tasked to gather evidence and report back to the Task and Finish Group. The six Working Groups are listed below and their terms of reference can be found at appendix 2:

• Protection of Buildings Against Flooding - J Waring and D Hull

• Rest Centres/Accommodations - M Morgan and B Behan

• Ditches and Watercourses – M Biddle and R Sutton

Page 3 Page 34 Flooding Task and Finish Group

• Communication – J Waring and M Biddle

• Recovery – R Sutton and M Morgan

• Compilation of Questionnaire and Analysis of Results– B Behan and R Sutton, ably supported by Democratic Services.

In addition, the Task and Finish Group met with Mary Dhonoe, Chief Executive of the National Flood Forum, where she provided information from a national perspective, in relation to the Floods of June/July 2007. Resulting from the questionnaire exercise, the Task and Finish Group also met with Members of Leigh and Parish Council and the Clerk to Longdon Parish Council, at their request, to hear their concerns. These have been taken into consideration when formulating the recommendations.

Findings of the Working Groups, leading to the Recommendations set out below, are detailed in Appendix 1 to this Report.

Recommendations:

Protection of Buildings Against Flooding

(i) Sufficient evidence has emerged that there are viable alternatives to sand bags which may be more efficient whilst being more cost effective. These alternative solutions should be investigated further in terms of efficiency (value for money) and effectiveness.

(ii) The storage and distribution of flood prevention measures should be reviewed, including setting up formal arrangements for Depot Staff to provide assistance in the case of an emergency.

(iii) More communication should take place with residents in flood affected areas on what measures they can take to protect their property against flooding, including highlighting the arguments of Resilience vs Resistance.

Communication During an Emergency

(iv) There should be a central communication point established and contact information provided in affected areas. This could also provide information to schools and other organizations regarding risks and road closures.

(v) Further work should be done to identify those areas prone to flooding and arrange to have road signs erected to provide better warning.

(vi) Consideration should be given to the provision of a small number of off-road vehicles to assist with mobility in the early stages of a major flood. This would involve only modest additional cost if included at the time of vehicle replacement.

(vii) The County Council/ Highways Agency should be requested to consider the provision of an emergency access route from the M50 to the West of The River Severn.

Page 4 Page 35 Flooding Task and Finish Group

Flood Prevention

(viii) More information/publicity should be provided to occupiers and landowners on Riparian responsibilities – i.e. clearing blockages that can cause flooding.

(ix) Drains and culverts require routine (systematic) maintenance. MHDC currently employs one Land Drainage Officer who is also required to undertake other duties. Consideration should be given to the possibility of increasing capacity associated with this function by employing additional resources to carry out drain and culvert maintenance throughout the District.

(x) Full support should be given by this Council to any envisaged flood protection schemes, subject to approval by the Environment Agency in the case of any private schemes.

(xi) District Council should ensure that developers use Sustainable Drainage Techniques; this should be a planning requirement.

(xii) The Planning Department should review whether an additional “Supplementary Planning Guide” is needed to better protect new build properties and to alleviate damage to flood plains. This should include the requirement for developers to indicate on their plans: • flood routes - in order to illustrate where surface water flows in flood conditions when the local drainage system is surcharged; and • evidence that proposed building floor levels are set well above possible flood levels in the vicinity of water courses and any adjoining natural surface water flood routes.

Recovery

(xiii) Arrangements should be made with the County Council regarding the disposal of large volumes of damaged property – e.g. white goods.

(xiv) Clear information should be provided to all eligible residents and businesses on the availability of support and funding assistance in respect of flood recovery.

(xv) Communication channels need to be developed with local councils to enable them to provide information on areas that need priority cleaning after a flood event eg – premises, roads, footpaths etc.

(xvi) Follow up should be undertaken on cases of hardship, vulnerable people etc;

Partnership Working

(xvii) Inter-agency meetings between the relevant officers of District and County Councils, the Environment Agency and Severn Trent should be reinstated in order to establish and clarify areas of responsibility and improve inter-agency working.

(xviii) Parish & Town Councils should be encouraged to become involved in any future joint emergency plans.

Page 5 Page 36 Flooding Task and Finish Group

Pitt Report

(xix) Where the Pitt Report refers to the responsibilities of District Councils, the following should take effect as soon as possible: Paragraphs IC8, IC9, IC14, IC15, IC16, IC17, IC18, IC20 and IC21. These are included as Appendix 4.

Conclusion

The Task and Finish Group looked at a number of key interrelated areas around the issue of flooding, including the Council’s response to the events which took place during June and July 2007. It has identified steps that could be taken by the Council and its involvement with partner agencies to help prevent flooding or to reduce its impact where it cannot be avoided, including the management of recovery and greater protection for the vulnerable.

One of the main areas repeated many times was the concerns expressed over gulley and culvert clearing throughout the District. This has been highlighted in the Recommendations with a request that consideration be given to allocating additional resources to alleviate the current situation where one Land Drainage Officer is responsible for drain and culvert maintenance over the entire District.

Cllr Mike Morgan

Chairman of Flooding Task and Finish Group

Page 6 Page 37 Appendix 1

Detailed Findings

Protection of Buildings Against Flooding

For residences and businesses sandbags are the usual reactive measure to provide a protective barrier around a house or other such building.

There is no statutory requirement to provide sand bags but they are provided by the Council on a no charge basis. In some cases they are collected from the Depot and in others they are delivered to a collection points around the District.

During this particular flooding incident we were lucky in that we had on hire a low loader [delivering plastic bags] which facilitated better delivery as our own lorries can only, due to the weight of sandbags, take approximately 30 bags. To have delivered 50% on this basis would have taken 167 journeys.

There are some positive points in using sandbags but there are also many negative, including the cost. There are also alternatives on the market, some of which were on show at the Flood Fair, held in Priory Lodge Hall, on 26 th November 2007.

1. Positives associated with sandbag use:

 Recognition and possible previous experience of sandbags  Easy to use, apart from weight  They work as means of directing water away from property  In the case of standing water they can act as a filter only allowing water through without any solids

2. Negatives associated with sandbag use:

 They are very heavy  They are not easy to use for the old and disabled  Sandbags only have a shelf life of 6 months before the bags disintegrate due to UV light  They cannot be re-used  Filling and distribution is very labour intensive  The Depots are not geared up to undertake the extra duties and there is a reliance on overtime which not everybody is prepared to work thus leaving a few to carry out what needs to be done  There is no policy on calling out staff in case of flooding  Problems with identifying dry secure stores that are available in the case of flooding  Deliveries of bags were made to Tenbury [600], Kempsey, Upton, Astley & Callow End. It is believed that at least 50% of those delivered to Tenbury disappeared over the border due to lack of staffing. Some were delivered to with the result that labour was lost due to being stuck in traffic for 1.5 hours  Following the flooding there is a requirement to dispose of the bags due to possible contamination. There is a presumption by many residents that is the responsibility of the Council to do this.  There is also a question of security for our Depot management and staff: There have been a number of instances where residents

Page 7 Page 38 Flooding Task and Finish Group

[presumed] have tried to climb the Depot fence and were abusive and threatening to staff.

3. Alternatives

There are a number of alternatives to the traditional sandbag and a selection of these were exhibited at the Flood Fair, for example, aqua-sacs.

 Lighter to use, handle and transport [See attached cost comparison at Appendix 3]  Less labour required  Easier to dispose of  Longer shelf life  Less bulky making them easier to store at selected sites.  Reusable  Cheaper in long term

The above findings support Recommendations (i) & (ii)

There is some presumption that the Council is responsible for all fluvial flood defences.

It is generally agreed that residents have responsibility for their own property and particularly so where the property is adjacent to a brook or a river. Owners need to be aware, in the latter case, of their legal responsibilities as a Riparian Owner. An information leaflet produced by The Environment Agency entitled “Living on the Edge” is a guide to the rights and responsibilities of riverside and should be made available to Parish and Town Councils, so they may be used as reference where needed. (viii)

There are a number of precautions that an owner can take to protect the property from all but an exceptional flood, this can be looked at in two parts:

1. New Build 2. Existing Properties

1. New Build

Following a previous conversation and a more recent telephone conversation with Duncan Rudge it could be possible for the Planning Department to produce a “Supplementary Planning Guide” [at a cost of up to £5,000] in respect of anti flooding measures for all planning applications. This should apply to all development, not just the big ones such as North Site, and particularly where there has been a history of flooding. Some of the measures below could be included. (xi & xii)

2. Existing Properties

There a number of differing protection systems at varying prices and for different purposes. Recognised suppliers are included in the NFF Blue Book

a. Door and Window protection b. Drain Back flow protection c. Air Brick protection d. Barrier protection around the house [without causing further damage to a neighbour]

Page 8 Page 39 Flooding Task and Finish Group

e. Resistance vs. Resilience

For some properties, especially if they are on a flood plain and there is a history of flooding, it may be more practical to consider flood resilience.

Flood Resistance : reduces the amount of water that gets inside the property

Flood Resilience : reduces damage caused when flood water gets inside the property

An example of Resilience might be to assess where the water comes into the house and to route it through a corridor where it will do less damage. Or not to lay carpets on the ground floor but have a tiled floor with the electric circuit run at a high level above expected water level.

Some precautions can be paid/part paid for by way of a subsidy from the Council. (iii & x)

Rest Centres/Accomodations

One of the statutory duties conducted by the District Council is to resolve homelessness. In an emergency, where people are displaced, this is tackled on a temporary basis by establishing rest centres.

The floods in June/July required two types of Rest Centre:

1. Short term Centres for victims of flash flooding.

These were mainly motorists and passengers on public transport.

Centres used for this resource included schools, public houses, hotels, motorway services, halls etc. Fortunately these were only required for a short time.

2. Long term Centres for flood victims and distributions. a) These were necessary for those evacuated from properties who had nowhere to go or who were unable to travel because of blocked roads. b) To distribute bottled water and to provide a centre for locals to be kept informed of supplies. These were also used as key locations for provisions to be received and exchanged.

This report highlights the need for a more structured approach to the delivery of Emergency Centre Management and a better public awareness that homeless and vulnerable people in the community should not feel isolated during times of crisis. (xvi)

Normally a rest centre will be established on the advice of the emergency services as part of an evacuation plan. The amount of warning provided is, by definition short, and the centres are manned by volunteers.

The response to the questionnaire sent to the Parish/ town councils clearly indicates a need to put into place guide-lines for the management of Rest Centres.

Support from the District Council appears vital in order to:

Page 9 Page 40 Flooding Task and Finish Group

• Assist parish/town councils in forming individual emergency plans. (xviii) • Coordinate emergency proceedings from a central point .(iv) • Provide guide-lines for implementing resources. (iv) • Provide contact details to assist with management. (iv)

The recent floods highlighted the natural barrier, formed by the River Severn, between villages on either side and the importance for communication and assistance to be directed from the North and West. This inevitable isolation also reinforced the need to put into place localised rest centres and to provide a place where Emergency information could be found.

A strategy, implemented in part by the District Council, would support many of these isolated villages and communities.

From the results of questions asked following the July Flooding we have highlighted a few resources that might be useful to have made available at a Rest Centre.

• Signing in book • Log book for volunteers/helpers. (names, addresses, times) • Local area Maps • B.T. public phone ( and locations) • Names and telephone numbers of Parish/town council (to be kept updated) • Signage e.g. Rest Centre • Contact number for MHDC • Wind up radio • Identification badges

This list has been developed from the responses to the questionnaires and only provides the 'bare bones' to any requirement. It is also necessary for any central emergency call centre to have details of contacts for all Parish/Town Councils

Overall, the rest centres within coped well with the sudden flooding. Most Town/Parish Councils were able to respond to the individual needs within their communities albeit with limited resources. Due to the nature of the District, there were many examples of villages that were unable to make use of the Centres due to localised flooding and road blockages. A few Parish Councils have indicated that they would like help from the District Council to construct and implement future emergency plans.

Ditches and Water Courses

Water Courses

Main River

Includes Rivers Severn, Teme and some other local watercourses as annotated on the Environment Agency map. It should be noted that some main river designations only apply to the lower reaches of the watercourses. These are normally maintained by the Environment Agency and any cleansing or removal of debris should be reported to them. In the case of culverts or bridges over highways these are normally maintained by the Highway Authority. (xvii)

Minor Water Courses

Page 10 Page 41 Flooding Task and Finish Group

These are the responsibility of riparian owners who, where the watercourse follows land ownership boundary, are responsible to the centre of the watercourse.

The District Council can serve notice under land drainage act on riparian owners to keep clean and clear debris and in default undertake the work and recharge. The County Council also have similar powers but it is understood do not normally use their powers.

Ditches

These are the responsibility of either the adjoining landowner or in the case of ownership boundaries both landowners. In the case of roadside ditches the same applies in respect of the adjoining landowner unless the Highway Authority has either constructed a new road or improved realignment of an older road and has taken responsibility of a ditch on land in its ownership. In the case of piped in ditch courses alongside highways these are normally the responsibility of the Highway Authority. In the case of piped in ditches on private land these are the responsibility of the landowner. (ix & Viii)

Highway Drains

These are the responsibility of the Highway Authority and normally only drain highway gullies in the carriageway, except for those constructed prior to 1974 when in rural areas in particular there may be roof water from buildings also using highway drains by old agreements with former rural district councils. This facility is not applied since formation of the water authorities and subsequent water companies under the water industry act. In the case of piped in roadside ditches there may well be land drainage from adjoining fields discharging into them under original riparian rights prior to the piping in of the ditch course. (ix & viii)

Surface Water Sewers

These are normally the responsibility of Severn Trent Water providing they were adopted as such. These will drain both highway gullies and drainage from buildings and normally discharge to watercourses.

Foul Water Sewers

• Separate

These are designed to take foul water only although inevitably over a period of years a certain amount of surface water will enter the system particularly in times of flood via sink water gullies, etc.

• Combined

These are normally much older sewers, often over 100 years, and were designed to take both surface water and foul in the days of horse drawn traffic. It is doubtful that any records exist as to which road gullies discharge to these sewers. These sewers often have storm water overflows into watercourses in order to relieve the capacity of the piped system.

Capacity

For watercourses the normal criterion is that any culverts should be capable of accepting a one in a hundred year return period rainfall and in the case of major

Page 11 Page 42 Flooding Task and Finish Group watercourses a one in a hundred year flood capacity. Surface water sewers are only normally designed for one in one year or on more level ground one in two year storm capacity although should accept one in thirty year when surcharged. (ix &xii)

The meetings that were held on an ad-hoc basis between the relevant officers of the District, County, Environment Agency and Severn Trent should be reinstated in order to establish who does what, where and when and in the case of minor watercourses that cross local authority boundaries, need to include appropriate officers from the adjoining authority.

Full support should be given to any envisaged flood protection scheme, subject to approval by the Environment Agency in the case of any private schemes. (xvii & x)

Communications During Flooding

Flood Relief Grant

We had about 630 applications from an estimated 800 affected properties, roughly the same as Wychavon District Council. The problem here seems to be, not that residents did not know about the grant scheme, but that they did not wish to take it up as there was fear that it would affect their status [blight!] with their Insurance Company. They did not wish to be in the situation of having to declare water damage had occurred on completing any future forms for the Insurance Company. (xiv)

At one point the MHDC website had a flaw which did not allow access to information in respect of the grants and how to apply, it was later rectified.

Road Networks

There were problems in a number of areas with access by road due to water. (v &vi)

This group also identified the advantage of implementing emergency slip roads between the M50 and A438 near Sledge Green. These need only provide access to and from the east on the M50 and would provide an easier access to both Upton and the Malvern area in the event of flooding or other emergency. (vii)

Communications

 There was good communication between Silver Control & The Highways Agency and good updating of road infrastructure  There is more warning in the case of river flooding. But in the case of pluvial flooding it can be very sudden and this itself causes inherent problems  The District is large and getting to and from separate areas can be difficult o It would therefore be necessary to establish local resources and for larger towns/villages [such as Kempsey, Tenbury & Upton] to have their own local plan within the District Plan o It may be worth considering that Tenbury, for example has links with South Shropshire rather than Malvern in an emergency situation o This would be particularly important for delivery of sandbags, people & food supplies o However it is necessary to have good communication with these semi - autonomous groups. o There is a bigger communication issue in getting information back to MHDC and then back to the ground (iv)  Local Radio o Dytechna may be able to assist establishing a local community radio

Page 12 Page 43 Flooding Task and Finish Group

o Or reach agreement with Wyvern or Sunshine radio but it needs to be local to MHD. BBC Hereford & Worcester cover a larger area  It has been suggested that we make use of the Neighbourhood watch area

Warning

There are two types of communication needed:

• Initial Warning • Communication during the Emergency

Communication Networks – we have:

• Roaming SIM card • Use of RANET (amateur radio) – base in Council House • Satellite Phone – each Council has one

There are other informal arrangements with other local councils and we support each other at officer level

Recovery

The Clean up Operation

The response to the initial clean up was excellent. Cllr Morgan, relating experience from Upton-upon-Severn’s perspective, was congratulated on behalf of the District Council for the speed of the clean up response. However, he reported residents were not happy that five months after the floods, the Council were still using the floods as an excuse for a clean up operation that prevented them parking their cars on the street. In the case of Upton-upon-Severn, the Council chose to close so many streets so close together, that parking was almost eliminated for two days with obvious consequences for the already hard hit businesses. (xv)

There is evidence that there was some confusion as to who was responsible for clearing what. Skips were delivered, but residents were uncertain for whom they were intended. (xiii)

Compilation of Questionnaire & analysis of findings

Questionnaires (example attached at appendix 5) were sent to all 54 Parish and Town Councils within the District with a request that they complete and return so that their local knowledge could provide a District wide view to our response, and assist with any recommendations as a result of lessons learnt.

36 completed questionnaires were returned, an analysis of returned questionnaires can be found at appendix 6.

On the whole, almost all Councils felt that their community worked well together and were able to implement emergency arrangements. Links with other Councils and partnerships took a while to happen but were beneficial when they did. The major stumbling block was identified as being Communications with over half of the Town/Parish Councils reporting insufficient knowledge of contact numbers and where to go for help.

Sandbags were used in a few Towns and Parishes but these were reported to only work for a short time and polluted bags were/are difficult to dispose of. Many villages

Page 13 Page 44 Flooding Task and Finish Group were unable to access sandbags but villages supplied with them had had them cleared away. The general 'clean up' in some villages had not been completed and blocked drains, silted roads, and uncleared watercourses still remained. The main towns had been cleared satisfactorily.

Where Rest Centres were provided for displaced and homeless people the communities worked well in providing shelter and information. The main handicaps identified were closed roads and access to communications. Almost all communities were encouraged by the voluntary assistance given freely by local people. The grant for flooded properties had not been taken up as well as had been expected. There were various reasons given for this. People thought it might increase their house insurance; some regarded the amount to be not worth while and many were unaware that the grant was available to everyone; much of this was thought to be down to poor communication.

Prior to the flooding most Town/Parish Councils had no contingency /emergency plans in place. This was considered to be an area that needed attention and many asked for support from the District Council to coordinate this.

Major Issues.

From the questionnaires returned the major issues were:

1. The clearance of watercourses and ditches. (ix & viii) 2. The routine maintenance of ditches and culverts. (ix & viii) 3. Parish/Town Councils wanted to be involved in any Emergency plans. These to include obtaining emergency cones and signs to give early warning of flooded roads and to identify vulnerable people living locally. (xviii & v) 4. Communications. Identification of areas within Towns/Parishes where flooding occurs and contact numbers for assistance. (iv) 5. Earlier warning for schools and more information of road blockages. (iv)

As a result of the questionnaire exercise, a meeting between MHDC Emergency Officer, County Association of Local Councils (CALC) and the Clerk to Longdon Parish Council has been arranged with a view to setting up a Forum to encourage Parish/Town Councils to agree suitable emergency arrangements that could then be implemented when necessary. (xviii)

During this exercise the Pitt Report was published. Certain parts of this review apply specifically to the responsibility of district councils. The relevant findings of this report should be implemented as soon as possible. See Appendix 4. (xix)

Page 14 Page 45

Overview and Scrutiny

Review of the Council’s Response to Flooding June/July 2007

The Flooding Task and Finish Group of 10 th October 2007 agreed to establish a number of small two-member working groups to look at various aspects of the Council’s response to the June/July flooding. Details of the groups and an outline of the areas that they will look at are set out below:

Group A: Building Protection Against Flooding – J Waring and D Hull

• Identify the Council’s experiences of the effectiveness of sand bags during the June/July floods – evidence and advice to be taken from Alex Bill; • Get views of MHDC’s Environment Health Department on the use and effectiveness of sand bags and health implications relating to disposal etc; • Get views of the National Flood Forum (NFF) on the effectiveness of sand bags and what alternatives are available and how effective (and cost effective) they are – Mary Donohoe from NFF to be asked to provide this evidence and advise and attend this Group (or the main Task and Finish Group if her evidence is needed by any of the other working groups); • The part of the review will help inform the operation of the recently agreed Flood Protection Grant Scheme 1.

Group B: Rest Centres/Accommodations – M Morgan and B Behan

• Review the effectiveness of the rest centres at Tenbury; Powick; Upton and Kempsey, taking evidence from the following: o Rose Newbury – Housing Manager – on the overall operation of the rest centres and how effective they were at ensuring the Council’s homelessness obligations were met; o Local organisations which operate in support of rest centres – i.e. WRVS – issues about role and availability etc; o Rest Centre staff – on their experiences e.g. facilities; equipment and supplies available; security at the rest centre and levels of support provided by the Council, including relief teams etc; o Festival Housing; o PCT – i.e. dealing with the elderly and vulnerable adults o Sea Cadets on their experiences at the rest centre that they set up/ provided assistance to.

• Review what other locally provided facilities were made available during the floods i.e. alternative accommodation found locally etc

Group C: Ditches and Watercourses – M Biddle and R Sutton

• Evidence from Environment Agency and Severn Trent on: o Causes and future prevention o Responsibility for maintenance o Riparian ownership, issues and implications

1 Policy agreed under Article 12.06 as urgent business on 10.9.07 Page 46

o Analysis of the newly established Watercourse Clearance Grant Scheme 1 and the impact that this will have

Group D: Communications During Flooding – J Waring and M Biddle

• Look at the reasons for a relatively low uptake of the flooding grant; • Review the effect that flood water had on road networks and the impact of this on providing an effective response to the emergency to critical parts of the District – including communication links from the M5 and M50 during flooding; • Any issues with the use of telephone and radio communications

Group E: Recovery – R Sutton and M Morgan

• Review the clean up operation – Alex Bill to be asked to attend to provide evidence on how it went and any difficulties encountered etc

Group F: Questionnaire – B. Behan and R Sutton (Democratic Services to draft)

Development of a questionnaire to parish and town councils to:

• Find out the views of each parish and town council in affected areas on the effectiveness of District Council’s response to the flooding; • Obtain any feedback given to parish and town councils by local residents and businesses on the Council’s response to the flooding and on the operation of rest centres • Seek views on the effectiveness of communications etc; • Seek to identify local resources that parish councils have access to that could help in an emergency • The questionnaire to go out on 22 nd October; to be returned by 12 th November.

------

Each of the above Working Groups will aim to identify and gather the required evidence/information based around the issues outlined above, and will report progress/findings to the Flooding Task and Finish Group on 19 th November 2007. Where the same person is likely to be called to give evidence at more than one Working Group, it is likely that their evidence will be taken by the Flooding Task and Finish Group.

The Task and Finish Group of 19 th November will also consider the results of the consultation with town and parish councils.

Analysis of sandbag alternatives

Aqua-sac Sandbag

Unit Cost £ Sack 0.085 Sand 0.6 Filling 0.675 Total 2.99 1.36

Distribution Vehicle 98 98 based on one vehicle Fuel 14.56 33.28 in full use for one day Driver 29.4 192 141.96 323.28 bags 3000 560 total 0.047 0.577 Page 47

Storage nil nil

Total unit cost delivered 3.037 1.937

Notes 1 Aqua-sac may be used more than once and do not have a limited shelf-life 2 Sandbags deteriorate in sunlight and cannot be successfully stored for more than 6-9 months 3 Own labour has to be diverted from normal duties or paid overtime (increasing cost by £0.17 per bag) 4 Disposal costs of sandbags after use not calculated

Prepared by david_r 11/02/08 Page 1 Page 48

Page 49 Chapter 4: Managing flood risk

Case study – Flooding at Cypress Gardens, Longlevens in Gloucester Cypress Gardens is an estate in Longlevens, Gloucester, built within the last ten years on low- lying land adjacent to a brook. It was severely affected by both the June and July events, with flood water from both the brook and overflowing sewers causing water levels to reach four feet in some properties. In contrast, the surrounding area seemed to cope. There has been criticism that Cypress Gardens, Longlevens, Gloucester insufficient attention had been paid to the drainage of the estate and to maintenance of the brook and flood defences. However, the developers counter that all relevant planning and building approvals were granted. not least because a prospective purchaser during that lifetime. It is therefore important will generally assume that the granting of that an additional burden is not placed planning permission signals that the local unnecessarily on either the local authority’s authority does not perceive there to be a or the Environment Agency’s budget problem with flood risk. through a failure to adequately assess ongoing maintenance costs. 4.8 When a new development is permitted to go ahead, the developer is responsible IC 8 – The interim conclusion of the for the provision of any necessary flood Review is that PPS25 should be defences. The local authority must make rigorously applied by local planning sure that the developer funds not only the authorities, including giving consideration defences themselves but also their ongoing to all sources of flood risk and ensuring maintenance costs. Once defences have that developers make a full contribution been built, they are likely to be in place for to the costs both of building and at least 50 years and there is an maintaining any necessary defences. expectation that they will be maintained

Case study – Innovative planning: public park acts as valuable flood storage For over 200 years the public water supply for Worcester came from a waterworks on a four- hectare site on the banks of the River Severn in the urban area. The site was within the functional floodplain but a flood defence was in place, consisting of a high concrete wall. When the waterworks was decommissioned the owners, Severn Trent Water, in partnership with the City Council planning department and the Environment Agency, agreed a scheme to restore the land to a public park, Gheluvelt Park. Major improvements to flood management were achieved by removing the flood wall, removing the 17 brick and concrete tanks, recontouring the site and restoring the active floodplain. The spoil was used to fill the deeper tanks and housing was developed on an adjoining site, not at risk of flooding. A local river (Barbourne Brook) was also broken out of its culvert and allowed to flow freely through the park and into the river. Worcester was flooded during the summer and the design worked. The park kept flood levels down in the city by providing a much-needed extra four hectares of flood storage capacity (and throughflow of flood water) and the new housing on its edge did not flood. The park was back in use shortly after the floods, hosting a folk festival and craft fair.

41 Page 50 Learning lessons from the 2007 floods

Old waterworks providing valuable storage of flood water for Worcester. Some properties in the adjacent un- flooded new development can also be seen

Urban creep Drainage systems – the right to connect 4.9 Under natural conditions, a proportion “You see they are building new houses of rainfall infiltrates into the ground but, in but they aren’t actually updating the urban areas, properties and roads affect existing drains, they are not improving natural drainage. The permitted them that were there.” development right is an aspect of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Householder, Darfield, Barnsley Development) Order 1995 which allows private individuals and property developers 4.10 Section 106 of the Water Industry Act in certain circumstances to carry out works 1991 provides an automatic right for new without planning permission. It covers small developments to connect to public sewers developments such as the paving of once planning permission has been driveways or gardens and the erecting of granted. This places an additional strain on garden sheds. The cumulative impact of existing sewerage and drainage networks, permitted development on the drainage of exacerbating the problems of flooding. surface water is significant and the Defra is currently considering whether this Government has already announced its right should be removed in relation to plans to look at this issue in its forthcoming surface water drainage so that developers Water Strategy. The Review welcomes this. of all new developments will have to consider their impact on the sewerage and IC 9 – The interim conclusion of the drainage networks, and make greater use Review is that householders and of sustainable drainage systems. A number business owners should no longer be of drainage systems were clearly under able to lay impermeable surfaces as of strain during the recent floods and the right. Review does not consider it sensible to

42 Page 51 Chapter 4: Managing flood risk

allow new connections of surface water of November there were still 1,800 people drainage to the sewerage system to take out of their homes, with 200 families place unchecked. expected to be living in caravans over the Christmas period and into early 2008. IC 10 – The interim conclusion of the 4.12 Property-level resistance and Review is that the automatic right to resilience can help minimise the damage connect surface water drainage of new from floodwaters and greatly reduce the developments to the sewerage system timescale for recovery of a property. should be removed. Resistance measures are aimed at keeping water out of buildings, or at least Property-level resistance and resilience minimising the amount that enters by the use of barriers such as door guards to seal “When the flooding first happened, I wish entry points. Resilience measures are I’d known the full long-term effects, like aimed at minimising the damage when a how long before the flooding receded building is flooded, thereby facilitating the and how long it would be before I could quickest possible recovery. move back into my house. If I’d known that I could have prepared myself better 4.13 Despite the evident benefits of these and I wouldn’t be in the situation I am in measures, their uptake is not high. The now.” Association of British Insurers (ABI) Householder, Hull recently commissioned a survey of public attitudes to climate change risk, including flooding.2 The overwhelming majority of the 4.11 This summer’s flooding demonstrated 2012 respondents (85 per cent) identified the devastating impact that floods can have flooding as a risk affecting the UK, but only on homes and businesses, with some 16 per cent considered themselves at risk. people expected to be out of their homes While 57 per cent believed that individuals for almost a year. In Hull, for example, had a key role in protecting against the 31 per cent of those households affected effects of climate change, only six per cent by flooding had to move into temporary said they would use resistant or resilient accommodation. In Tewkesbury, at the end materials and products.

Case study – Resilience measures: “It has made a huge difference to me” A householder’s home near Worcester flooded both in 2000 and in the summer 2007 floods. Following the flooding of her lower ground floor in 2000, she had resilience measures installed. These included lightweight doors which could be removed to an upper floor, electricity sockets sited high up on the walls, concrete floors, cement-type plaster on the walls, and wooden skirting boards made water-resistant with many coats of yacht varnish. These measures meant that after the lower ground floor flooded in summer 2007, the householder was able to disinfect the affected rooms, let them dry out and move back in once a builder had repaired a breach in the concrete floor. The only loss was a carpet. When the rooms flooded in 2000, they were unusable for seven months, but their refurbishment with simple resilience measures meant that after the 2007 floods they were out of use for only four weeks and no insurance claim was made. The householder says “It has made a huge difference to me – coupled with the no insurance claim. And yes, I am a huge convert!”

2 YouGov survey for ABI, August 2007, 2012 respondents.

43 Page 52 Chapter 4: Managing flood risk

4.18 The Review considers that, in view of wish to reinstate their properties with the obvious benefits, Building Regulations resistant or resilient materials. should be extended to ensure that where a property in a high flood risk area is IC 14 – The interim conclusion of the undergoing major refurbishment, that it is Review is that local authorities and refurbished using flood-resilient or resistant housing associations should take a more materials. Such an approach to flood active role in increasing the uptake of resilience is consistent with the approach flood resistance and resilience currently in place within Building measures, leading by example by Regulations in relation to energy efficiency: repairing their properties with appropriate when replacing windows, the new ones materials where it is cost-effective. must be double-glazed, and when a boiler is replaced, the new one must be energy- efficient. The suggested approach should IC 15 – The interim conclusion of the also ensure that the issue of betterment in Review is that local authorities in high relation to insurance is addressed, as flood risk areas should extend eligibility insurers will normally pay for improvements for home improvement grants and loans if they are part of a legal requirement. to encompass flood resistance and resilience products. IC 13 – The interim conclusion of the Review is that the Government should “We have had all the electrics done; incorporate requirements for resistant or we’ve had to take out two central offices resilient refurbishment of flooded in the building and we are building a new properties in high flood risk areas into reception office; the fencing around the Building Regulations as part of the property has had to come down; we current process of revision. have erected new fencing; and we are having a new brick wall and iron gate at 4.19 The Review recognises that it will take the front of the premises.” some time to incorporate resistance and Business, Toll Bar, Doncaster resilience requirements into Building Regulations for properties in flood risk areas, and would like to see local 4.20 There are clear benefits to installing authorities and social housing organisations flood resistance or resilience measures in take a leading role in increasing uptake. In business premises as well. Such measures their evidence to the Environment, Food should ensure a swifter reoccupation of a and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select building and reduce the amount of time the Committee, Hull and Sheffield City Councils business is out of operation. A recent both expressed an interest in refurbishing survey of businesses6 indicated that, of buildings with resilient materials. The those affected by the summer 2007 Review welcomes this initiative. Local flooding, nearly a third experienced flooding authorities in affected areas could also at their premises and 18 per cent saw a make use of their powers under the drop in income. Installation of flood Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) resilience and flood resistance measures ( & Wales) Order (July 2002) to could represent a sound business extend home improvement grants and investment and should be encouraged. loans to householders and businesses that There is evidence of some businesses

6 Direct Line Business Owners’ Survey, November 2007

45 Page 53 Learning lessons from the 2007 floods

introducing such measures following the astonishment that it was only following the floods, including the relocating of certain summer 2007 floods that those with services away from the ground floor. Local responsibilities in relation to surface water authorities, in carrying out their flooding in Hull got together to discuss responsibilities to promote business drainage issues. However, Hull is unlikely to continuity, should be encouraging the be alone in leaving these issues installation of flood resilience and unaddressed. resistance measures and business continuity guidance should reflect the 4.22 The Review has been told that the benefits of such measures. Government had been looking at this issue before the summer 2007 floods and was IC 16 – The interim conclusion of the advocating a joined-up approach to Review is that local authorities, as they drainage management – especially in high- discharge their responsibilities under the risk urban areas – which would bring Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to promote together the various bodies concerned with business continuity, should encourage drainage (including the Environment the uptake of property-level flood Agency, local authorities, water companies, resistance and resilience measures. This internal drainage boards, the Highways should be reflected in guidance from the Agency and British Waterways). In light of Government. this summer’s events, the Review believes that this work should now be speeded up.

Surface Water Flooding And 4.23 The weight of evidence suggests that Drainage a partnership approach is the best way forward given the range of interests “They’re all pointing the finger at each involved – it would not be practical, for other, saying you’re responsible – one example, to move responsibility for all party’s blaming another.” assets to one body. Nevertheless, a Business, Sheffield partnership will need strong leadership,at both local and national levels, if it is to be effective. At the local level, the Review Stronger leadership believes that local authorities are best 4.21 As Chapter 1 describes, a much placed to take a stronger role in managing higher proportion of the flooding during the local flood risk, particularly in relation to summer was a result of poor surface water surface water flooding. Local authorities act drainage rather than flooding from rivers. as local planning authorities, with a Many of the responses to the Review substantial role in risk management, and highlighted the current unsatisfactory are heavily engaged in the Local Resilience arrangements for managing surface water Forums which undertake emergency flooding. In addition to the lack of planning. Moreover, as part of their ‘place- information on surface water flood risk (as shaping’ role, they are well positioned to set out in Chapter 3), the range of launch dialogues with their local responsibilities and lack of any overarching communities and other partners about the leadership have resulted in poor co- risks of flooding and possible responses. ordination and ownership of the issues that need to be tackled. The EFRA Select Committee recently noted with

46 Page 54 Chapter 4: Managing flood risk

broader framework which provides them IC 17 – The interim conclusion of the with relevant advice and guidance. The Review is that local authorities should Review considers that the Environment lead on the management of surface Agency is best placed to deliver the water flooding and drainage at the local national, strategic role in relation to surface level with the support of all responsible water flooding, which will involve developing organisations including the Environment maps, warning systems, options for Agency, water companies and internal modelling and the standard analytical drainage boards, the Highways Agency framework around which the risks are and British Waterways. understood. This will be consistent with the Agency’s national role in relation to coastal 4.24 In delivering their local leadership role, and river flooding. Such an approach has local authorities will require a range of been suggested both by a number of capabilities including technical, analytical, submissions received by the Review and as communication and influencing skills. part of Defra’s Making Space for Water However, many local authorities have seen programme. The Agency would accordingly some relevant services (such as engineering need to provide a toolkit to local authorities departments) shrink with the move to to enable them to work to a consistent greater outsourcing. While it may not be standard and deliver an effective approach necessary to have full expertise in-house, to managing and understanding local flood the Review believes that authorities should risk. at least have staff who can perform an ‘intelligent customer’ role, for example knowing when to challenge contractors and IC 19 – The interim conclusion of the consultants and what modelling to Review is that the Environment Agency commission to aid decision-making. The should have a national overview of all Review is encouraged that, in higher-risk flood risk and that, Defra’s work on the areas, the capability should in many cases development of a national overview role already be there. In Leeds, for example, for the Agency in relation to surface which saw flooding of 250 properties in June water flooding should be progressed. and July 2007, the council has recognised that flood risk is a significant issue and has Better co-ordination and information developed strategies to address this and taken on more technical staff. This kind of 4.26 PPS25 and other recent changes to upskilling might have implications for the the planning system should provide an overall supply of technical experts, effective approach to managing surface something which the Review will consider in water risk through the requirement for time for its final report. Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs). Planning guidance states that IC 18 – The interim conclusion of the SWMPs should focus on flood risk Review is that local authorities in flood management and the optimisation of risk areas should assess their sustainable drainage infrastructure. They capabilities to deliver their wide range of should also take account of the risks of responsibilities in relation to local flood surface water and sewer flooding and how risk management. these might affect an area in combination with flooding from rivers and (where 4.25 This enhanced local leadership role relevant) canals, reservoirs, the sea or for local authorities will work best within a groundwater. Under recent planning

47 Page 55 Learning lessons from the 2007 floods

changes the Environment Agency has a for both new and existing development, role in scrutinising Strategic Flood Risk including identifying options for flood Assessments, which will inform SWMPs, to storage and sustainable drainage systems, ensure that they adequately address all and to provide an overall framework for flood risk issues. directing resources in terms of both new assets and prioritisation of maintenance on 4.27 By considering both underground and the basis of risk. overland systems, these plans should help local authorities and their partners to 4.29 The production of SWMPs should be manage surface water flood risk more coordinated by the local authority with data effectively, including reducing the potential provided by all those organisations with for surface water run-off and overloading of assets within the drainage area in question. the underground system. They should thereby ensure that the drainage system as IC 20 – The interim conclusion of the a whole is able to cope with a bigger event Review is that local Surface Water than any individual part of the system Management Plans, as set out under alone. Figure 12 below demonstrates how PPS25, should provide the basis for understanding of the whole urban system managing surface water flood risk. These is important for managing the risk. plans should be coordinated by the local authority and be risk-based, considering 4.28 Plans should also be used to improve all sources of flooding. flood risk management, inform Community Risk Registers and aid emergency planners in identifying high-risk areas. They should 4.30 One of the concerns raised during the also be used to inform land-use planning floods was the lack of overall knowledge of

Figure 12 – Flood risk management in an urban system

Source: Foresight Future Flooding 2004

48 Page 56 Chapter 4: Managing flood risk

the location and condition of flood defence should lead and co-ordinate the and drainage assets and who was development of a register providing responsible for their maintenance. At the information on local drainage systems. This main river and coastal level, the register should include all watercourses, Environment Agency has the National culverts, drains and gullies, and any other Flood and Coastal Defence Database in relevant assets such as pumping stations, which details of all known river and coastal sewerage infrastructure, canals and flood flood defences, Environment Agency- defences, with an assessment of their owned or otherwise, are held. During the condition and ownership. Such a register summer 2007 floods, British Waterways will be a vital first step in addressing the (see case study below) was able to use its current fragmented understanding of local canal system to assist in lowering water drainage systems. levels. If information on its systems were to be made part of an overall register and IC 21 – The interim conclusion of the plan, identification of important assets for Review is that a local register of all the flood risk management and decisions on main flood risk management and when it would be appropriate to use those drainage assets (overland and assets would be facilitated. underground) should be compiled by the relevant local authority, including an 4.31 Following the floods in Harlow in 2006, assessment of their condition and details the local authority scrutiny committee of the responsible owners. recognised the value of sharing information between partners and the need to create a register of drainage assets. Leeds City 4.33 Each SWMP should be accompanied Council has also developed an asset register by an action plan setting out the actions to to ensure more effective management of the be taken by all those engaged in flood risk drainage system. Moreover, a number of management and with responsibilities in submissions to the Review have continued this area, which may often include the to raise the issue of who is responsible for Environment Agency in its local capacity. what within a given area. These action plans should be developed in partnership with the relevant organisations 4.32 To support the production of SWMPs, and led by the local authority. the Review considers that, local authorities

Case study – British Waterways British Waterways manages and operates the inland waterways system of canals and discharge structures which are intrinsically linked with the UK’s land drainage and river systems. During the summer 2007 floods, British Waterways played an important role in a number of different ways, including: • managing canal levels to create extra capacity to help cope with the flood volume. The most significant case was the lowering of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal, which created sufficient capacity to enable the emergency services to pump water from Walham electricity switching-station in Gloucester in order to prevent it from flooding; • helping to source water for a number of boat-dwellers in Gloucester; and • assisting the emergency services and residents in areas such as Yorkshire and the East Midlands by supplying sandbags and other flood materials.

49 Page 57

Review of Malvern Hills District Council’s Response to Flooding 2007

Information provided by …………………………………Parish/Town Council (please continue on separate sheets if you do not have room for all your comments)

Community Leadership and Engagement

Question Your Answer Did your Parish/Town Council feel that, on the whole, their community worked well together and responded by implementing emergency arrangements?

Could there be any improvements?

Information and Communications

The District Council recognises the importance of maintaining a flow of information and contact during emergencies and their recovery phase, between the centres of emergency (on the ground in the locality) and the Emergency Management Team and the need to continue to provide information and reassurance to the public, particularly evacuees, their families and friends. Drawing on the experiences within your Parish/Town Council area:

Question Your Answer Were you able to obtain all the information you required?

Did you have sufficient information for Emergency contacts?

Are there any areas, within your Town/Parish, where there could have been improvements with information and communication?

Page 58

Rest Centre Management

One of the statutory duties conducted by the District Council is to resolve homelessness. During emergencies where people are displaced, this is tackled on a temporary basis by establishing rest centres. Usually, a rest centre will be established on the advice of the emergency services as part of an evacuation plan. The amount of warning provided is, by definition, short and the centres are manned by volunteers.

It would be valuable to receive the comments of your Parish/Town Council as to how the Rest Centres were received with any suggestions via your experiences that could be fed into this investigation.

Question Your Answer Was it possible for you to identify displaced and vulnerable citizens?

How do you feel the management went in both identifying those who needed assistance and providing them with a response?

Flood Protection Measures

The District Council has for many years adopted a policy of providing sandbags as a means of protecting property in the event of flooding. The Council is currently reviewing this policy in view of the widely held view that sandbags are ineffective in most, if not all, water emergencies and produce problems for subsequent disposal when contaminated.

Question Your Answer What feedback have you received regarding sandbags – accessibility, performance, was there any collection and disposal plan?

Did you have an alternative to sandbags – if so was it effective?

Page 59

Recovery

Question Your Answer Have any issues associated with the clean up and recovery operation been identified in your Town/Parish area, following the floods?

Malvern Hills Flood Relief Scheme

When recovery measures commenced, the District Council administered, in conjunction with Parish/Town Council Clerks, a flooding hardship grant available for persons with homes flooded in habitable areas, to assist with various essential recovery and replacement matters.

Question Your Answer On reflection there was relatively low take up of the Grant – from the feed back you have received could you provide any insight into why this was met with low take up?

Emergency Plan

Question Your Answer Prior to the flooding did your Parish/Town Council have any contingency/ emergency plans in place?

Burning Issues

Question Your Answer Are there any issues that you would like to raise in order for them to be considered in the context of this review?

Returning this Information

Page 60

The feedback you provide, in the light of your experiences, will help in building any future emergency plans at both District and County level. I would be grateful if you could please return to Karen Jarman by 30 th November 2007 . Analysis of Returned Parish/Town Councils Completed Questionnaires

Community Leadership and Engagement

Question Did your Parish/Town Council feel Yes – 12 that, on the whole, their community worked well together and responded Yes but only isolated propertied affected () by implementing emergency arrangements? Yes - Great Community Spirit evident (Leigh & Bransford)

Yes – helped each other – ()

Yes people helped each other out as communities do but the Parish does not have any specific emergency arrangements – ()

Yes - The people of Kempsey certainly responded and many helped with many aspects of this emergency situation – Page 61 (Kempsey)

Yes - Worked well together. There were no emergency arrangements in place to implement – (Longdon)

Yes – village hall provided accommodation for stranded motorists – (Holt)

Yes eventually – (Tenbury)

Yes - Taking into consideration the suddenness of the situation ( & Welland)

Fairly well on the whole – ()

The unprecedented circumstances of 20 th July 2007 meant that we were unprepared for the scale of the flooding however we recognise that it may be possible to make local improvements in the rural area to minimise future effects – ()

On the whole yes but many Parishes/Towns seemed to be caught unawares ( & )

No emergency arrangements existed. Flooding in the village had never occurred before in living memory ()

No – the response was fragmented, disorganised & incompetent. Too little too late – (Ripple)

No – 4

No Answer – 5

Could there be any improvements? 4 - answered Yes

2 - Requested Road Signs (Newland & Kenswick & ) Would be useful to have Road Flooded and Road Clear signs to prevent traffic trying to find ways through impassable lanes causing vehicles to be abandoned – (Kenswick & Wichenford)

Working with all agencies involved to move forward for future situations (Upton upon Severn)

We are presently investigating options for improvement in local drainage to mitigate future risks to a reasonable level – (Earls Croome)

People wanted help but did not know what to do (Leigh & Bransford)

Only Contact with MHDC was related to Grants (Lwr Broadheath) Page 62

Don’t Know – ()

Get your act together – (Ripple)

List of emergency telephone numbers - this is now available on Parish Web Site – (Holt)

Yes – definitely. We are now more experienced but a lot of preparatory work has to be implemented in the very near future – e.g. – preparing contact lists, equipment availability lists which all take time and money – (Kempsey)

Yes – there should be a master plan setting out risk areas particularly where old and sick people as well as schoolchildren are involved. These areas should receive timely help and warning (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

We should have our own contingency plan, but need a copy of the District Risk Assessment for flooding in this area – (Lindridge)

We are preparing an update to our emergency plan for the village hall - ()

Yes – See the Longdon Emergency Plan proposals (copy with Karen Jarman) – (Longdon)

Yes – several – get your act together – who has responsibility? Who is accountable? – (Ripple)

Council Involvement – (Stockton-onTeme)

Yes – Tenbury with help from MHDC is establishing a detailed and comprehensive Crisis Management Plan, meshing with MHDC, WCC & Emergency Services. The first draft document is going to full Council in December – (Tenbury)

Communication & More Sandbags – (Tenbury - 3 responses received from Tenbury)

Possible more publicity – ( & and & ) No – 1

No Answer - 2

Information and Communications

Were you able to obtain all the Yes – 9 information you required? No – 9

Not Tested – 5 Page 63 The unprsidented scale of the flooding meant that the Community has not previously suffered to 2007 levels – (Earls Croome)

Yes but with some effort EA recorded flood warnings not updated regularly enough & not as effective as previous method – phone calls (Leigh & Bransford)

Yes via District/County Cllr ()

From County Cllr only (Eastham)

Not really – no/little contact was made initially with the Parish Council/Councillors - (Little Malvern & Welland)

From hearsay on the day of the flooding MHDC went home early so no one available to give advice! – (Hallow)

No – Needed assistance from Highways & all we could get was very little from call centre – very poor (Pendock)

No – we were fortunate to have our District Councillors present from lunchtime on Saturday 21 st July, but information was required on Friday 20 th when the incident started and no-one was available. We also needed links from outside hamlets as to their situation – (Kempsey)

As far as we know no contact was made during the initial flooding period – (Lindridge)

Contact numbers required for contacting appropriate District Council officials ()

No – a session to discuss prevention measures suggested (as in other areas) – (Stockton on Teme)

Did you have sufficient information for Yes – 8 Emergency contacts? No – 18

No answer - 1

Parish Councils informed authorities re Laugherne Brook Bridges, Grimley Brook & Colebrook & flooding on public roads (Kenswick & Wichenford)

It was difficult to access contacts because there were so many others doing the same (The Shelseys)

Page 64 Phoned the emergency number for MHDC at about 9:30p.m. on Tuesday June 19 th the lady who answered, appeared to be at home & totally unaware of the emerging emergency & to be honest of no help. ()

Did not anticipate that these would ever be required within the Parish. – (Earls Croome)

No – before this incident, many organisations were reluctant to pass on information. Since this incident, information has been more forthcoming – but still not perfect. – (Kempsey)

Not before July 2007. information needs to be more accessible – (Lindridge)

Are there any areas, within your Yes – 6 Town/Parish, where there could have been improvements with information No – 7 and communication? Clerk/Chairmen need emergency contact numbers – 5

Yes – The school seemed to be unprepared for the road blockages in the District Council area (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

Information provided to the Clerk/Chair could have been communicated to other Cllrs and residents (Little Malvern & Welland)

People need to know who to contact – Parish Councils should be issued with emergency list for publications (Pendock)

We must organise contacts and information procedures for emergencies (Rushwick)

The Parish Council could make information available on its website if it were provided with suitable material or a link to the District Council or EA website – (Hanley Castle)

Relied on County for Cllr for advice during flooding period (Eastham)

Need to know which roads are still open or closed due to flooding (Kenswick & Wichenford)

It would be prudent to identify individuals on the Parish Council to monitor the situation at various trouble spots and to work to help alleviate issues at those locations (Earls Croome)

Most certainly. We were able (on the Saturday) to set up a “local control point” in the centre of the village by the local shop. The problem was that outlying hamlets (and the odd individual houses) were not contactable due to the 5 square miles that the village covers, and lack of public notice boards, especially in places where emergency information needed to be displayed. It was not until 11.15am on Saturday 21 st July when an off duty Police Inspector saw the problems in Kempsey and was able to “take control” This must be a necessity in the future that the Police are involved at an earlier stage as all work on the Friday 20 th July was solely performed by the Parish volunteers. – (Kempsey)

Page 65 We are working on new ideas with Emergency Officer MHDC (Upton upon Severn)

Leaflets with contact nos for emergency helplines were only made available after the event – (Holt)

Grant availability could have been more widely publicised, some people did not know about it till weeks after (Leigh & Bransford)

Letter outlining the compensation claims procedure was ambiguous. This was later resolved ok – (Little Witley)

Should have had a contingency plan in place, and are prepared to do this after consultation with District Council – (Lindridge)

Where some sandbags were kept – (Kempsey)

Yes – Who to contact as a start the answerphone is a pathetic response – (Ripple)

Rest Centre Management Was it possible for you to identify Yes – 4 displaced and vulnerable citizens? Not Tested – 12

No – 3

Only by word of mouth (Abberley)

Only from local knowledge (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

None in the Parish (Eastham)

Not really – As extent of seriousness of problem was not identified early enough – no one knew who was suffering (Little Malvern & Welland)

No Local residents were displaced. Residents vulnerable to flooding have now been identified (Rushwick)

There were only a few and they made their own arrangements (The Shelseys)

Sorted out locally. Of six houses flooded 2 occurred during the night (after 11:00p.m.) & one other required immediate relocation. (Shrawley)

Yes very straightforward within a small community – (Earls Croome) Page 66

Parish residents did not need to use rest centres as the homes flooded were isolated ones and enabling people to be helped by their neighbours and friends – (Hanley Castle)

As the flood waters rose on the Saturday, it was envisaged that properties would need to be evacuated and it was a case of “door knocking” the effected properties to see who would need evacuating to a rest centre at “The Firs”. – (Kempsey)

We were aware that several elderly people were affected, they were helped by neighbours no nee for rest centre – (Lindridge)

We did not have a rest centre means or provision. We had no means to identify the displaced and/or vulnerable – (Longdon)

Mostly, but some left without leaving contact details – (Tenbury)

How do you feel the management Not Tested – 17 went in both identifying those who needed assistance and providing Kempsey Saturday & Sunday - The identification and evacuation went like clockwork both on the Saturday and them with a response? Sunday. Must have two-way radio communication with rest centre and volunteers out on the street – mobile phone network was down for part of the time on the Friday and would have been disastrous if this had failed on the Saturday. – Kempsey

Kempsey – Friday - Due to the large rainfall and the closure of may roads both locally and also the Motorway network – the A38 became impassable in the centre of the village. A large amount of “out of the area” vehicles were trying to pass along the A38 through Kempsey and were unable. Vehicles were trying to also get to places like Upton and Malvern as the Powick road was closed. We opened our Community Centre at the North of the village and members of the public from outside our area were able to stop, have a cup of tea, toilets and gather themselves and then return the way that they had come. Some were in a terribly distressed state. Volunteers manned this facility and over 90 people attended up to 1am on the Saturday morning when it was closed as all travellers had departed. A similar situation arose at the South of the Village but one of the local pubs took on this responsibility. No signage was available to show that these facilities existed and must be available in the future. The facilities at the Community Centre were ideal for the requirements in this instance but several items were missing – namely a) Maps – it was surprising how many people did not know where they were or how they were going to try to get to where they wanted to be. b) Mobile Phone Chargers and access to public phone. As most people had been in their cars for many hours, their mobile phones went dead and also the mobile phone network went dead as overloaded. The public phone outside the Community Centre was a necessity. c) A radio should be provided so the rest centre can keep up to date with the local situation. We were lucky as the electricity supply went off but was restored by 8.15pm. Contingencies must be made for no power and also to access the local Tesco to obtain essential supplies particularly at night. It would have been disastrous if the

water supply had failed. (Kempsey) Page 67

Good (Gt Witley and Little Witley)

Worked Well – (Tenbury)

Very well considering the severity and speed of the floods (Upton upon Severn)

Reasonably well considering the rapidity of the flooding (Rushwick)

The Clerk & Local Councillors identified those who had been affected by flooding and issued grant forms to them. Local knowledge essential – (Lindridge)

We did not receive any information from County or District prior to flooding (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

Not applicable in our small area – any affected parties were temporarily housed within the local community (Earls Croome)

Impossible to get any help to them due to road conditions but could have coped locally if anyone homeless (Bayton)

Not at all well – (Little Malvern & Welland)

We received no contact except in the case of grants (Lwr Broadheath)

Poor (Rochford)

Very Poor & Negligent (Ripple)

Flood Protection Measures

What feedback have you received No answer – 1 regarding sandbags – accessibility, performance, was there any collection N/A – 1 and disposal plan? None – 12

Within Kempsey we have identified that we are too remote from Malvern and cannot get the sandbags requested by residents quick enough due to our remote location. We have requested that residents “retain their non-contaminated

sandbags” and with the help of the District Council we will have available empty sandbags within the Parish and Page 68 hopefully extra sand will soon be provided. – (Kempsey)

No Sandbags available due to extreme weather, resident flooded was promised some after June floods, still not received any as far as they are aware (Bayton)

Initially difficulty in obtaining sandbags, bet we received good supplies in the end (Upton upon Severn)

We would like a supply of empty sandbags & a supply of sand stored locally so we can get to them immediately – (Lindridge)

No household applied for them as flooding in Birtsmorton was caused by overflowing ditches & occurred very quickly & without warning – ie flash flood – (Birtsmorton)

None needed (Eastham)

Sandbags proved effective at preventing wash from passing vehicles entering houses but not effective at preventing seepage –(Kenswick & Wichenford)

Accessibility – Difficult. Performance – Useful but limited effectiveness. Disposal – Not aware of any plan. (Leigh & Bransford)

We do have flooded homes in Parish – no sandbags were provided – no one knew where to go for sandbags/information (Little Malvern & Welland)

None Received (Lwr Broadheath)

We managed to get some from Upton and some delivered later in the day (Pendock)

No Sandbags Available – (Rochford)

No Feedback – No previous planning. Sandbags if provided need to be accessible near to areas of risk. – (Rushwick)

There are no sandbags within the community. Householders did what they could mostly from road flooding – (The Shelseys)

Parish Council requested sandbags after the July 20th flood but understand need was queried by Council solicitor as “Shrawley has not needed before” It was only after the intervention of the District Councillor (Chairman) that sandbags were delivered This appears to demonstrate that the centre did not know what was going on in outlying parts of the District. Most of the sandbags are now disintegrating and of little future use. (Shrawley)

There wasn’t a store of sandbags within the Parish and residents were unsure where to obtain them. Since most of the

problems were due to flash floods and not the river it was not wise to go out in search of bags (Hanley Castle) Page 69

None available in our Parish (Ripple)

Mostly abuse – all points raised were negative and sandbags are an extremely poor solution. (Tenbury)

Not enough sandbags. Collection was eventually organised after some reluctance from MHDC – (Tenbury)

Did you have an alternative to No – 8 sandbags – if so was it effective? No answer – 5

Not applicable – 6

No alternative as the barriers did not arrive (Upton upon Severn)

No alternative was available locally – (Earls Croome)

None that we were aware of – (Lindridge)

If drains and culverts had been unblocked prior to rains then flooding would have been much less (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

Used 2 bin liners full of garden compost per “sandbag” easier to move & manipulate into shape also easy to dispose of contents in garden – (Kenswick & Wichenford)

People filled rubbish sacks with soil and this proved effective in some cases. The flash flood water did not on the whole contaminate the soil which was then returned to the garden after use. (however MHDC’s sacks which were used in the emergency were not very substantial & split very easily once filled!!) – (Hanley Castle)

‘Floodgate’ door barriers – very effective – (Leigh & Bransford)

Not as Parish Council – As a Parish Council should we buy some or are the by provided by District – if so perhaps we could store an allocation for next time – (Little Malvern & Welland)

For some properties, particularly in the extremely vulnerable areas, the houses have to be protected with plastic sheeting and this is held with sandbags. The older properties where the water penetrates through the walls are the ones in question. Sandbags were also used to place on manholes in gardens/drives to try to stop them lifting to stop the sewage coming up – alternative heavy blocks would be better but how do the older residents cope with this.

Due to the large amount of rainwater – drains unable to take the excessive water – sandbags were useful to “divert Page 70 floodwater” and keep it on the roads and not permit it to take the lowest route down people’s drives and into their houses. Sandbags were also useful to stop the “wash from vehicles” who insisted on going through floodwater, sometimes at incredible speeds, causing bow-waves. Evidence of this is displayed on video, available on the Kempsey hub website at www.kempseyhub.co.uk . – (Kempsey)

Abandon the property – (Ripple)

None except manual labour & digging own trenches when drains not coping – (Stockton on Teme)

None at the time, but are now implementing better alternatives and sandbags will be a reserve resource. We have identified a better location for them. Disposal of polluted and burst sandbags is a problem – (Tenbury)

Recovery

Have any issues associated with the No – 8 clean up and recovery operation been identified in your Town/Parish area, Not Applicable – 2 following the floods? No Answer – 2

Yes – 2 Clean up was/is good and is continuing (Upton upon Severn)

No lessons have been learned and drains and culverts have still not been attended to adequately (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

Yes we are making representations to address local troublespots through drainage improvements – (Earls Croome)

The District Council initiated an excellent clear up of the affected areas, as we were able to notify “Ivor Pumfrey’s team” and this was completed swiftly done. With regard to blocked drains, ditches, damage to roads and pavements by the County Council, this is a disaster. There is NO ongoing preventative maintenance of drains and drains identified and reported to WCC during the week’s after the floods have not been cleared yet (end of November). – (Kempsey)

Wrote to Environmental Health in Aug & Oct 2007 expressing concerns over debris & rubbish which was left in Dumbleton Brook after the floods. To date I have received no reply – (Lindridge)

We produced and presented a report on the issues to MHDC but have received no technical response – (Lwr Broadheath)

Remedial drainage work at The Stobbs, Bank Road is still unresolved – (Little Witley) Page 71

Poor response, debris still lying around, what about future EC (flood relief) funds and how will they be allocated and when? – (Ripple)

Stream through Stockton still needs major clearing to avoid repeat flooding (tree trunks etc) – (Stockton on Teme)

Ditches need to be kept clear at all times together with culverts. Perhaps Severn Trent could improve storm water drainage as a number of existing streams weave through the Parish – (Little Malvern & Welland)

A thorough ditch/culvert/drain review is needed – (Kenswick & Wichenford)

Yes – very slow clean up and much debris still evident in watercourses. Unreasonable amount of effort required to get action. Rather disjointed approach due largely to overstretch – (Tenbury)

Drains still not jetted, some totally blocked, reflects badly on Parish, District & County Councils – (Bayton)

Drains not yet jetted – (Eastham)

Road Conditions remain Poor - Ham Bridge when is a major route from the village badly affected and still under going repairs – (Clifton on Teme)

The roads were in a very bad condition – the bridge at New Mill is still covered in mud – (The Shelseys)

Mainly no manpower available – (Rochford)

Collection of damaged goods was organised quickly by Cllr Tarbuck – (Rushwick)

Not in our Parish but most concerned at delay in cleaning rubbish in Tenbury Wells – ()

Not aware of any – probably issues we are not aware of – (Longdon)

Malvern Hills Flood Relief Scheme

On reflection there was relatively low Lack of information/knowledge – (Abberley) take up of the Grant – from the feed back you have received could you Lack of general knowledge of availability (Broadwas & Cotehridge) provide any insight into why this was met with low take up? 1 resident flooded did make a claim – (Bayton) Page 72

To my knowledge, those householders suffering from the flash flooding all applied for & received their grant – (Birtsmorton)

The two properties flooded in our Parish both claimed so ok from our view – (Pendock)

No – we contacted those affected but many had moved out of the area. Confusion over consultation Business Adviser (Upton upon Severn)

No one flooded in this Parish – Farm crops badly damage damaged adjacent to river – (Eastham)

Only one Parishioner affected – grateful for speedy response to application - (Kenswick & Wichenford)

Low level of grant too tight timescale alternative publicity arrangements – (Knighton-onTeme)

Yes, householders did not want to claim as they saw it as a possible cause for increase of insurance next year – (Little Malvern & Welland)

It might be because home owners thought their homes may be blighted as records of homes flooded will be retained by MHDC – (Lwr Broadheath)

Some did not want to take up the offer – (Alfrick & Lulsley and Knightwick & Doddenham)

People too busy clearing up. Fear of being on flooded property database – ( & Croome d’Abitot)

Not many properties affected – (Clifton- on-Teme)

No buildings in he Parish were affected by flooding – (Newland)

Lack of information – (Rochford)

People weren’t aware it was available – improve publicity – (Holt)

Residents were generally unaware of he availability of grants. It was not made clear that grants could be claimed even where compensation was being met by domestic insurance cover – (Longdon)

Only available to those on benefit – poor publicity – (Hallow)

Insufficient advertisement, flood victims concerned information might be used to blight their property – (Leigh & Bransford)

Poor communication on all aspects. Lack of confidence in statutory authorities to do anything competently – (Ripple) Page 73

All Parishioners affected were encouraged to make a claim – (Rushwick)

As far as I know all who were informed took up the offer. I don’t know who actually received funds – (The Shelseys)

As far as I know all Parishioners who suffered hardship claimed & have been paid – ( & Lilltle Witley)

Personally delivered claim forms to the 6 houses flooded & chased up for completion – (Shrawley)

All who were eligible received the grant – (Stockton on Teme)

The £200 grant take up was initially very low due to poor communications. The solution was manual distribution to all affected addresses. Other grants (£500) are generally regarded as too demanding of details to be worth the effort. Business Link proved extremely elusive – (Tenbury)

Of the homes flooded in the Parish a majority returned their forms and so the take up in Hanley Castle was high for the £200 grant. One local resident who has his cottage regularly flooded by the river was particularly badly affected this time but was unable to claim the hardship grant because although he is on a pension he does not claim any other benefits. The excess on his insurance policy is £5000 and, because he is careful and makes do, his losses were less than that but nonetheless ran into thousands of pounds. There must be other people who are caught in the gap between hardship grants and the insurance paying – (Hanley Castle)

In the village there were lots of homes where gardens & outbuildings were flooded, but they managed to prevent water reaching habitable areas therefore could not claim – (Lindridge)

a) People are apprehensive regarding £250 for flooding when this may increase their insurance, so did not apply. b) The District Council and County Council spent many days just after the July flood, with a member of staff at Kempsey Community Centre, giving information on flooding to residents who called in. This was an utter waste of time and resources. Residents had better things to do – clearing up their properties – and this time and resources could and should have been spent much better. The advice given changed over the coming weeks and was not necessarily correct when given, as it was an unprecedented event. c) In Wychavon district, all identified properties that may have flooded were sent forms direct from the District Council. The difficulty with Kempsey is that we work on a strict budget and do not have the financial or staff resources to implement such a large task as over 182 properties flooded in Kempsey and the surrounding hamlets. It was up to Parish Office to print the forms (more time and resources), volunteers to pass out the information. This was then sent back to the Parish Office (more time and resources) to validate and then send to MHDC (more time and resources and postage) and the big question is “did we identify all properties?”- (Kempsey)

The minor amount of grant available was viewed by those affected to be inconsequential when compared to the scale of

the devastation suffered by many – (Earls Croome) Page 74

Emergency Plan

Prior to the flooding did your No – 21 Parish/Town Council have any contingency/ emergency plans in Yes – (Hallow) place? Yes - limited “emergency plan” which worked well. It was coordinated by the Chairman of the Parish Council and The Clerk who were designated “emergency officers”. Following the incidents, further work will need to be done to make this run better in a future emergency. Unfortunately, again this takes money and time (which should really be the responsibility of the District Council). The villages (including Kempsey) have the best knowledge for this but it cannot be undertaken purely by volunteers. The Clerk (who is a paid official of all Parish Councils) is the best equipped to perform this task along with many volunteers and should be paid for this extra work. – (Kempsey)

Yes – Good relationship with Mercia Inshore Rescue and the Fire Brigade. Public showed good response (Upton upon Severn)

Yes but many years out of date – (Little Witley)

Very little & poorly co-ordinatated – this will change – (Kempsey)

Not specific – (Severn Stoke & Croome d’Abitot)

No - Not considered a high risk area – (Lwr Broadheath)

No – The Parish Council is not an emergency service and is not resourced for that – (Newland)

No – we are putting one together now but need to have emergency contact numbers where people can actually get assistance – unlike Highways – (Pendock)

No but looking to identify individuals on the Parish Council to monitor the situation at various trouble spots and to work to help alleviate issues at those loctions (Earls Croome)

No history of flood damage to properties therefore no plans in place – (Rushwick)

Burning Issues

Are there any issues that you would No – 3 like to raise in order for them to be Page 75 considered in the context of this No answer – 5 review? We need to move forward with permanent flood defence. This would be repaid over and over in terms of loss of trade, insurance claims and clean-up time (Upton upon Severn)

Drains need urgent jetting & broken pipes identified with action taken now. After heavy rain will need attention again. Sandbags could be held by household at risk for future use – (Bayton and Eastham)

The underlying reasons for the flooding needs to be addressed - blocked ditches & poor drainage these have been raised in a separate letter to MHDC & WCC – (Holt)

Which agency (if any) has ultimate responsibility for ditches located on/in roadside verges (Earls Croome)

1.More involvement of Parish Councils in Planning. 2. Inadequate drainage on roads to deal with excess water. 3 No routine maintenance of all drains and culverts.4. Communication to reach all relevant workers and councillors well in advance (Broadwas & Cotheridge)

1. Who is responsible for what. 2 The media need to be issuing official information – BBC H & W were particularly effective but had no official authority. 3. District/County Councils should pay combined attention to the clearance of ditches and gulleys on a combined basis. Either get the landowner to do it or do it themselves, the cause of much of the flash flooding – (Ripple)

As a follow up to the flooding and in an effort to prevent recurrence the Parish Council has started a review of drainage within the Parish but is very difficult to find out what drainage exists & who is responsible for what – (Hanley Castle)

Programme of regular Drain/Ditch Clearance – (Leigh & Bransford and Knighton on Teme)

Wrote to Environmental Health in Aug & Oct 2007 expressing concerns over debris & rubbish which was left in Dumbleton Brook after the floods. To date I have received no reply also we have an elderly resident who could not claim a grant, but whose vegetable plot was destroyed – he has lost out financially but received no compensation – (Lindridge)

Proper ditch maintenance essential. On Croome Green Common (along B4208) according to Highways it is the responsibility of the Parish Council 7 at present we do not have any funds available to maintain the ditches so need help with this – (Birtsmorton)

Extremely concerned about the lack of any progress for the repair to the bridge at Common Assurances have been given that work would start and that work would be completed by end November 2007 (Pensax)

Road Liable to Flooding Sign at Newland and ends of Stocks Lane to warn motorists before they reach the Page 76 dip/stream culvert west of level crossing – (Newland)

Flooding at Broadmrore Green caused by blocked under road culvert – not been cleaned for a long time several requests made to Highways but positive response still awaited – (Rushwick)

The civil works to reduce flood risk to A4103 increased the risk of flooding for this group of buildings (Dr Propert’s letter 16 th October 2002); Clearing of River Teme banks to increase water flow; maintenance of culverts & ditches to east of these properties to be reviewed and enhanced; The flood wall built between the gardens of some of the houses and the river is not effective; arrangements in hand to provide emergency only exit from Bransford Court Lane direct on to the A4103 (removable bollards/hinged fence section) but needs dropped kerb fitted at the south end of the pavement running in front of the Fox Inn; felt that with their knowledge of the area, local residents not listened to by the “powers that be” due to contacts retiring or moving on progress not made. Comments requite to be fed through questionnaire with a view to setting up another group meeting involving MHDC, Environment Agency, and local land owners and this group of local residents - (Leigh & Bransford)

Village’s main problem – being cut off by rising water from 4 streams: Grimley Brook, Colebrook, Fitcher Brook & Laugherne Brook. Cars had to be abandoned on the road, abandoned overnight, following day when streams subsided, abandoned cars created obstacles to already narrow single track lanes. Water run of from fields, water wash into properties from vehicles particularly tractors, pipe size anomalies – 12” pipe flowing into 6” drain, Attention to road side ditching by Highways & Landowners jointly, Culverts could be regularly scoured by Highways, Bridges need improved system for dealing with flash floods – regular clearing of debris which builds up around sides of bridges, side culverts for taking water around sides of bridges – (Kenswick & Wichenford)

Need contact for emergency cones & signs – (Severn Stoke & Croome d’Abitot) a) Kempsey is remote from Malvern Hills and it was up to us on the ground to sort out requirements particularly on the Friday 20 th July. b) Funding must be forthcoming to create a much better plan with response to any emergency including the setting up and holding of important contact information. c) It is imperative that one Police Officer is assigned to each village – probably best for one that lives in or close by. It was not until 11.20am on Saturday 21 st that an off duty Police Officer “took control of the situation”. One of the two separate emergencies had been dealt with completely before assistance was available. d) We were fortunate because our local District Councillors were in our village and able to contact MHDC as they were the only ones with the contact numbers – this has already been resolved in Kempsey. There must be a “round the table” meeting so problems and advice can be used for future catastrophes – (Kempsey)

Consideration for a joint Parish Councils Committee to produce an emergency plan format and a common approach based on mutual assistance for likely future emergencies, i.e. if power cuts had coincided with the flooding & water shortages the situation (at Longdon at least) would have been catastrophic – (Longdon)

Appoint a co-ordinator and establish a central point for information up to date & available at all times – (Rochford)

Page 77 Adequate tailored information be implemented, provision of sandbags other weapons against flooding – (Little Malvern & Welland)

More prevention information required – what residents can do – (Stockton on Teme)

To identify why so much water runs off into the bungalows at – (The Shelseys)

Concern re continued building on flood plain areas – (Knighton-on-Teme)

Business Rates levied on small businesses which were virtually wiped out. Massive insurance problems. The absolute necessity of starting an overall flood defence for Tenbury, probably implemented in phases over some years. A comprehensive review of the drainage around Tenbury, which has been known to be defective for some years. – (Tenbury)

Rebuilding of stalls/ parks/ wall/toilets far too long (March 08) – (Tenbury)

Perhaps defences on river and brook – (Tenbury)