Agenda item

The Panel will consider the report ‘Annual Review of Flood Risk Management Activities’.

Contacts:

Paul Farndale, Strategic Partnership Lead for Flood Management and Drainage

Mathias Franklin, Head of Planning & Development

The Panel considered the report ‘Annual Review of Flood Risk Management Activities’ which was presented by Paul Farndale, Strategic Partnerships Lead. Illyas Ramjan, Head of Major Projects, Martin Stepherson, Principal Flood Risk Planner and Jason Hanks, ER Project officer were also in attendance. It was highlighted that:

• The annual update covered flood risk avoidance, asset management, natural flood management and community resilience and outlined progress on the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and how the approach linked to the Local Plan.
• Moving in the direction of integrated flood management was bringing changes for the authority.
• Trash Screens – Operational Issues and Improvements:

• • Trash screens were required to stop large objects getting lodged, and prevented risk from flooding, however, poorly maintained trash screens collected debris and posed a flood risk themselves.
  • The approach to maintenance of the Trash Screens utilised the principals of asset management to review trash screens based on the risk of blockages by location.
  • This involved balancing risk against budget and operational requirements.
  • It was noted that privately owned trash screens, particularly in new developments, could be neglected and created additional burdens.
  • Work was being undertaken to use section 106 agreements so that management companies were responsible for the maintenance.
  • Confirmation had been received that a funding bid for improving and redesigning trash screens had been passed to a regional stage.
  • Proposed upgrades addressed access issues and revised bar spacing, supported by a Grant in Aid bid of up to £670k alongside Council?funded schemes.
  • Future considerations included reassessing clearance frequency, exploring remote observation, reviewing whether to deliberately retain water in some circumstances, and integrating OSAMS (the new asset management system in Highways).
• Natural Flood Management (NFM) Activities:
  • NFM work including design and landowner engagement for schemes such as Ludhill Dike and various catchment clusters was ongoing.
  • Interventions under consideration included tree planting, hedgerows, attenuation basins, leaky dams and fascines.
  • Progress continued on Council?owned land, including works at Woods Mount, Mellor Woods and Rectory Park.
  • Partnership work progressed to secure further funding for several “spade?ready” schemes within the Honley area.
• Community Resilience and Mental Health:
  • The West Yorkshire Flood Innovation Programme’s work to improve mental health and wellbeing in flood?risk communities continued.
  • National evidence highlighted significantly higher rates of mental health issues among residents affected by flooding.
  • The programme aimed to strengthen resilience through improved mental health support and targeted interventions.
• Progress Since Previous Year:
  • Funding had been secured and initial scoping work had taken place to understand current conditions within flood?risk communities.
  • Partnership development work had continued, and Mental Health First Aid Training had begun.
• Mental Health First Aid Training:
  • A training programme had been developed in partnership with Emergency Planning and the Severe Weather Plan.
  • 100 frontline staff had been trained, improving awareness and daily wellbeing support for communities and staff.
  • ‘Green  prescribing’ was a particularly helpful technique, and this could have dual -benefits of supporting tree planting.
• Academic Research Partnership:
  • A formal research partnership with the University of Huddersfield had been established to support research design, data analysis and evidence development.
  • A large?scale online survey was underway alongside 50 planned in?depth interviews with residents who had experienced flooding.
  • Early research findings indicated that residents experienced chronic anxiety and trauma linked to rain and repeated flooding, with long?term financial strain and ongoing disruption deepening emotional distress. Participants reported that preparedness had become an exhausting, largely self?funded burden, while perceived gaps in services and weak infrastructure heightened stress and frustration. Community support, however, emerged as a crucial emotional buffer, with informal networks offering reassurance and understanding.
• Planned Outputs:
  • The planned production of a concise report summarising the needs assessment and workshop findings.
  • A policy briefing and good?practice guide were to be developed.
  • Work was underway to establish an academic–policy network on climate?related mental health and resilience and develop a future funding bid.

The Panel noted the presentation and, during the subsequent discussion, raised the following questions and points.

• The Panel welcomed the mental health work and noted that colleagues had highlighted the mental health training as very positive. Congratulations were expressed for this progress.
• In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the responsibilities of the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and Kirklees Council, it was advised  that the Environment Agency acted as the enforcement body for main rivers due to their cross?district nature, while Kirklees was responsible for smaller watercourses and for managing surface water flood risk under legislation. Yorkshire Water were described as asset managers rather than flood?risk managers. Officers noted strong working relationships with the Environment Agency, including through joint bid work. Opportunity mapping and bringing together expertise were identified as key elements of the future approach.
• In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the long?term effectiveness of attenuation systems on new developments, officers expressed confidence that adoption and management processes would address end?of?life risks, noting that the intention was to avoid households having to manage these systems themselves. Developers were required to design attenuation tanks appropriately, and once adopted, had statutory responsibilities to maintain them. Challenges included the possibility of developers ceasing to trade; therefore, Section 106 agreements were being developed on major sites to include provisions for management companies to ensure a fallback mechanism that protected residents.
• In response to questions from the Panel in relation to measuring the success of the mental health work, it was explained that the project was in its initial research phase. At this stage, success was measured through completion of questionnaires and interviews, with 12 out of 30 interviews completed and 300 out of 500 questionnaires returned. The priority was collecting sufficient data to enable meaningful change. Success in the second stage would involve assessing whether the information gathered was adequate to deliver an effective intervention, with findings informing an initial funding bid. The final phase would evaluate whether the project achieved its intended impact, which might evolve from initial aspirations. Measures would include wellbeing indicators and service uptake. Huddersfield University intended to continue supporting research during delivery and evaluation phases.
•  In response to questions from the Panel in relation to operational collaboration with Yorkshire Water, officers confirmed that issues were raised through normal reporting processes and discussed at monthly meetings to ensure progress.
• In response to questions from the Panel in relation to partnership working with the National Trust, officers explained that this differed from working with delivery partners and linked to opportunity mapping to ensure that all parties were aware of ongoing work across the landscape.
•  In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the Mirfield scheme, it was advised that cuts had resulted from a shift in Grant?in?Aid funding priorities towards maintaining existing defence assets. It was noted that Grant?in?Aid funding was shifting towards developing rolling projects focused on slowing the flow in upland areas, though this represented decades of work.

RESOLVED:

The Panel noted the report and expressed appreciation for the focus on identifying opportunities alongside a traditional risk?based methodology.