MANEA AND WELNEY DISTRICT DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS At

Transcription

MANEA AND WELNEY DISTRICT DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS
At a Meeting of the Manea and Welney District Drainage Commissioners
held at the Lamb and Flag Public House, Welney on Wednesday the 3rd February 2016
PRESENT
J E Heading Esq (Chairman)
N V M Walker Esq (Vice Chairman)
M Buckton Esq
N Cook Esq
C J Crofts Esq
W Sutton Esq
C F Hartley Esq
M E Heading Esq
P Jolley Esq
Mrs A J Langley
R M C Sears Esq
Mr Robert Hill and Miss Samantha Ablett (representing the Clerk to the Commissioners)
were in attendance.
Mr Dave Gillett (representing the Environment Agency) also attended the meeting.
Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from M D R Fairey Esq, P D Hawes Esq and C W Sears
Esq.
C.597 Declarations of Interest
Mr Hill reminded the Commissioners of the importance of declaring an interest in any matter
included in today’s agenda that involved or was likely to affect any of them.
C.598 Confirmation of Minutes
RESOLVED
That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Commissioners held on the 3rd June 2015 are recorded
correctly and that they be confirmed and signed.
C.599 Clerk to the Commissioners
Mr Hill informed the Commissioners that Mr Iain Smith intended to stand down from the
office of Clerk of the Commissioners at the end of 2016, that the Middle Level Commissioners
would be taking appropriate steps to appoint his replacement and would keep the Commissioners
informed.
RESOLVED
That the Chairman be authorised to take any further action, on behalf of the Commissioners,
as he considered necessary in connection with the retirement of the Clerk.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\manea+welney\mins\3.2.16
C.600 Appointments – 2016/2017
a)
Appointment of Chairman
RESOLVED
That J E Heading Esq be appointed Chairman of the Commissioners.
b)
Appointment of Vice Chairman
RESOLVED
That N V M Walker Esq be appointed Vice Chairman of the Commissioners.
c)
Appointment of Finance Committee
RESOLVED
That the Finance Committee be constituted as follows, viz:C J Crofts Esq
P Jolley Esq
J E Heading Esq
R Sears Esq
N V M Walker Esq
C.601 Land Drainage Act 1991
a) Mr Hill reported that the Borough Council of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk had reappointed Councillor C J Crofts to be a Commissioner under the provisions of the Land
Drainage Act 1991.
b) Mr Hill reported that Fenland District Council had appointed Councillors M Buckton
and W Sutton to be Commissioners under the provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Mr
Hill also reported that Mr R Gowler was not re-appointed.
______________________
The Chairman welcomed Messrs Buckton and Sutton.
C.602 Water Framework Directive
Further to minute C.573, Mr Hill reported that the Anglian River Basin Liaison Panel, of
which the Clerk was a member, have considered the draft updated River Basin Management Plan
revision and the regional programme of projects funded by Defra for Water Framework Directive.
He reported that the Clerk had also been advised that the statutory Plan to be sent to Ministers
would be a “high level” generalised document and not contain the list of local “measures” which
appeared in the many schedules to the 2009 Plan. Whilst this made the 2009 Plan rather
cumbersome, it did at least set out the measures expected in relation to a water body, whereas the
present framework leaves the relevant measures to be discussed locally. Part of the ongoing work is
to settle what “mitigation measures” are appropriate to the artificial and heavily modified water
bodies of the Fens to ensure that they satisfy the requirement to reach Good Ecological Potential.
The Middle Level Commissioners' Environmental Officer, Cliff Carson, is a member of a Group,
looking at reasonable mitigation measures for such bodies, which are likely in fact to correspond
with what was already in our Biodiversity Action Plans and therefore require, as previously advised,
little additional work.
Mr Hill advised that the Clerk had commented on the revised plan but had to date received no
feedback on either this or on the earlier flood risk management plans despite promises from the
Environment Agency that this would occur.
Mr Hill reported that the Clerk had, however, continued discussions with the Environment
Agency's local Water Framework Directive teams.
C.603 Water Transfer Licences
Mr Hill reported that Defra have advised that they propose to bring into force the changes to
the water abstraction licensing system, which were outlined and enacted in the Water Act 2003.
Successive proposed implementation dates have, however, come and gone. Most significant
amongst these changes is the requirement that abstractions simply transferring water from one
watercourse to another by IDBs become subject to licensing.
Mr Hill reported that the Environment Agency have however also now consulted on a
proposed charging regime for transfer licences. This following correspondence with Rory Stewart
MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, appears to be a "one off" charge of £1,500
imposed to recover the Agency's costs of considering the grant of the Transfer Licence, rather than
an annual charge. Mr Hill advised that the Clerk has continued to object to it on the basis that,
since water was transferred to serve licences granted to end user abstractors by the Environment
Agency, the costs of administering such licences should already be met. Mr Hill reported that the
Clerk had also taken the opportunity to raise this matter during the Ministerial Visit to Denver, as
did representatives of the Downham and Ely IDB Groups. It is also pleasing to report that ADA,
after inaction on the matter, appear at last to be taking this up with Defra.
Mr Hill reported that the Defra consultation appeared in December but was then withdrawn
hours later. It was however, formally reissued in January with a period for responding lasting until
8th April.
Despite what had previously been stated, the consultation proposes that Transfer
Licences may well have a volumetric quantity based on what has been taken in the previous 4 years.
The Commissioners will be aware that the water transferred into IDBs in this area is mainly to serve
irrigation licences granted by the Environment Agency and the costs in relation to which have
already been recovered by the Environment Agency.
Mr Hill reported that it also appears from Defra that their longer term aim, as part of the
Water Abstraction Review, would be for IDBs to be given the power to take over water resources
management within their catchments, from the Environment Agency.
This is an interesting
concept and discussion proposals, which would enable IDBs to deliver the abstraction licensing
system and recover costs, are awaited. Defra are therefore keen that nothing in this present
consultation will prejudice such an outcome and may well be willing to discuss more fully, the
effect of the Transfer Licence proposal.
The Chairman considered that licences should be required but did not consider that they
should specify volumes or be charged for.
C.604 Allpress Farms Ltd
Further to minute C.574, Mr Hill reported that neither the Clerk nor the Chairman had
received any further communication.
In response to Mr Sutton, the Chairman outlined the background of the proposal.
RESOLVED
That the Chairman be authorised to deal with the byelaw consent application, on behalf of the
Commissioners, if submitted.
C.605 Ouse Washes Section 10 Reservoir Inspection
Mr Hill referred to a briefing note from the Environment Agency dated August 2015 and
reported that works are proposed to the Middle Level Barrier Bank to ensure compliance with the
Reservoirs Act. He advised that these works are likely only to involve the raising of the crest level
of the Middle Level Barrier Bank and that they are being carried out under Reservoir Provisions and
NOT flood defence. Mr Hill reported that the reservoir banks around the Washes are the Middle
Level Barrier Bank and Cradge Bank, ie NOT the South Level Barrier Bank.
C.606 Presentation by Mr D Gillett - Environment Agency
Mr Gillett confirmed that the works on the Ouse Washes were to be carried out under the
Reservoirs Act and were required to be inspected on an annual basis with a detailed inspection and
full report every 10 years. If works were needed as a result of this, the Inspector would specify a
time period during which they were required to be carried out. He confirmed that as a result of the
report there were no proposals for a spillway.
In response to the Chairman, Mr Gillett confirmed that there were areas of subsidence in the
Middle Level Barrier Bank which were due to be infilled as part of the required works, back to the
1990's crest levels.
The Chairman raised concerns if works reduced the level of protection to below that of the
1990's level.
Mr Gillett considered that the Inspector would agree that levels should be retained to the
1990's level and standard of protection.
In response to the Chairman, Mr Gillett confirmed that the works would be carried out under
the Reservoirs Act, which was a legal requirement, and would therefore be fully funded and there
would be no additional financial impact.
In response to Mr M Heading, Mr Gillett confirmed that the Middle Level Barrier Bank was
slightly lower than the South Level Barrier Bank.
Mr Gillett gave a presentation on the operation of the Ouse Washes system, the use of Welney
Gate, Welches Dam pumping station and the Old Bedford Sluice.
The Chairman raised concerns over the current level of maintenance on the Old Bedford
River. The Commissioners considered that they should continue to maintain pressure on the
Environment Agency over its' condition and future maintenance. The Chairman considered that
letters should be sent to Richard Bowen and Julie Foley.
The Chairman thanked Mr Gillett for his presentation and hoped that an inspection/tour of the
system could be arranged for the Commissioners in the future.
C.607 Flood Summit – Elizabeth Truss MP
Mr Hill reported that the Clerk had attended the recent Flood Summit held in Downham
Market where the Welney A1101 Wash Road Feasibility Study, Public Sector Co-operation
Agreements and the Environment Agency Precept were amongst issues discussed.
The Chairman reported further on the matter.
RESOLVED
That the position be noted.
C.608 Highland Catchment Areas
Further to minute C.577, the Chairman reported that he intended to continue discussing the
highland catchment areas with the Clerk but that any changes to the current system were complex.
RESOLVED
That the Chairman be authorised to continue discussions.
C.609 Planning application – International House Development, Station Road, Manea
Further to minute C.578(iv), the Chairman reported that, having carried out a site visit, he was
satisfied that all the Commissioners' requirements had been complied with.
C.610 Consulting Engineers’ Report
The Commissioners considered the Report of the Consulting Engineers, viz:-
Manea & Welney D.D.C.
Consulting Engineers Report – January 2016
Pumping Stations
Other than the matters previously reported or described below, only routine maintenance has been
carried out since the last meeting and the pumping plant at each of the stations is mechanically
and electrically in a satisfactory condition.
Electrical Condition report
The mandatory 5 year electrical test was carried out in November, there were a number of issues
with lighting in both the old building and new however with the assistance of the District Officer the
faulty lights were decommissioned in order to obtain a satisfactory certificate.
Glenhouse
Weedscreen Cleaner
The cleaner has worked satisfactorily over the period with only one minor fault with a position
switch which was corrected within 48hrs. Testing of the weedscreen cleaner motors is scheduled
for late spring when dry weather sets in and after the District Officer has cleaned and dried the
connections in the stanchion.
The fault with the Dynamic logic telemetry unit was tracked down to the power supply board which
was un-repairable. However it was possible to bypass the supply board and provide a separate
12v supply, derived from the duty engine. This was carried out in October 2015 and so far has
worked faultlessly.
Purls Bridge
At their last meeting the Commissioners approved the removal of the no 1 pump for
inspection/overhaul.
Due to the high water levels maintained during the summer this could not be progressed until
winter levels were adopted in mid-October. This allowed access to remove the fixing bolts under
the intake sump deck.
With the Chairman’s approval work to remove the pump commenced with an original expected
turnaround time of 5-6 weeks. The first proposed lift of the pump had to be aborted as a patched
up repair of the access track failed under the load of the mobile crane. Repairs to the track were
carried out and the pump was finally lifted in early November. Further tidying up of this section of
the track will be carried out when the pump is replaced. However due to the waterlogged peat
beneath the track, caused by the high retention level in the pasture land around it, further failure
remains a high risk the next time access is required for heavy lifting equipment.
The pump was returned to the original manufacturer, Bedford Pumps, where it was dismantled and
their report and quotation, which follow, were obtained.
“Purls Bridge
Pump Type: SB50.09.06
Serial No. P0512/1
Service Contract No. SC2664
The pump was received complete with bellmouth and cables, for the purposes of a complete overhaul.
Our records indicate that this pump has not been overhauled since its original build in 1999.
Electrical insulation readings were slightly low on the stator windings, but generally at a satisfactory level.
The pump has been fully dismantled, and we comment further on some of the major components (item
numbers refer to sectional arrangement drawing 99/6215).
Item
Description
Pump (as received)
1
Impeller
Appears to be in good condition. Running clearance with shroud is
satisfactory. Reuse.
2
Pump Casing
Some ingress of oil into motor chamber, but otherwise appears to be
in a serviceable condition. Clean, stove-dry & re-use.
3
Impeller Shroud
Minor wear. Serviceable.
5
6
7
8
11
Thrust Bearing
Housing
Oil chamber contaminated with water.
Clean, stove-dry & re-use.
Tailcone Bearing
Worn at bearing seating location. Sleeve repair.
Housing
Seal Housing Cover
Corrosion at mechanical seal location. Sleeve repair.
Thrust Bearing Cover Appears to be in a serviceable condition. Subject to further checks
when removed from shaft.
Pump Shaft
Appears to be in a serviceable condition. Some wear / corrosion at
mechanical seal locations.
Metal spray repair seal locations. Subject to further inspection, when
bearings and thrust bearing cover removed.
Heavily eroded. Replace (in enhanced material).
12
Impeller Nose
Washer
13
Some corrosion. Replace (in enhanced material).
17
22
36,37
Impeller Adjusting
Washer
Stator Retaining
Plugs
Seal Adjusting Ring
Impeller Retaining
Bolt
Impeller key
Moisture Probe
Bearings
38,39
Mechanical seals
Worn – failed. Ingress of water into oil chamber and some ingress of
oil into motor chamber.
Replace both seals.
14
15
16
Reseal.
Reuse.
Replace as a matter of course.
Replace.
Replace.
Some contamination of lubricating grease, but bearings had not
failed. Replace as a matter of course.
42
47
T1
Pre-load washer
Barrier Oil
Terminal Box Casing
Replace.
Contaminated. Replace.
Minor ingress of water / rusty. Clean, stove-dry and re-use.
T2
T3
Terminal Box Cover
Cable Gland Clamp
Plate
Clean, stove-dry and re-use.
Eroded around bolt holes. Replace.
T4
Not received. Possibly retained at site?
Replace if new cables adopted.
Clean and re-use.
T17,T18
B1
M1
Cable Clamp Bracket
& Bar
Terminal Plate
Assembly
Cable gland rubbers
Bellmouth
Stator
M1
Rotor
Clean, stove and re-use.
‘O’ rings
Fasteners
Power & Instrument
Cables
Reuse.
Outer sheathing is showing signs of perishing.
Replace (with new cable gland washers and adjusting washers to
suit).
Accessible external surfaces will be prepared by hand (wire brush)
and re-coated with 2-pack epoxy (black) to tidy the pump
appearance.
It is not proposed to blast clean and fully re-paint the external
surfaces, subject to client’s requirements.
T5
Paintwork
Appears to be in a serviceable condition. Re-use.
Minor ingress of oil. Clean and stove-dry.
Overall, the pump is in reasonably good condition, but in need of an overhaul as the mechanical seals have
worn permitting water to enter the oil chamber and oil into the motor chamber. There is also some wear/
corrosion on bearing seating/seal seating locations, and the impeller nose washer was heavily eroded to
the extent that very little material remains (an enhanced material will be utilised for its replacement).
C.Whiting
24/11/2015”
“SUBJECT:
PURLS BRIDGE – PUMP OVERHAUL
Pump Serial No.: P0512/1; Pump Model No.: SB50.09.06
With reference to our separate report, the following scope of refurbishment work is required:Labour for dismantling pump, inspection and provision of written report
Labour for reassembly
Stator – clean and stove (subject to satisfactory electrical readings)
Rotor – clean and stove
Shaft – metal spray repairs to mechanical seal locations, check for concentricity
Tailcone bearing housing – sleeve repair
Seal housing cover – sleeve repair
Replace :
1 set
1 set
1 set
1 no.
1 no.
1 no.
1 no.
1 no.
1 set
1 set
1 set
1 no.
1 no.
1 lot
Bearings, c/w circlips & pre-load washer
Mechanical seals
‘O’ rings
Impeller nose washer
Impeller adjusting washer
Impeller retaining bolt
Impeller key
Moisture probe set
Cables, 12.5m long
Cable gland washers and adjusting washers
Cable gland rubbers
Cable gland clamp plate
Cable bracket & bar assy
Barrier fluid & grease
Total:
£8,879.00
We have not included for blast cleaning and re-painting the pumpset. However, we have included at no
additional charge for tidying the appearance of the pump by preparing accessible external surfaces by hand
(wire brush) and coating with a 2-pack epoxy paint (black).
(Should you wish the pump to be blast cleaned and fully repainted, the additional cost would be £1,980.00
including transport to and from our painting subcontractor’s premises – this would add approx 1½ to 2
weeks to the refurbishment timescale.).
We have assumed the pump will be collected from our Works, offloaded, reinstalled and commissioned, etc
at site by others.
Estimated timescale for repair from receipt of your order to proceed is approx 6 working weeks (the new
cable gland clamp plate being the longest lead item).
The repair will be carried out in accordance with Bedford Pumps Ltd standard terms and conditions.
The repaired pump will be provided with a 12 months parts and labour warranty on the parts that have
been replaced, subject to the pump(s) being installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the
Operation & Maintenance manuals. May we clarify that this warranty covers costs for repair of the
pumpset only, and does not extend to any costs that may be incurred in siteworks to remove/replace the
pump or carriage / transportation costs.
May we also clarify that we are not in a position to offer a warranty on the longevity of the stator.
Invoices would be submitted on a monthly basis for work completed. Payments would be due 30 days from
date of invoice, and can be made by BACS or cheque. Prices are fixed and valid for a period of 30 days and
exclude VAT.
We trust that we have correctly interpreted your requirements. However, should you wish to clarify any of
the technical aspects, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We would be grateful to receive your order number covering the above work as soon as possible. Thank
you.
Best Regards
Chris Whiting”
There were repairs and replacement items required that are in addition to their ‘standard’
refurbishment, and hence the quotation was higher than the budget price previously verbally
advised, also the lead time of replacement casting the turnaround time increased.
In addition to Bedford Pumps quoted cost of £8879.00 (excluding the optional cost of blast cleaning
and epoxy coating) there are other costs involved such as craneage, labour, replacement bolts to
the rising main and its cleaning and painting, engineering fees etc. Once the pump was removed it
was found that the supporting steelwork structure was badly corroded and requires cleaning and
painting.
The report was forwarded to the Chairman who approved the repairs in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations in late November.
At the time of the preparation of this report we have been advised that the refurbishment will be
completed in mid-January 2016.
Pumping Hours
Glenhouse
No1 Hours Run 7 May 2015 – 13 Jan 2016 = 136
No1 Hours Run 14 Jan 2015 - 7 May 2015 = 83
Total Hours Run 7 May 2015 - 13 Jan 2016 = 498
Total Hours Run 14 Jan 2015 - 7 May 2015 = 267
Total Hours Run 30 May 2014 – 14 Jan 2015 = 741
Purls Bridge
Total Hours Run May 2015 – 13 Jan 2016 = 386
Total Hours Run 14 Jan 2015 - 7 May 2015 = 102
Total Hours Run May 2014 – Jan 2015 = 306
EEL Regulations
Since the last meeting the EA has issued further guidance on eel regulations. This is detailed
below but broadly seems to reiterate the previous advice which was given as a holding statement.
The important elements are the removal of the requirement to carry out works for eel passage at
obstructions unless works on the obstruction were planned for other reasons. Whilst there is no
mention in this statement of proportionality there is a suggestion that some solutions might not be
‘feasible’. It is of course not clear what would be deemed to be covered in this definition but it
would be hoped that available funds might reasonably be expected to factor. With this in mind it is
hoped that the EA will be persuaded to look at lower cost schemes that may not deliver the perfect
outcome but will instead deliver measurable benefits within a given budget and may actually also
present best value for money.
“In her recent Open Environment speech, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs presented her ambition for Britain to have the best natural environment
anywhere. Healthy rivers, supporting thriving populations of fish, are an important component
of that ambition.
In October 2015 the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) advised that
the status of European eel remains critical. The Eels (England & Wales) Regulations, 2009,
will help protect eel and ensure their safe passage through our rivers and coastal waters to
grow, mature and eventually return to the ocean to spawn. Since 2013 the Environment
Agency has been working across all sectors with operators of water intakes and owners of
other eel barriers, such as weirs, to identify how they can protect eel to help to restore the
stock to a sustainable level.
Earlier this year operators raised a number of concerns over the financial impact of our
approach to eel passage and screening regulations. We have listened to those concerns and
have reviewed our stated approach to implementing the regulations. This briefing note
clarifies how we will continue to implement the Eels Regulations in a pragmatic and
reasonable way to maximise the benefits for eel.
We recognise that ensuring safe passage for eel for some operators with multiple existing eel
barriers and intakes may be costly and that funding may not be available over the timescales
that we had originally hoped to achieve. Therefore, we will be more flexible around the timing
of improvements. We will work with operators to help them achieve compliance with eel
passage and screening requirements through their scheduled programmes of work,
including routine maintenance and refurbishment programmes and planned capital
investment programmes. By scheduling action for eel alongside other programmes of work,
we aim to make eel protection more cost-effective and achievable for operators. This applies
to all operators, including the Environment Agency, and we have reaffirmed our commitment
to meeting our responsibilities to protect eel.
Where no such scheduled programme exists, we will help operators develop a programme of
eel improvements over an agreed timescale that supports eel stock recovery and is
comparable with programming across all sectors.
For all new developments that pose a barrier to eel movements or involve intakes posing a
potential risk to eel we will continue to seek best practice eel protection within their design.
Notwithstanding flexibility in the timing of delivery for existing sites, the way we identify and
prioritise site by site improvements remains the same. Our risk-based approach is applied at
a catchment-wide scale, based on the principle of supporting and protecting eel at those
locations where we expect healthy populations to re-colonise as the European stock
recovers. For existing barriers and intakes we will continue to focus primarily on the high
priority sites, which we believe have the greatest potential to contribute to stock recovery in
the shorter-term. We will work with operators to help them gradually address medium and
low priority sites, as opportunities to act arise through their programmes of work.
We have reviewed our economic appraisal methodology and are assured that it is an
appropriate way to compare screening costs with the benefits to society of eel improvements.
We will continue to apply this tool at existing intakes to support our decision-making. Where
exclusion screening or other engineered solutions are not feasible or cost beneficial, we will
continue to work with operators to agree alternative measures to protect eel. We will support
operators to help them deliver these cheaper alternative measures to benefit eel over shorter
timescales. Over the coming weeks we will review and update our Regulatory Position
Statement as well as clarifying our supporting guidance on cost benefit analysis and
alternative measures.
What does this programming approach mean for your sector?
This change in approach should not create any additional burden on operators and for some
we don’t expect there will be a significant change to their planned work.
However, we will contact the principle industry sectors, notably electricity generation and the
water industry, via our sector liaison forums. Similarly we will liaise with Internal Drainage
Boards and other principal operators, to offer an opportunity for more detailed discussions.
Many sectors will be represented at the forthcoming IFM eel workshop where we welcome
the opportunity to talk to you to allay any potential concerns.”
A second meeting of the EA/IDB eel liaison group co-chaired by the Engineer will go ahead in the
New Year. The aim of this meeting will be to discuss the revised programming emphasis and what
this means to IDBs and of course the funding of the eel passage element of the schemes.
Changes to Planning Procedures
Further to the introduction of the previously discussed pre-/post-application discussion process
other procedures have been introduced, currently on a trial basis. These include, where relevant,
a fixed fee basis for some services which has arisen from discussions and agreement with
applicants, agents and engineering consultants.
These include the following:
(a) In respect of relatively simple enquiries the Commissioners are currently offering a free
Development
Control
and
Consent
“Surgery”
on
the
third
Tuesday
of
the
month. Appointments are limited to 15 minutes during which applicants are able to discuss
their proposals and at which it can be determined whether pre-/post-application discussion
is required for Discharge/Byelaw Consent issues.
(b) A soakaway certification and checking service which has been introduced for the
processing of the acceptability of soakaways/infiltration devices in compliance with the
Land Drainage Act and the Commissioners’/Boards’ byelaws where it can properly be
shown to attenuate flows/volumes.
(c) Completing the “Acceptability of Surface Water and Sewage Effluent Discharge” form. This
is a simple form where responses are made to four questions related to surface
water/treated effluent disposal.
Initial internal discussions concerning the introduction of fixed fees for some types and sizes of
development covered by the pre-application procedure have commenced.
Responses to Planning Applications
One of the complaints aimed at the Commissioners relates to the failure to provide responses to
planning applications in a timely manner. The main reason for this is because some LPAs, not
only the Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council and/or Fenland District Council, add planning
applications to validation lists in week four or later. Unfortunately, the Middle Level Commissioners
do not have the resources to check all the lists on a weekly basis (a potential total of 64 lists per
week). Therefore, to maximise the number of planning applications captured the week 4 list is
normally used.
Members will be aware that neither the Middle Level Commissioners nor the Commissioners are
statutory consultees and, therefore, do not actually have to provide a response to the planning
authority, and receive no external funding to do so. The main reason for supplying responses is to
protect the Commissioners’ district and ensure that any byelaw consents are sought.
More timely responses would be of benefit to all parties and discussions have been held with the
leading Planning Authorities but none are prepared to contribute to funding to improve
resources. The now former Head of Planning at Fenland District Council advised in a letter dated
7 December that “……the Council is not in a position to consider providing additional resourcing
……..”. As a result, the Middle Level Commissioners’ Planning Engineer has been instructed to
concentrate on responding to pre-/post-application related issues and resultant planning
applications as a priority with responses to other planning applications being dealt with when time
permits, with greater reliance being placed upon our “Standing Advice”. This particular document
may require further strengthening if this arrangement is to continue over the long term.
However, the Council’s letter does advise that it “will continue to encourage applicants and agents
to engage directly with yourselves at pre-application stage which clearly has benefits of providing
at an early stage greater certainty to developers of your requirements”. Whilst there has been an
increase in enquires concerning prior discussion these have, to date, primarily been just prior to or
just following the submission of a formal planning application.
Despite the Planning Authorities’ position the Middle Level Commissioners are requested to
respond to planning applications that may potentially be contentious and informal requests have
been received from Fenland’s Planning Officers to reinstate the weekly surgery session that
occurred between late 2009 and late 2013. However, as the Commissioners’ are not a statutory
consultee it is considered that whilst the comments provided by the Middle Level Commissioners
on the Commissioners’ behalf would be of benefit to the Planning Authorities in making informed
decisions, this request is not followed up.
Following the decision to “stand back” from the planning process standard letters are currently
being sent to applicants to remind them of their responsibilities and duties under the Land
Drainage Act and associated Byelaws.
Following several years of working closely with Peterborough City Council (PCC), Fenland District
Council's planning team will, from January 2016, be providing a shared service to share resources
and enable the delivery of an improved and more cost-effective service that will, reportedly, save
Fenland £137,000 a year and a total of £446,000 by the end of the 2018/19 period.
In addition, PCC will be providing both Fenland District Council and the Borough Council with a
consultancy service to meet its requirements under the Floods and Water Management Act. Whilst
this will cover ‘major’ planning applications, informal concerns have been expressed within Fenland
and the potential adverse impacts on meeting its “growth” targets given that much of the
development is self-build and/or “minor” developments.
Planning Applications
In addition to matters concerning previous applications, the following 23 new development related
matters have been received and, where appropriate, dealt with since the last meeting:
MLC
Ref.
493
494
Council
Ref.
F/YR15/0036/F
15/00083/F
Applicant
Mr T Jordan
Mr & Mrs G Slann
Type of
Development
Pavilion
Residence
Location
Park Road, Manea
New Road, Welney
495
F/YR15/0178/F
Mr & Mrs Haylock
496
Pre-app
497
498
15/00427/F
F/YR15/0294/F
Mr C Barnes
Welney Parish
Council
Mr & Mrs Evans
499
F/YR15/0295/
Mr P Arnold
500
501
F/YR15/0362/F
F/YR15/0367/F
Mr D Pressland
Mr & Mrs T Perry
502
503
504
505
506
F/YR15/0446/F
F/YR15/0472/F
F/YR15/0552/F
F/YR15/3060/COND
F/YR15/0583/F
Mr L Howlett
Mr N Usher
Mr P Arnold
Mrs J Payne
Mr D Cole
507
F/YR15/0632/F
508
F/YR15/0689/F
Mr & Mrs Fowler
Mr & Mrs D
Haylock
509
F/YR15/0723/O
510
Enquiry
511
F/YR15/3086/COND
512
F/YR15/0904/F
513
F/YR15/0958/O
514
515
F/YR15/0984/F
F/YR15/1052/F
ICIS Consulting Ltd
Client of Ben
Hornigold
Mr P Short
Mr & Mrs M
Goude
Mrs V Fox
deceased
(c/o Buckles
Solicitors)
Matthew Homes
Ltd
Mr D Ballard
Residential
(5 plots)
Residential
(9 plots)
Pavilion and parking
Residence
Residential
(2 plots)
Residence
Residence
Residence & 2 mobile
homes
Residence
Residence
Residence
Change of Use – Domestic
Agricultural
(retrospective)
Residential
(3 plots)
Residential
(4 plots)
Provision of flood
information
Residential
(14 plots)
Residential
(2 mobile homes)
Residential
(4 plots)
Residential
(57 plots)
Residence
Park Road, Manea
Park Road, Manea
Herne Drove, Welney
Purls Bridge Drove, Manea
Station Road, Manea
High Street, fronting Parkview
Lane, Manea
Fifty Road, Manea
Station Road, Manea
Charlemont Drive, Manea
Station Road, Manea
Park Road, Manea
Fallow Corner Drove, Manea
Days Lode Road, Fodder Fen,
Manea
Park Road, Manea
Station Road, Manea*
Bedford Bank (West), Welney
Station Road, Manea*
Fallow Corner Drove, Manea
Station Road, Manea
Teachers Close, Manea*
Station Road, Manea
Planning applications ending 'COND' relate to the discharge of relevant planning conditions
Developments that propose direct discharge to the Commissioners' system are indicated with an
asterisk. The remainder propose, where applicable and where, known surface water disposal to
soakaways/infiltration systems or sustainable drainage systems.
Some of the above are likely to discharge treated effluent into the Commissioners’ system either
via private treatment plants or Manea Water Recycling Centre (WRC).
Erection of 26 no 2-storey dwellings comprising of 5 x 4-bed, 16 x 3-bed and 5 x 2-bed with
garages and parking on land south west of Fire Station, Westfield Road, Manea – Maurice
Crouch Growers Ltd (MLC Ref No 260) & F Crouch on behalf of F & S Crouch & Maurice
Crouch Growers Ltd (MLC Ref No 432)
No further correspondence has been received from the applicants or the applicants’ agent
concerning this site and no further action has been taken in respect of the Commissioners’
interests.
Residential development involving demolition of existing buildings at International House,
Station Road, Manea - Mr J Daniels (MLC Ref No 365) & Homestead Development
Company Ltd (MLC Ref Nos 386 & 436)
Further to the last meeting the Commissioners’ Chairman and Middle Level Commissioners’
Planning Engineer met the applicant on site in June. Following this discussion amendments
were made to the outfall structure.
The applicants have been advised that this arrangement now meets the Chairman’s
approval. The opportunity was taken to remind them that both the previous byelaw and
discharge consent applications were refused and that, in order to resolve the outstanding
issues, new applications need to be submitted for the Commissioners’ consideration and
approval.
The applicant subsequently employed the Geoff Beel Consuultancy (GBC), who was
previously employed by the applicant’s agent, Lee Bevans, when preparing an FRA for the
planning submission. The position has been discussed with GBC and will be dealt with when
he returns from holiday.
Erection of semi-detached bungalows with associated parking on land south west of 61
Station Road, Manea - Broadway Ltd (MLC Ref No 367) & Commercial Investments Trusts
(MLC Ref Nos 379 & 382) & Erection of a 2-storey 2-bed dwelling (additional plot to site) at
south-west of 61 Station Road, Manea - Allgood Services Ltd (MLC Ref No 440)
No further correspondence has been received from the applicants or the applicants’ agents
interests.
Erection of 14 dwellings; comprising; 2 x 3 storey 5/6 bed, 1 x 3 storey 5 bed, 5 x 2 storey 4
bed and 6 x 2 storey 3 bed with associated garaging at Station Road, Manea – Mr Short and
Mr Fox (MLC Ref Nos 446, 449 & 482)
During the summer, a pre-app discussion request was received from the applicants via their
engineering consultant, MTC Engineering (Cambridge) Ltd [MTC], concerning development
adjacent to the Commissioners’ Drain at Point 36.
During the course of this development it came to the attention of the developers that the
proposal will cut off the access to the fields behind the development. This prompted MTC to
submit the details and a post application form to request whether or not the adjacent drain’s
maintenance strip could be reduced to allow this access.
The submitted details where passed on to the Chairman for comment and the following
observations were received in response:
…due to the restrictions on the other side of the drain the maintenance strip on the side in
question should remain unaffected and the access to the field will have to be placed
elsewhere.
These comments where passed on to MTC and no further correspondence on the access
has been received.
Following concern expressed by the Chairman an “advisory” letter was sent to the applicants
reminding them of their duties under the Land Drainage Act and the Commissioners’
Byelaws. Copies of consent and associated documents issued by Cambridgeshire County
Council, acting as the LLFA, for the access culverts and re-aligning of the roadside
watercourse were received in October.
In response, MTC was advised that:
“We note the presence of various consents from Cambridgeshire County Council concerning the
formation of various access culverts and works to the adjacent roadside watercourse.
We also note that the proposed developments appear to be discharging direct to the adjacent
watercourse and, therefore, require the Boards consent yet, according to our records, an
application for the disposal of surface water has not yet been sought.
In respect of foul water disposal your client needs to apply for discharge consent for this matter
in a similar manner to that recently applied for Linkway Builders in March. The application
should be addressed to Manea & Welney District Drainage Commissioners.
The Board look forward to receiving the appropriate documentation in due course.”
No subsequent correspondence or applications for consent have been received and the
Commissioners may wish to consider undertaking further action to regularise the situation.
No further correspondence has been received from the applicants or the applicants’ agent
interests.
Issues and concerns, relating to both byelaw and discharge consents, remain outstanding.
Erection of residential development comprising of 43 dwellings, garages, associated parking,
the formation of allotments, public open space, and a new access on land west of Teachers
Close, Manea - Portman Developments (MLC Ref No 453)
No further correspondence has been received from the applicant or the applicant’s agent
interests.
Residential development on land south of Bungalow Station Farm, Fodder Fen Road, Manea
- Mr R Wales (MLC Ref Nos 456 & 477)
interests.
Anaerobic digestion plant comprising tanks, silage clamps and associated equipment
necessary to produce biogas to fuel a 500kW electricity generator and new access from Byall
Fen Drove at land at Holly House, Farm, Horseway, Chatteris – Allpress Farms (MLC Ref No
464)
interests.
Erection of 26 dwellings at land west of 49-49A High Street, Manea - Cole Properties
(Manea) Ltd (MLC Ref No 471)
interests.
Erection of 22 dwellings involving of existing dwelling and outbuildings at 35 Westfield Road,
Manea – Mr S Wilson (MLC Ref No 474 & 479)
Planning permission was granted by Fenland District Council in late December subject to the
imposition of conditions none of which relate to surface water disposal or related issues.
interests.
King's Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan
Responses were made to the Borough Council, on the Commissioners’ behalf, in respect of:
(a) Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Pre-Submission Document
(b) An application for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area by Upwell Parish Council - This
advised that whether or not a neighbourhood area, compliance with the provisions of the
Land Drainage Act and the relevant Boards’/Commissioners’ byelaws would still be
required.
Fenland District Council (FDC) Neighbourhood Strategy
Responses were made to the District Council, on the Commissioners’ behalf, in respect of:
(a) Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Draft Update October 2015 – Public
Consultation
The IDP provides support to the District Council’s Policy LP13 – Supporting and Managing
the Impact of a Growing District of the Fenland Local Plan 2014 and also complements its
adopted SPD on Developer Contributions.
The IDP has been reviewed following the Council’s decision in November 2014 not to
introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for the time being and the Government’s
regulations regarding pooling restrictions for S106 contributions for new developments. All
Parish and Town Councils and statutory and other providers were asked to identify their
needs for the area earlier this year and these are set out in the Schedule to the IDP.
Generic responses were submitted to the Council relating to water supply (specifically water
resources), waste water, Flood Risk Management Provision, Infrastructure Schedule
(largely associated with the Towns) and Utilities and Flood Risk.
These comments together with other representations received will be considered and any
amendments to the IDP will be set out in a report to Fenland’s Cabinet and Full Council in
due course to consider adoption of the document.
(b) Fenland District Council (FDC) District Wide Level 2 SFRA
Following concerns raised by local developers and agents in respect of Planning
Inspectorate decisions concerning development within flood zones 2 and 3 shown on the
Environment Agency’s Flood Mapping, the Council is considering whether to embark on a
Level 2 SFRA for the whole district, with the exception of Wisbech for which one was
prepared in 2012.
The key reason for the production of a Level 2 SFRA is to allow FDC to undertake further
analysis that provides an evidence base to determine the Sequential and Exception Tests
across its District. It will focus on areas where there are potential development pressures in
zones of medium (Flood Zone 2) to high (Flood Zone 3) flood risk and where there are no
other suitable reasonably available development sites at lower flood risk after applying the
Sequential Test. Completion of the Level 2 SFRA will provide the Council with the
necessary level of information for a better understanding of flood risk at the local level and
give better consideration of flood risk issues when making planning decisions in accordance
with both National and Local planning policies.
Cambridgeshire Flood and Water Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Further to the last meeting report, the draft Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD was the subject
of a public consultation from Friday 4 September to Friday 16 October 2015.
A response to the County, in respect of the SPD, was submitted on behalf of the Middle Level
Commissioners and associated Boards/Commissioners and, in addition to advising on some basic
errors, identified the following:

Like the NPPF and PPS/G25, and the associated guidance documents, the SPD is generic
and does not appreciate the special circumstances of water level/flood risk management
within The Fens. Therefore, it is considered that further guidance is required to assist all
parties involved within the planning process of the specific issues that are different to other
parts of the Country, and must be considered when making planning decisions.

The current document is “wordy” and is likely to become ineffective. A set of guidance
notes for the target audience would assist and provide a more effective “journey” for users
of the document.

The document fails to readily identify the difference between the Environment Agency and
the IDBs, our differing concerns and requirements and even differences between individual
IDBs. The overriding impression given is one where the role, function and governance of
the IDBs appear not to be clearly understood.

Whilst the Commissioners and associated Boards/Commissioners appreciate that the use
of SuDS does have a place within water level/flood risk management, particularly the
discharge into managed watercourses, it is considered that, despite the significant
emphasis placed on such facilities, the use of attenuation devices in The Fens is not always
the correct or most appropriate solution. Therefore, care needs to be taken to ensure that
resources and funds are not wasted by seeking to impose attenuation solutions when a
direct discharge is acceptable to the local drainage authorities.

The water resource issues raised predominantly refer solely to potable water supply but
other water resource issues which exist within the study area, for example, agricultural use,
navigation, amenity, biodiversity, were not fully considered, particularly if drought
conditions, like those recently experienced, become more regular, and if the impact of
climate change becomes a reality.
The response advised that IDBs may therefore not be able to accept the principles and policies
which accommodate a County wide “broad brush’’ approach, which are not consistent with the
more detailed requirements of their local areas, and went on to advise that:
a. In the flood risk areas managed by IDBs, development proposals are too often granted
subject to planning conditions to allow LPAs to reach their targets, without sufficient regard
to IDB comments on flood risk.
b. LPAs receive fees for dealing with planning applications, IDBs do not; unless the developer
chooses to follow an IDB pre-application procedure. Too often our advice is ignored and we
are expected to provide a subsidised service for planning authorities to enable them to
meet their targets, which the Boards/Commissioners are not prepared to do.
c. We wish to encourage LPAs to, in turn, encourage developers to adopt the pre-application
procedure. In the absence of the developer doing so, we can give no guarantee that, under
the present arrangements, we will be able to respond to the Council’s request for advice on
flood risk.
d. When dealing with issues related to our byelaws and consent procedures the Middle Level
Commissioners and associated/administered Boards/Commissioners will promote and
require continued adoption of and compliance with the relevant principles contained within
PPS25 and the associated Practice Guide together with the provision of a FRA that meets
their own requirements ie detailed assessments on the impacts on the respective water
level/flood risk management systems and the provision of adequate evidence to prove that
a viable scheme for appropriate water level/flood risk management exists, and that it could
be constructed and maintained for the lifetime of the development.
The County Council has stated that the responses received during the consultation will be
analysed and reviewed, and where necessary, changes will be made to the SPD before being
adopted by each of the Cambridgeshire local planning authorities.
Both the Middle Level Commissioners’ Planning Engineer and Assistant Engineer have and will
continue
to
represent
both
the
Middle
Level
Commissioners’
and
associated
Boards’/Commissioners’ interests by attending meetings and considering the various draft
documents.
General Advice
Assistance has been given, on the Commissioners’ behalf, in respect of the following:
(a) Maurice Crouch (Growers) Ltd – An application for byelaw consent to install 21 No field
underdrain outfalls in the district drain between Points 42 and 43 was recommended for
approval.
Consulting Engineer
20 January 2016
Manea & Welney (317)\Reports\January 2016
RESOLVED
i)
That the Report and the actions referred to therein be approved.
ii)
Planning Application - Station Road, Manea (MLC Ref Nos 446, 449 & 482)
That the necessary steps be taken to resolve all outstanding matters and the Chairman
be authorised to take any further action as may be required.
C.611 District Superintendent’s Report
The Commissioners considered the Report of the District Superintendent.
RESOLVED
That the Report and the actions referred to therein be approved and that the Superintendent be
thanked for his services over the preceding year.
C.612 Pumping Stations
i)
The Chairman reported on the pump overhaul at Purls Bridge pumping station and that
the pump was now back in service and operational.
He advised that Glenhouse pumping station was operating satisfactorily and referred to
the possible future electrification of the pumping units and the Finance Committee's
concerns regarding the security of the electricity supply.
(ii)
Pumping Stations Insurance – Engineering Breakdown
Further to minute C.579, the Chairman reported that the Finance Committee considered
that the quotation of £1,334.50, with a £1,000 excess, to provide engineering breakdown
cover at the pumping stations to the value of £250,000 offered value for money.
RESOLVED
That the Commissioners approve the recommendations of the Finance Committee:a) That the Consulting Engineers be requested to look into the viability of securing an
electricity supply at Glenhouse pumping station for future electrification of the station.
b)
That engineering breakdown insurance at the pumping stations be taken out.
C.613 Public Sector Co-operation Agreements
Further to minute C.581, Mr Hill reported that these are agreements between one Risk
Management Authority (eg IDB) and another (eg Environment Agency) under which the one will
carry out works on the other's system with the hope/intention being that the party carrying out the
works will be able to undertake them more efficiently and/or economically than the other party.
Under these agreements, an IDB could, for instance, undertake works on Main River.
Mr Hill reported that at present, the Clerk had been advised that any works undertaken under
a Public Sector Co-operation Agreement must be undertaken by EMPLOYEES of the contracting
party, ie not by contractors but that he had raised this point both with the Environment Agency
and the Secretary of State. Following this, the Environment Agency have now confirmed that
contractors MAY be used, provided that proper procurement procedures are followed.
The Chairman advised of the Finance Committee's concerns over the Old Bedford River.
RESOLVED
That the Commissioners approve the recommendations of the Finance Committee:a) That the Chairman be authorised to continue discussions with the Chairmen of Upwell
and Sutton and Mepal IDBs and the Environment Agency.
b) To write to the Environment Agency concerning the current condition of the Old
Bedford River and their concerns regarding the lack of routine maintenance.
C.614 District Superintendent's wages, pension contributions and Future Labour
Requirements
RESOLVED
That the Commissioners approve the recommendations of the Finance Committee:a)
That the wages of the District Superintendent be increased in accordance with the
Middle Level Commissioners' pay award from 1st April 2016.
b)
That the Commissioners' pension contribution remain at 4%.
C.615 Capital Improvement Programme
The Commissioners considered their future capital improvement programme.
RESOLVED
That the Commissioners approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee that the
Capital Programme be approved in principle subject to the following amendments, viz:Electrification of Glenhouse pumping station
Tractor
Flail mower
Van
-
£250,000
£45,000
£55,000
£17,000
in
in
in
in
2021/2022
2022/2023
2022/2023
2025/2026
C.616 Environmental Officer’s Press Release
Mr Hill referred to the Environmental Officer’s Press Release which had previously been
circulated to the Commissioners.
C.617 Maintenance Works in the District
Further to minute C.584, the Chairman reported that he intended to continue with the
Commissioners' maintenance programme and that if any Commissioner had any concerns over the
District system they should contact him.
C.618 State-aided Schemes
Consideration was given to the desirability of undertaking further State-aided Schemes in the
District and whether any future proposals should be included in the capital forecasts provided to the
Environment Agency.
RESOLVED
That no proposals be formulated at the present time.
C.619 Application for byelaw consent
Mr Hill reported that the following application for consent to undertake works in and around
watercourses had been approved and granted since the last general meeting of the Commissioners,
viz:Name of Applicant
Maurice Crouch (Growers)
Ltd
Description of Works
The installation of twenty one (21)
field underdrain outfalls between
points 42 & 43 – Manea Bungalow
field, Fifty Road, Manea
Date consent granted
17th June 2015
RESOLVED
That the action taken be approved.
(NB) – The Vice Chairman declared an interest when this item was discussed.
C.620 Environment Agency – Precept
Further to minute C.585, Mr Hill reported that it had been indicated at a meeting with
Environment Agency staff that the precept for 2016/2017 would remain unchanged at £67,910.
Mr Hill reported that because of the appeals against the precept lodged some two years ago by
the Commissioners (and other Boards) the Agency had introduced a Local Choices Precept
Programme which involved a far greater input from IDBs and IDBs being much more able to
influence the Agency on the works on which the precept would be spent. He drew attention to the
amount of precept allocated this year to the Old Bedford and to the Tidal River.
C.621 Determination of annual value for rating purposes
The Commissioners considered the recommendation for the determination of annual value for
rating purposes, viz:F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\manea+welney\mins\3.2.16
Manea & Welney DDC
Determination of Annual Values for Rating purposes
2016-2017
Location
Mr P Short
Station Road Manea
Feb 2016
Transfer value to Special Levy - £651.66
per hectare
Area
Agricultural
(Hectares)
Land
Special Levies
Fenland
Kings Lynn
Opening Values (£)
Opening %
2896.391
81,532
17.20%
342,998
72.37%
49,415
10.43%
TOTAL
473,945
100.00%
Reason for change.
Housing Development
0.48
-57
313
Total determinations
Closing Values (£)
Closing %
2896.871
-57
342,941
72.32%
313
81,845
17.26%
0
256
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49,415
10.42%
256
474,201
100.00%
RESOLVED
i)
That the determination recommended be adopted by the Commissioners.
ii) That the Clerk be empowered to serve notices and to take such other action as may be
necessary to comply with statutory requirements.
iii) That the Chairman and the Clerk be empowered to authorise appropriate action on
behalf of the Commissioners in connection with any appeal against the determination.
C.622 Rate arrears
Consideration was given to writing off rate arrears amounting to £20.24.
RESOLVED
That the arrears be written off.
C.623 Commissioners' Byelaws
Further to minute C.586, Mr Hill reported that the Commissioners' Byelaws, based on the
standard model byelaws, would come into operation from Sunday the 14th February 2016. These
included a 9m wide byelaw strip and a charge for any increase in flows or volume of water in the
District and were available to view on the Commissioners' section of the Middle Level
Commissioners' website.
C.624 Association of Drainage Authorities
Mr Hill reported:a)
Annual Conference
On the Annual Conference of the Association held in London on Wednesday the
11th November 2015.
He referred to the address given by the Parliamentary Under Secretary and
Minister responsible for Water, Rory Stewart MP and to the emphasis placed on
partnership working.
b)
Annual Conference of the River Great Ouse Branch
That the Annual Conference of the River Great Ouse branch of the Association
would be held on Tuesday the 8th March 2016.
c)
Subscriptions
That it was proposed by ADA to increase subscriptions by approximately 5% in
2016, viz:- from £580 to £609. [The increase in 2015 was 4%]
The Chairman reported on the work of ADA, the benefits of membership and
commented on Mr Sutton's concerns regarding the 5% increase. Mr Hartley advised
that Upwell IDB had also recently raised concerns over ADA membership.
RESOLVED
That the increased subscription be paid for 2016.
(NB) – The Chairman declared an interest as a Director of ADA.
C.625 Tidal River Scoping Workshop
Mr Hill reported that the Environment Agency are currently looking to proceed in 2016 with
the agitation dredging pilot on the Tidal River, submitting their business case for approval. He
advised that the project is, however, unlikely to be funded by Grant in Aid but instead through
Local Levy and Precept, via the Local Choices framework.
As regards the separate but linked project on the Hundred Foot, Mr Hill reported that further
work is required and that the business case is still being considered, particularly the issues of silt
and silt movement.
C.626 Health and Safety Audits
Mr Hill drew attention to the continuing need to ensure that the Commissioners complied with
Health and Safety Requirements and reminded the Commissioners of the arrangements with Croner.
C.627 Cambridgeshire and Norfolk Flood Risk Management Partnership Update
Further to minute C.589, Mr Hill reported that the main recent items discussed were the
County Council’s project to install more rain gauges in Cambridgeshire; the impact of the A14
Project; Surface Water Management Plans and the new Supplementary Planning Document on
flood risk, which the Middle Level Commissioners' Planning Engineer is involved with. Mr Hill
advised that the Planning Engineer does not feel that this document is yet in a suitable state
commenting in particular, that it is too generic, does not really apply to the special needs of the Fens
or properly set out the roles and functions of IDBs.
C.628 Payments to 31st December 2015
The Commissioners considered and approved payments amounting to £127,978.50 which had
been made between the 1st April and the 31st December 2015.
(NB) – The Chairman, Messrs Hartley and M Heading declared an interest (as Members of the
Middle Level Board) in the payments made to the Middle Level Commissioners.
(NB) – The Vice Chairman declared an interest in the payments made to Anglia Farmers Ltd.
C.629 Information regarding Asbestos
Mr Hill reported that the Commissioners had a duty to provide details of any asbestos in their
installations, especially pumping stations, to be recorded in a Register so that these were known and
any contractors could be made aware.
The Chairman did not think there was any asbestos, present at the pumping stations but was
unable to definitely say.
RESOLVED
That the Register record "Unknown".
C630 Completion of the Annual Accounts and Annual Return of the Commissioners –
2014/2015
a) The Commissioners considered and approved the comments of the Auditors on the
Annual Return for the year ended on the 31st March 2015.
b) The Commissioners considered and approved the Audit Report of the Internal Auditor
for the year ended on the 31st March 2015.
C.631 Review of Internal Controls and Risk Management
a)
The Commissioners considered their current Risk Management system.
Mr Hill reported that the Commissioners had in place a Risk Management Policy which
was last reviewed in 2015.
He reported that the Commissioners had in place operational, financial and governance
polices and considered all of their key risks and how to mitigate against them at each
scheduled meeting, at which operational and environmental risks were discussed, based
upon engineer's reports, officer reports, budgets and costings covering the short/medium
and longer term issues. Budgets were prepared and approved by the Commissioners.
Mr Hill reported that insurances were in place that confirmed the cover was appropriate
to the business. Budgets/year-end forecasts were reviewed at intervals by the Commissioners.
This was deemed adequate for the size of the business and the District system was monitored
on a regular basis to identify new/emerging areas of risk.
The Commissioners considered this current policy/strategy to be appropriate in between
carrying out more substantial, periodic formalised reviews of risk assessment/management
and met the requirements that they were assessed by.
The Commissioners considered and expressed satisfaction with the current system of
Internal Controls.
b)
Appointment of External Auditor
Mr Hill reported that, as had been previously mentioned, the recent Local Audit and
Accountability Act changes the audit requirements for smaller public bodies including IDBs
and such bodies as the MLC and Parish Councils.
The Act abolished the Audit Commission from 1st April 2015 and, from that date,
responsibility for external auditor appointments has transferred to a new body, Public Sector
Audit Appointments Ltd.
Most contracts with existing external auditors will however
continue until they expire after completion of the 2016/2017 audits.
Mr Hill advised that a new Code of Audit Practice will be issued in respect of
accounts for 2015/2016.
Mr Hill reported that from April 2017, smaller authorities will also be legally
responsible for the appointment of their own external auditor and that this appointment must
be made before the 31st December before the audited year, eg by 31/12/2016 for 2017/2018.
Mr Hill advised that the Secretary of State can however, appoint a body with power to
appoint auditors for such smaller bodies which must then opt out from an appointing body.
This has now been proposed, with a body proposed to procure audit services "en bloc"
for these bodies. The new body is also supported and being funded by DCLG. The new
arrangements will operate for a period of 5 years initially but is likely to run on 5 year
cycles. It is likely that the procedures for opting out of this sector led body arrangement
and appointing an external auditor individually will not be worthwhile for smaller
authorities since this will involve the authority establishing an auditor panel and following a
statutory appointment process and it is also likely that audit fees will be higher than
under the "en bloc" arrangement.
Mr Hill advised that all IDBs had to decide by 31st January 2016 whether they
were going to opt out of the new sector body arrangements and that the position can be
reviewed during the first five year cycle. The Chairman had, in view of this, agreed that the
Commissioners would opt in to the Sector Led body.
RESOLVED
That the Commissioners approve the actions of the Chairman to join the Sector Led Auditor
Appointment body.
C.631 Expenditure estimates and special levy and drainage rate requirements 2016/2017
The Commissioners considered estimates of expenditure and proposals for special levy and
drainage rates in respect of the financial year 2016/2017 and were informed by Mr Hill that under
the Land Drainage Act 1991 the proportions of their net expenditure to be met by drainage rates on
agricultural hereditaments and by special levy on local billing authorities would be respectively
72.32% and 27.68%.
The Chairman reported that the Finance Committee had recommended setting a 37.0p in the £
rate.
RESOLVED
i)
That the estimates be approved.
ii)
That a total sum of £175,145 be raised by drainage rates and special levy.
iii) That the amounts comprised in the sum referred to in ii) above to be raised by drainage
rates and to be met by special levy are £126,578 and £48,567 respectively.
iv) That a rate of 37.0p in the £ be laid and assessed on Agricultural hereditaments in the
District.
v)
a)
That a Special levy of £30,283 be made and issued to Fenland District Council for
the purpose of meeting such expenditure.
b)
That a Special levy of £18,284 be made and issued to the Borough Council of
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk.
vi) That the seal of the Commissioners be affixed to the record of drainage rates and special
levies and to the special levies referred to in resolution (v).
vii) That the Clerk be authorised to recover all unpaid rates and levies by such statutory
powers as may be available.
C.632 Display of rate notice
RESOLVED
That notice of the rate be affixed within the District in accordance with Section 48(3)(a) of the
Land Drainage Act 1991.
C.633 Date of next Meeting
Mr Hill reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday the 8th
June 2016.
RESOLVED
That a meeting of the Commissioners be held as follows in 2017, viz:Wednesday the 8th February 2017.

MANEA AND WELNEY DISTRICT DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS At

Transcription

Similar documents

Request for Adjustments to Tax Roll

My Brother, My Sister: Shannon Boodram Rob Hill, Sr.

Enlarge and print image

May 1,2014 The In

1981 Annual Report - Acton Water District

Dallas County Commissioners Court MEETING AGENDA

Takla Rainbow Lodge

Chatri SITYODTONG

141 HIsTES Of I(i~CLjLA,(tlEtTl hG `a CITY YLt.55114G ,uji) au~aSC

8C3-2013-06-04 Tanah Keeta Scout Reservation