Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...

orough or chose to disregard the risk. This is demonstrated most strongly throughthe limited installation of FLIPs, despite their wide publicity from the Council andThames Water about their free availability. The Task Group therefore concluded thatthere is a deficiency in the current communication approach being pursued by theCouncil.3.31. It should be stressed that this deficiency, in the view of the Task Group, was notunique to the Council and was a UK wide problem. It was further noted by the TaskGroup that the Council had been more pro-active that other lead Local FloodAuthorities in attempting to highlight the risk of flooding to residents. Nonetheless itwas felt that it would appropriate for the Council to explore alternative ways inengaging and working with residents. The Task Group felt, in light of the currentdifficulties in accurately identifying high risk flood areas, that instead of attempting toreach all residents through, for example, articles in the Chronicle, that a moretargeted approach should be adopted. During evidence the Task Group heard howThames Water were undertaking a sustainable drainage pilot in the borough andwere currently seeking to identify suitable sites for this pilot. The Task Group felt thispilot presented a good opportunity to engage with Thames Water and localresidents.3.32. The Task Group also believed that the Council should make greater efforts toengage with resident associations and other community forums, such neighbourhoodwatch schemes, to highlight flood risk. This could be achieved either through briefingthe Chair of relevant association or by Local Councillors or Council officers attendingmeetings and informing residents directly of the risks and possible solutionsavailable to them. It was hoped that such an approach would result in a greaterunderstanding and appreciation of the flooding risks in the borough.3.33. The Council should continue to promote information about flooding risk on itswebsite. In addition it should seek to use either local media, such as via theCouncil’s section in the Chronicle, or social media such as the borough’s Twitterfeed, to promote flooding prevention measures available to local residents duringtimes when flooding risk is more likely to capture residents attention because, forexample, there have been flooding events in the borough or in the UK. The TaskGroup notes that the day the public consultation was launched was the same daythat Thames Water introduced its hosepipe ban. It is suggested that the hosepipeban may have meant people were less concerned about the impact of flooding, andhence can partly explain the limited number of consultation responses.3.34. Finally, if the Council is contacted by residents to report flooding incidents, theyshould use the opportunity to engage directly with residents and alert them topossible SUDs and other protection measures, they could implement eitherthemselves or via Thames Water and their FLIPs programme. The Council shouldendeavour to follow up with these residents some time after the flooding event, sixmonths for example, to see what steps if any have been taken and understand why,if no steps have been taken, this is the case. The Task Group felt, given the highproportion of residents who rent in the borough, that such an approach may helpidentify landlords who are not fulfilling their responsibilities to their tenants.- 34 -Page 193