Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Baker, Mr Cornell (Canterbury CC). Mr Boughton (TMBC) joined virtually.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2025 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chair

Louise Smith, Head of Resilience and Emergency Planning, was in attendance for this item.

1. Louise Smith outlined the report. Some notable aspects included:

a)    Kent County Council (KCC) was designated as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Kent. It was explained that LLFAs were established in 2010 following the Pitt review.

b)    KCC held an overview role for local flooding, defined as flooding arising from surface runoff, ordinary watercourses and groundwater. Officers highlighted that one of the statutory duties of the LLFA was to develop, maintain, apply and monitor the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The strategy would set out how flood risks would be managed across the county and provided` the framework for coordinated action with partners and stakeholders.

c)    Officers explained that flooding event were generally more localised than flooding from rivers and seas. It was noted that managing local flood risk often depended on several systems working together effectively, including drainage networks, sewers and ordinary watercourses. As these systems are frequently managed by different authorities, cooperation and integrated planning were essential to ensure risks would be managed effectively. Officers highlighted that the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was designed to support this coordination.

d)    The adoption of the 2024–2034 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy represents the third strategy prepared by Kent County Council (KCC). It was discussed that the strategy would build upon lessons learned from previous iterations and was extended over a ten?year period, which would be longer than earlier strategies. A formal review would also take place after the first five years.

e)    The aim of the strategy was to improve the safety and wellbeing of Kent’s residents and to support the county’s economy through appropriate local flood risk management. Four key objectives were highlighted:

f)        Under the objective of understanding flood risk, officers explained that progress was being achieved through the sharing of information with other risk management authorities, including the Environment Agency, water companies and internal drainage boards (IDB).

g)    Following a flood event where five or more properties had been internally flooded, the Council would often be required to trigger a Section 19 (Flood and Water Management Act 2010) flood investigation. These investigations provided a formal record of the flood event and included a description of the flooding and an explanation of the mechanisms by which it had occurred. Officers emphasised that such reports were not intended to attribute blame but would capture evidence to inform and aid in the future management of flood risks.

h)    Discussed past investigations that had occurred in impacted areas such as Ulcombe (2021) and the options that were pursued to encompass natural flood management and property resilience. Reviews of priority areas that could be impacted by flood events had been identified. Notable urban areas included: Swanley, Gravesend, Folkestone and Snodland.

i)      Highlighted the completion of the flood risk management scheme at Snips Hill in Sittingbourne. The scheme had involved the construction of a large attenuation basin designed to capture overland flow and discharge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

James Kirby (Stakeholder Manager), Andrew Halliday (Water Resources Options Project Manager) and Douglas Whitfield (Director of Operations) were in attendance for this item.

1.Officers from South East water presented to the members, the following was discussed:

a)    Clarified South East Waters service delivery of drinking water and reported that the service supplies water to approximately 2.3 million customers. Average daily supply is 543 million litres, rising to nearly 700 million litres in summer and currently around 535 million litres. Customers use on average 144 litres per day, with the cost of drinking water estimated at 81 pence per day.

b)    Officers reported that South East Water operates 88 treatment works and maintains around 9,000 miles (15,000 km) of pipes across three regions. The company manages 33 Sites of Special Scientific Interest and undertakes continuous testing of drinking water.

c)    It was clarified that South East Water has had never been a publicly owned water board; rather, it has evolved through the merger of smaller privately owned water companies over time.

d)    Officers highlighted Kent’s reliance on chalk aquifers and bulk treated water supplies from Southern Water. The region experiences the lowest rainfall across South East Water’s areas, with limited headroom in raw water sources and less storage capacity due to historic development.

e)    Over the next five years, the focus will be on increasing treated water storage, improving connectivity, and developing new sources to strengthen resilience. It was noted that Kent’s supply and demand balance is particularly tight, with recent issues in Whitstable and other areas during periods of high demand. The aim is to bring Kent’s resilience up to the level of the western region

f)     Officers reported that Kent serves a population of around 730,000, with forecast demand of 175 million litres per day, of which 20% is business use—higher than other regions due to agriculture. Normal supply capacity is just over 200 million litres per day, with 90% from groundwater aquifers, 10% from shared surface water via Bewl Reservoir, and around 3% from Southern Water bulk supply.

g)    Discussion highlighted the importance of collaboration between companies to develop new infrastructure, enabling shared resources to be moved across the region. It was noted that catchment management provides significant benefits, as catchments do not necessarily align with the boundaries of individual water resource companies and often span multiple organisations. Working at a regional level therefore allows for more effective consideration of catchment?based solutions to address future challenges. Presenters explained that the preparation of the Water Resources Management Plan is undertaken using an adaptive planning approach.

h)    Discussed the 50?year planning period that encompassed a range of population estimates that would be considered. Officers explained that abstraction licences might need to be adjusted in future, with a significant part of the plan focused on protecting the environment. This would require reductions in some existing water resource supplies.

i)     Climate change projections have also been assessed to ensure the plan remains adaptive to a variety of scenarios. Resilience to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(Item 8)

Richard Penn (Environment Planning and Engagement Manager), Laura Jones (Team Leader, Integrated Environment Planning, Environment Agency) and Henry Bethall (Flood Resilience Team Leader) were in attendance for this item.

1)    A number of points were raised on the presentation:

a)    The Environment Agency’s roles encompass flood defence construction and maintenance, acting as the navigation authority in Kent, regulating water companies, waste management and industry, providing advice and guidance, enforcing and prosecuting environmental legislation, and monitoring the aquatic environment.

b)    The 2030 strategy key aims included: healthy air, land and water, nature recovery, sustainable growth, and climate resilience in conjunction with the shared responsibilities that encompassed the lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), highways teams (KCC), water Companies and Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs).

c)    Current Environment Agency reach covered over 1,800 km of main rivers, 800 km coastal waters and had played a major role in the delivery of Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCC) and aid in developing and delivering flood defence programmes. The RFCC would continue to play a vital role in the pipeline of contracts delivered via central government funding.

d)    Discussed the key partnerships in place for the property level protection and the role of joint funding that would be required to enable delivery.

e)    Water quality and basement plans aimed to enhance nature and protect the water assets that underpinned health, wellbeing, and economic stability. The plan had set out the legally binding environmental objectives that were to guide water regulation and planning and formed part of the Government’s 25-Year environment plan.

f)     These objectives provided a foundation for economic development and aligned with investment programmes such as the Water Industry National Investment Programme (WINP) and Strategic Water Resources (SWR). Objectives were updated every six years using the latest evidence and local targets, the next review and public consultation would begin after 2027.

g)    The discussion highlighted the wide range of partners that contribute to the framework across the Southeast, emphasising the collaborative role of catchment partners in managing water resources. It was explained how regulatory measures are applied to the water industry, covering key areas such as discharges, abstractions, industrial processes, waste management, and agriculture.

h)    Continue to work with the Kent Resilience Forum on initiatives such as flood wardens and wider community resilience, recognising the opportunities to build stronger relationships in this area. There is a clear need for a broader conversation on growth and water resources, and I would welcome the chance to engage further on this important issue. In addition, forthcoming local natural recovery strategies represent a significant step forward, offering a real opportunity to link water management with the wider landscape and environmental priorities.

i)     Improving bathing water quality remains a key objective, though results this year have been mixed and are still awaited. Overall, these developments highlight both the challenges and the opportunities in strengthening the resilience of the water industry.

2)    Members made a number of questions in regard to the presentation:

a)    Sea water quality at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Mike Russell (Stakeholder Manager) and Angus Cramp (Delivery Lead for Clean Rivers and Seas Taskforce) were in attendance for this item.

1.   The Clean rivers and Sea’s task force team presented the following:

a)    The Clean Rivers and Seas Task Force was launched in 2021 with two staff, focused on reducing storm overflow releases, lowering flood risk, and improving the environment. In 2022, £7 million in advance funding supported the creation of Pathfinder projects. The Pathfinder projects would act as a testbed across different catchments to trial innovative approaches and inform future investment.

b)    The 2025 business plan period had begun, and water companies operate in five-year cycles. Over the next decade, the Clean Rivers and Seas Task Force would look to invest £1.5 billion in environmental improvements as part of the storm overflow reduction plan. The team had grown from two members in 2021 to 60 and continued to expand rapidly. Collaboration was key and delivering improvements required working closely with local District authorities, Kent County Council, and other partners to maximize impact.

c)    Highlighted the two different separated sewer systems that were employed throughout the county. The discussed systems encompassed the foul system (home waste) and the surface water line (roads and runoff). Surface water lines it was revealed did not require any further external treatment works.

d)    To tackle storm overflow releases, the focus would be on building resilient infrastructure that could cope with increasing extreme weather events and heavy rainfall. Urban development had reduced permeable land and led to more rainwater entering sewer networks instead of natural storage areas and had increased overflow risks. Addressing the issue required innovative solutions, stakeholder scrutiny, and collaboration under the Government’s Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction Plan (SORD). Each catchment area would be assessed individually to identify opportunities for improvement.

e)    This included assessing assets for investment, fixing illegal or incorrect connections and installing sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) on homes, businesses, schools, and public highways. These measures, alongside the Storm Overflow Reduction Plan, will form the basis of Kent’s five-year strategy to improve resilience and protect water quality.

f)     Storm overflow reduction in Kent involved significant investment and regulatory targets. Of 68 overflows that were scheduled for improvement by 2035, 57 would be addressed within the next five years, with 27 requiring SuDS. These projects aimed to meet government targets of reducing storm overflow releases to no more than 10 per year by 2027 to 2030. It was pinpointed that these targets represented a major collaborative effort and opportunity for environmental improvement.

g)    Current work focused on areas meeting regulatory triggers. The encompassed the areas of Faversham, Herne Bay, Queensborough, Sittingbourne, and Whitstable due to their designation as shellfish waters, environmentally sensitive sites, or bathing water areas. This prioritization was based on government targets and not local preference. The Environment Agency emphasized the importance of partnership with Kent County Council to deliver improvements effectively.

h)    Highway SuDS would be a key opportunity for storm overflow reduction. By converting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Andy Jeffery, Head of Resilience and Emergency Planning, was in attendance for this item.

1)    Mr Jeffery discussed the following:

a)    This reporting period was relatively calm in terms of flood response. There were no significant incidents requiring intervention from the KCC Duty Emergency Planning Officer or the wider Resilience and Emergency Planning Service.

b)    The appendix provides a list of alerts and warnings received by the GT Emergency Planning Officer from various agencies, primarily the Environment Agency and the Met Office. This is included to give Members visibility of the type and volume of information shared with KCC during the reporting period.

RESOLVED to note the contents of the KCC Severe Weather Response Activity Report