Agenda item

Presentation by the Lead Local Flood Authority Team Leader and the Senior Engineer, Flood Risk Management.

 

Meirion Jones, Lead Local Flood Authority Team Leader, and Heather Lagan, Senior Engineer for Flood Risk Management gave a summary of the recent report - Section 19 Storm Daragh flooding on Rye tributaries.

 

The presentation summarised the investigation, impacts, response and recommendations following the flooding event in Kirby Mills, Keldholme, Sinnington and Marton in December 2024 and gave the latest updates to the recommendations.

 

1.     Members queried how the Council ensured that recommendations in the Section 19 report - many phrased as “investigate”, “consider”, or “discuss” - were acted upon rather than being delayed or dropped.

 

Officers confirmed that while the Council could not enforce recommendations on partner agencies, strong collaborative relationships allowed the Council to influence delivery. The publication of the report also enabled political and public scrutiny. A review of all Section 19 recommendations (2015 - 2023) was underway, with further examination by the Transport, Environment, Enterprise and Scrutiny Committee later this year.

 

2.     Members raised concerns that the upstream flood storage area at Pickering came close to overtopping during Storm Darragh and asked whether reinforcement or redesign should now be considered.

 

Officers explained that the scheme, designed by the Environment Agency (EA), maximised the standard of protection achievable at the time. Any reassessment of the embankment would require the EA to revisit its business case, taking account of climate change modelling and potential partnership funding contributions.

 

3.     There was frustration among residents about repeated surveys, slow progress, and long timescales between identifying need and installing Property Flood Resilience (PFR). Concerns included mixed communications, contractor delays and the impact of bureaucratic processes.

 

Officers outlined the mandatory stages required by national PFR codes of practice:

 

·        Initial risk assessment survey

·        Funding bid development

·        Pre‑installation surveys

·        Costing and business case submission to the EA

·        Release of funding and scheduling of works

 

These steps created unavoidable periods where little visible progress occurred. Officers acknowledged communication challenges, particularly across varying resident preferences (digital, phone, via parish councils). They confirmed all properties in the current scheme - including those in Hovingham - were now programmed for installation by August, with no further approvals outstanding.

 

4.     Members asked why historical flood events from the 1800s were highlighted, when the increased frequency of recent flooding events was of greater relevance.

 

Officers noted the historical context informs understanding of catchment behaviour over “deep time”. However, current planning used contemporary frequency trends and updated climate change guidance. EA policy now acknowledged that “1-in-100-year” terminology was no longer an accurate reflection of risk.

 

5.     Members asked how the Council balances natural flood management (NFM) with engineered solutions, highlighting Pickering as an example where both approaches worked effectively.

 

Officers confirmed a national policy shift: from October 2025, DEFRA’s new funding guidance gave priority to NFM but still recognised the need for engineered structures where appropriate. The Council was working with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, North York Moors National Park, Rivers Trusts, and landowners to align opportunities and funding.

 

6.     Examples where highways and flood teams were unaware of historic drainage assets or grips were given and Members asked whether inter‑service coordination had improved.

 

Officers confirmed significant progress, with strong working relationships between highways, flood officers, inspectors, and maintenance teams. Members were encouraged to report local knowledge and issues, so these can be added to the programme of works.

 

7.     The importance of mapping drainage infrastructure and the role of community knowledge was highlighted, noting successful locally led interventions (e.g., grip reinstatement) that have reduced flood risk.

 

Officers agreed that local knowledge was invaluable and confirmed that community‑based partnership projects could be effective when guided by technical oversight.

 

8.     Members asked what issues had contributed to delays and whether procurement processes could be improved.

 

Officers stated that some delays stemmed from the constraints of the EA’s national procurement framework, which had not been designed with local authority needs in mind. Local procurement teams were acting appropriately to protect Council finances but inflexibilities in national processes caused delays. Officers were working with the EA to improve the interface.

 

9.     Members asked whether the Council could quantify the cost of responding to flood events and demonstrate savings from preventative measures and inclusive wealth benefits.

 

Officers confirmed that local costs (e.g. clearance, skips, infrastructure damage) could be quantified. However, DEFRA’s national funding rules restricted which costs were eligible in business cases. Internally, more detailed costing work could support future lobbying.

 

10. Members expressed concern about the multi‑year timescales for delivery and asked whether resourcing constraints contributed to delays.

 

Officers clarified that while the Section 19 report on the event in Malton dated from 2019, delivery did not begin until 2021/22 due to limited staffing and the concurrent delivery of major schemes in Malton. Even so, national processes meant two to four years from initial survey to installation remained typical across the country.

 

The Chair and members expressed appreciation for the dedication of the flood risk team, acknowledging:

 

·       Effective partnership working with parish councils, landowners and farmers

·       The complexity of flood funding and national constraints

·       The positive impact of the support of North Yorkshire’s and regional committees

 

It was noted that Yorkshire remains one of the most flood‑prone regions nationally, and ongoing investment, coordination and community involvement would continue to be essential.

 

Resolved

 

That the report be noted.