Decision details

The Housing Renewal Manager advised the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 placed a legal duty on the Environment Agency to produce a Flood Risk Management Plan that must be reviewed every six years. The plan was prepared in conjunction with the Lead Local Flood Authority (Gloucestershire County Council (GCC)) and they consulted with Stroud District Council (SDC). The plan must be published by the end of June 2022 and there wouldn’t be a further opportunity to change the desired measures included in Appendix A. If Committee chose not to agree the decision, the Stroud measures would not be included in the plan and they could miss out on any potential future funding relating to the measures.

Councillor Tipper asked if every six years was sufficient and if collaboration had taken place between GCC and SDC on the management of the River Severn. The Housing Renewal Manager advised six years was the legislative set timeframe and aligned with the Environment Agencies funding cycle. GCC and SDC Officers were part of a Severn Estuary Coastal Group and SDC had inputted and attended workshops relating to the plan production.

Councillor Kay asked whether SDC Officers had considered the implications on householders in light of the recently published research on water level rises and whether clarification from the Environment Agency was required before agreeing the plan. The Housing Renewal Manager advised it hadn’t been considered however SDC were aware of the erosion of the estuary banks and were taking part in discussions with the Environment Agency to resolve this issue.

Councillor Hadyn Jones sought clarification whether the plan would be linked to the Shoreline Management Plan, and which plan the estuary erosion would come under. The Housing Renewal Manager advised there wasn’t a direct link, and the Flood Risk Management Plan was linked to fluvial flooding. The erosion of the estuary came under the Shoreline Management Plan.

Proposed by Councillor Turner and seconded by Councillor Brown.

Councillor Kay proposed an amendment to include ‘and to Officers clarifying with the Environment Agency whether any changes are required in light of recent information’ at the end of the decision. The Chair, Councillor Turner asked if Committee would accept the amendment as friendly. There were no objections.

The friendly amendment was proposed by Councillor Kay and seconded by Councillor Tipper.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.