Agenda item

Flooding issues across the borough

To consider a report that has been presented to the Senior Management Team (enclosed).

Minutes:

The Director of Customer and Digital presented a report which had been considered at a recent meeting of the Senior Management Team.

 

A total of 426 properties in the borough had been confirmed as flooded as a result of Storm Eva on 26 December 2015.  Following guidance and criteria issued by DCLG and Lancashire County Council to help those people affected, the council was required to set up its own Flood Relief Scheme.  The council’s scheme was made up of a number of different elements based upon the guidance and criteria issued. 

 

The breakdown financial assistance awarded to those properties affected was as follows –

 

·         386 domestic propertied confirmed flooded were awarded community grants worth £500.  The total amount of community grants awarded by the council was £193,000 of which £191, 500 had been refunded by DCLG via Lancashire County Council.  The remaining £1,500 had been included as part of a final claim made by Lancashire County Council in early September.

·         Of the 32 businesses confirmed flooded. 22 businesses had received business grants awarded of £2,500 each.  The total amount of business grants awarded amounted to £75,083 which was delivered by BOOST Business Lancashire

·         491 properties qualified for Council Tax Flood Discount worth £182,328, and 10 properties qualified for business rates relief worth £18,362.  The majority of the financial assistance monies had already been refunded by the DCLG.  The remaining amount of monies awarded by the council, which amounted to £59,059 in total, would be claimed for as part of a reconciliation submitted via the flood portal when the discounts ceased. 

 

As the DCLG had previously acknowledged that interim payments may be required to help councils manages cash flow, the council had requested an interim payment in September.

 

214 residents also applied to the government for a Property Level Resilience Grant worth up to £5,000 per property.  As part of the application process a survey of each property was carried out to ascertain the most effective form of prevention work appropriate.

 

The surveys were carried out by Pell Frischmann who had been appointed through a joint procurement exercise with South Ribble Borough Council.  It was reported that there had been elements of disconnect between what some residents wanted, and the recommendations of the experts.  On those occasions, a compromised had been reached.

 

It was reported that Lancashire County Council was in the process of undertaking a Section 19 investigation to ensure that their legal obligations was met and that affected communities had been identified and appropriate county-wide prioritised actions put in place. Although Lancashire County Council was aware of a number of areas within the borough prone to flooding, those areas would not necessarily be treated with the highest priority when the whole of the county footprint was taken into consideration.

 

During debate, the Committee raised a number of issues, which included –

·         the criteria required to qualify for financial assistance,

·         types of work undertaken repair damage caused due to flooding, and the resilience work taken place,

·         flooding due to blocked drains,

·         deadline for applications to be received in respect of the  Property Level Resilience Grant.

 

In response to an enquiry from Councillor Kim Snape, the number of farms that had been affected by flooding was unknown, but that the figure would be obtained and reported back. 

 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked the Director of Customer and Digital for his attendance and contribution to the meeting.

 

AGREED – That the report be noted.

 

Since the meeting, the Director of Customer and Digital had confirmed that the council had received one report of a farm being flooded due to Storm Eva.  After initial contact was made with the resident, further approaches from the council had proved unsuccessful.

Supporting documents: