Minutes of

Queen Camel Flood Committee Meeting

held on

Thursday 19th January 2017

6.30pm at ‘Shangri-La’

Page 1.

Present: See Terms of Reference for Responsibilities ~ end of document.

Daniel Casley (DC)

Rosemary Heath-Coleman (RHC)

Nick Howman (NH)

Sue Howman (SH)

Maggie Hunter (MH)

Gary Linscott (GL)

Steve Millard (SM)

Arthur Thring (AT)

Martin Lilley (ML) [Voted on as a FC member – see 1.5 below]

Chairman: Gary Linscott chaired the meeting.

Apologies: SM Resignation: Alan Cole (AC) from the Flood Help Team & the Flood Committee.

1.  Welcome, Apologies & Resignations

1.1 GL welcomed everyone and noted the above resignation. The committee expressed their thanks and appreciation to Alan for his help and support.

1.2 Replacement for A. Cole. See 3.1 & 7.1. GL to liaise with SM regarding the situation.

1.3 Update on replacement for Laura Paul ~ although it is common knowledge that Chris Bennett (CB) is in line for the role as it has been mentioned at Parish Council meetings, the Police have yet to formally approve the replacement which means that the FC have not been notified. See 6.1.

1.4 Welcome Martin Lilley

1.5 Motion for Martin to be invited to become an FC member. Proposed by GL 2nd by RHC carried unanimously.

2.  Minutes of Meeting of 3rd Nov 2016

GL mentioned that under the Terms of Reference:

B Responsibilities. 1

‘to reduce these identified risks to ‘As Low As Responsibly Practicable’ (ALARP)’ should change to ‘to reduce these identified risks to ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP)’.

This change was agreed and the Minutes of the last meeting accepted.

3.  FC Terms of Reference / Responsibilities

Action brought forward:

3.4. TORs: RHC – Action completed. (Post meeting).

GL mentioned the following that needed to be clarified:

1: What are the Flood Help Teams Terms of Reference? G.L. mentioned that it was necessary to determine the TOR for the Help Team as this would help to define the number of persons required, the fitness level of the team members recruited and the additional equipment/ PPE that will need to be purchased utilising funding secured in this year’s PC budget] see also other actions under Flood Help Team Para 7

Actions:

1: DC /RHC to review past minutes to determine the scope of the Help Team therefore to assist in the generation of TOR

2: GL to formulate Help Team TORs using any inputs from ‘Action 1’ (above), to then be subsequently circulated and agreed by FC members.

4.  Flood Risks & Mitigation

Action brought forward:

4.1 GL to prepare a Parish Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. This has been produced ~ see Plan.

GL explained the principles and reasoning behind the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The PC website was mentioned as a possible way to get the Parish more involved and aware. It was felt that a link to a separate site was the most appropriate way forward as flood concerns are not of interest to most of the Parish and a separate link avoids possible site control issues in terms of managing personal data within public domains.


Actions:

1.  ALL to identify any River Cam based obstructions or potential obstructions (to include bridge repairs / fallen masonry …..etc.)

2.  G.L. to discuss with Steve Scaddon (Environment Agency) any matters identified and referred under action 1 (above).

3.  ALL to provide feedback to GL with regard to the previously circulated ‘Flood Risk Assessment’ document by the end February

4.  GL to issue the Flood Risk Assessment Early March and circulate to FC members.

5.  GL to liaise with PC clerk with a view to establishing a link on the PC website to an FC site. This site amongst other things will contain the FC Flood Risk Assessment in a bid to inform the wider community.

Action brought forward:

4.2  DC to e-mail Flood Contact Chart members to ask them to forward details of risks known to them that will help GL with 4. 1. No response. Action closed.

Action:

Flood Committee members to pass on any relevant information they become aware of, therefore enabling GL to consider in subsequent reviews of the Flood Risk Assessment.

Action brought forward:

4.3  GL/NH/SM to obtain more details with regard to electrical sluice gates.

GL informed the FC that the EA expressed little interest with regard this initiative, and will not give any help in terms of funding. They tended to direct responsibility for this matter to the riparian owner. However they did give contact details from where the FC could get a cost quotation. GL, having had the chance to visit the ‘The Old Mill’ and subject sluice gates, questioned the actual effect that the main river sluice gate would have on the Henshalbrook (i.e. the main cause of flooding in this area) in the event it was not in the open position and therefore the actual size of risk. It was agreed that the sluice gate that controlled water flow through the Mill (and into the Henshalbrook) did not present itself as a significant risk if remained open in times of flood (due to the volume of water that could flow) and therefore was not being considered for modification or electronic automation. N.H. gave the benefit of his experience and suggested that with the main river sluice gate in the closed position in times of flood, whilst the spillway would manage much of the water back to the main river, there was a risk to bank erosion and some water flowing over-ground making its way to the Henshalbrook hence exacerbating the local flooding in and around Mill Court. It was also agreed that the manual element of operating the main river sluice gate was a definite risk to the individual in terms of manual handling strains and potential falling into the river.

Action:

GL to pursue quote from suppliers (supplier contacts received via the EA and directly via Steve Scadden). Subsequent to receiving a quote the FC will then need to decide whether to pursue funding for the work (Cost versus Risk).

GL to identify as part of the risk mitigation plan for Flood Risk the following; ML to notify GL of periods away from home and the position of the Sluice Gates, GL (in the first instance) and NH (in the second instance) will manage the operation of the Sluice Gate in ML absence where deemed necessary to do so.


Action brought forward: River Cam/Henshalbrook water flow rates (from last minutes Para 11)

GL, with help from FC members, to establish ‘Queen Camel Parish Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. See 4.1 and Risk Assessment. GL mention that the Risk Assessment identifies the 2 x culverts leading to the river CAM as the restriction points and the main cause of flooding in and around Mill Court and therefore efforts would be wasted applying any focus further along Henshalbrook. It is the Highways responsibility to maintain the Bridge Culvert and responsibility of the Mill Court Culvert was at this time undetermined.. There was some discussion as to when the Highway culvert was last work on.

Action: RHC to identify when the Culvert was last inspected.


Action brought forward:

SH to contact Environment Agency on behalf of FC and express the view ‘that the Environment Agency’s new website for monitoring the river level at Weston Bampfylde was frankly useless’.


SH mentioned that she had had no response. AT said that he also had contacted the EA and had no response and that during the last Flood Warning the data had been updated about every 2 hours, whereas under the previous system the updates were much more regular.

Action: SH to contact the EA by phone to express concerns.


Action brought forward: The situation was discussed regarding the operation of the sluice gates now that NH/SH were no longer in The Old Mill.

RHC to speak to the new owner of The Old Mill regarding the Flood Committee and to invite the new owner to meet NH and GL in respect of the sluice gate operation. Action Completed.

5.  Parish Council related matters

Action brought forward: Parish Clerk's email 01-10-16 (lessons Group has learned past 10 years)

1.1  DC to bring this to Parish Clerk’s attention on submitting the minutes.

No written response and no one has been aware of anything being said at a PC meeting.

Although the thought was expressed that no response was needed it was decided to minute that the PC did not respond.

Action: DC to highlight the above when copy of minutes forwarded to PC clerk. The action then considered closed.

Action brought forward: Parish Clerk's email 17-10-16 (Draft Budget for Parish Funding)
5.2 DC to bring this to Parish Clerk’s attention on submitting the minutes.

Again no written response.

RHC asked that the request and approval from the PC of £1,000 contingency for last year and £2,000 added to this to be minuted. AT said approved given in PC minutes for December 2016.

There was some discussion on whether or not a written response was required with RHC feeling that the Flood Committee (and all Parish Groups) should receive written confirmation of PC decisions including those in respect of its grant applications. However GL who attended the PC meeting at which the resolution was made, was satisfied that the recording of the grant request being accepted in the PC minutes was sufficient to accept as formal agreement. The majority present agreed with GL’s view.

Note: This was item 09 [2016] Finance: 1. Budget for 2017 – 18.

RESOLVED 7-0-0 that the following allocations be agreed:…………Flood Committee - £3000 [including £2000 held as a contingency for mechanical improvements to the sluice gates unless this is found to be the responsibility of the riparian owner] (£1000)’.

However it was also agreed to bring to the PC clerk attention that again, we had had no formal response.

GL mentioned the need to identify what equipment needed (up to £1,000) when the role of the Flood Help Team has been agreed. Also to get quotation for the sluice gates (up to £2,000 allocated) and let the PC clerk know.

Action: DC to highlight the non-receipt of reply when copy of minutes forwarded to PC clerk. The action then considered closed.

Action brought forward:

3.3. SLACCU: PC has submitted two names (GL and Chris Bennet) – as per PC minutes of November 2016. Action closed.

Note: this item was 06 [1116] Councillors’ reports and motions.

1. Road closure coordinator, Somerset Emergency Community Contacts (SECC) and Somerset Local Authorities Civil Contingencies Partnership (SLACCU). CB informed the Council that he had taken on the role of Road Closure coordinator after Laura Paul had stepped down and he was also prepared to consider becoming an SECC contact under the SLACCU scheme once he had learnt more about it. A member of the Flood Committee confirmed that, as noted in the report of their meeting of 3rd November (circulated on 11th November), the other two SECC contacts were Alan Cole and Gary Linscott’.

6.  Road Closure/Op Gannex update

Action brought forward:

3.2. Road Closure: SH to discuss with Thelma to confirm formal replacement for LP.

(See 1.3 and 6. Road Closure/Op Gannex update)

6.1. Still awaiting formal announcement of Laura Paul’s replacement and when we have it we can invite nominated replacement (CB) to FC meetings to provide updates. GL felt there was a need to understand the rational for road closed and roads not. Other’s agreed. AT said he thought the police had overruled the original ideas. The Committee felt that the plan as stated was not realistic or effective in its known form and it was agreed that the situation regarding Road Closure was completely unsatisfactory.

Actions:

G.L (post meeting agreement action transferred from SH) to the escalate the issue ref LP replacement to the next level of authority (i.e. by means of a formal letter to the Police Inspector at Yeovil) and forward copy to PC.

DC to highlight above to PC clerk and the fact the FC has done a lot to mitigate risks but risks still there as are awaiting on police.

7.  Flood Help Team

Action brought forward:

3.1. Flood Help Team: SM/SH to discuss with AC continuation in Role (See 1.2) and volunteers list / equipment.

SM provided a list of registered volunteers to G.L. prior to meeting. The list was provided to SM by Alan Cole.

7.1 Nominations for Help Group Lead.

7.2 Validate Names for Help Team

7.3 Define additional Equipment

7.4 Role definition Terms of Reference

Actions

1: DC to liaise with SM to establish a list of suitable volunteers once Flood Help Team TORs agreed (action items 1 and 2 Para 3 – above). The current list of volunteers will need validating for suitable candidates and only if considered inadequate in terms of suitability and numbers, then additional candidates are to be canvassed /recruited.

2: GL to define any additional PPE (Personal Protection Equipment needed) or Help Team equipment once TORs and team size has been determined.

3: All to suggest names of people that may be willing to undertake the role of Flood Help Team lead, to coordinate rather than do in the event of flooding.

4: All to suggest any names of people who may need help in the event of a flood.

5: All to suggest names of people who are prepared to be part of the Flood Help Team, only following closure of Action 1 above and if it is determined more suitable candidate are required.

Note : When actions 1 to 5 (above) completed a ‘practise run’ will need to be organised.

8.  Liaison with Marston Magna, Mudford and Sparkford

Action brought forward: DC to contact Sparkford PC reference up river effects (Old Mill).

DC has contacted Sparkford PC clerk re the relevant owner (The Old Mill), however did not pursue as GL had information following conversation with Steve Scaddon (EA) who suggested some illegal damming of the river had taken place and therefore the surge could have been related to the riparian owner being told by the EA to remove it
AT mentioned that Mike Lewis (District Counsellor) tried to speak with the owner and that the man not helpful. Someone else mentioned he was quite aggressive. It is understood that that the necessary work was done and so the understanding action now considered resolved.