Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Boughton and Cllr Summersgill. An update on the Membership of the Committee was provided and welcomed Mr Ford and Mr Rayner

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2026 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chair.

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

1.The officer discussed the following key points:

a)    Provided an update on the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum’s water supply disruption plan, which covered the multi-agency response to water outages. The officer explained that, following discussions at previous meetings, work had commenced to review and update the plan, with a more detailed report to be presented at a future meeting.

b)    The officer informed the committee that a detailed report on the most recent water outages would be included in the next committee meeting, as the incidents fell within the next reporting quarter.

c)    Reassured Members of the committee that, ahead of the summer period, the County Council was working with partners within the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum (KMRF) to ensure that plans and incident response capabilities were in place and effective, enabling all responding agencies to manage any disruption over the coming months.

2. In response to the report Members asked the following:

a)    Concerns were raised regarding recent water supply disruption in Thanet, including the provision of 12 litres of water to individuals on the Priority Services Register (PSR), the deployment of water tankers, and the establishment of bottled water stations at Manston Airport and a local supermarket were all highlighted.

b)    Discussions referred to recent correspondence with water companies and noted reports that reservoir levels were lower than usual. Concern was expressed regarding the resilience of the water supply during periods of increased demand, and questions were raised about how close the affected area had come to water shortages. Members also sought clarification on the specific factors that had contributed to the recent supply disruption.

c)    The officer acknowledged the concerns raised but advised that they were unable to respond to questions requiring detailed technical input from the relevant water companies and specialist engineers responsible for the infrastructure discussed.

d)    Questioned the County Council’s current response to water supply disruptions and expressed concern that limited progress appeared to have been made. Concern was also raised regarding the level of information being provided by water companies and the extent to which a lack of transparency hindered effective scrutiny. Members emphasised the County Council’s public health responsibilities and the importance of ensuring that water companies were held to account.

e)    Members raised additional concerns regarding groundwater flooding and its impact on local communities. It was noted that groundwater entering the ground could infiltrate sewerage networks, creating operational pressures that required the regular deployment of tankers to remove wastewater and maintain essential sanitation service.

f)      Discussed the significant inconvenience caused to residents, including frequent tanker movements within villages, and referenced previous past discussions and a site visit undertaken by an officer.

g)    Members queried that that groundwater flooding was not addressed within the report and queried whether such issues were widespread across Kent or specific to certain areas and requested that future reports include information on the extent and locations of groundwater flooding across the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Louise Smith (Flood and Water Manager) – was in attendance for the item.

1.The officer provided a presentation covering the following key points:

a)    The study had originally been proposed by the previous Chair of the Committee. The purpose of the study was to highlight the risks faced by Romney Marsh and surrounding areas and to set out the work undertaken to date, alongside the next phases of activity.

b)    The officer provided an overview of Romney Marsh, explaining that it is a low-lying area of reclaimed wetland covering approximately 250 square kilometres. Members were advised that the area is protected by an extensive network of tidal flood defences, which play a vital role in reducing the risk of coastal flooding across the marsh.

c)    Outlined the work completed to date and the planned future phases of the study, which were intended to manage and mitigate the identified risks. The importance of ongoing assessment, investment and partnership working was emphasised to ensure the long-term resilience of Romney Marsh

d)    Advised that Main Rivers within the area were managed by the Environment Agency, while ordinary watercourses were the responsibility of the Romney Marsh Internal Drainage Board. Members were informed that drainage was achieved through a combination of gravity-fed systems and pumping stations, and that the area supported approximately 14,000 households and 700 businesses.

e)    Discussed that increased rainfall, sea level rise and the potential for tide locking were expected to increase flood risk across Romney Marsh, although the extent of these impacts remained uncertain. Members were informed that the Romney Marsh Impact Assessment would improve understanding of these risks and help identify options for future flood risk management and adaptation

f)      Explained that Romney Marsh was exposed to flood risk from a range of external sources, including tidal inundation from the English Channel and fluvial flooding associated with Main Rivers, particularly the River Rother.

g)    It was advised that these flood risks were being considered through a range of existing studies, the findings of which would inform the current assessment. Members were informed that the Romney Marsh Impact Assessment would focus on watercourses within the study area, including how flood risk may change over time and the potential effects of sea level rise.

h)    Members were informed that Kent County Council had appointed Arcadis Consulting to undertake Phase 1 of the Impact Assessment, to support a submission to the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Local Levy.

i)      Phase 1 of the study had involved a review of existing flood risk data for Romney Marsh. Members were informed that the area contained an extensive network of watercourses, with a series of outfalls regulating the discharge of water to external bodies. It was noted that Main Rivers could drain to multiple outfalls and that watercourses managed by the Internal Drainage Board formed an interconnected drainage system across the marsh.

j)      Members were advised that pump operation data for pumped outfalls had been reviewed as part of Phase 1. It was noted, however,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Carol Valentine (Highways Asset Drainage Manager) – was in attendance for the item.

1. The officer presented the following information:

a)    Introduced the item by outlining the structure and responsibilities of the highway’s drainage team, with particular reference to duties under section 100 of the Highways Act. The officer explained that the team’s role was to ensure that surface water was kept off the highway and that highway assets were maintained and constructed to keep roads as reasonably safe and practicable from flooding.

b)    The officer advised that the team comprised  of 24 staff and was organised into four principal functional areas. Two teams focused on planned works and capital delivery, while the remaining two were responsible for maintenance and technical support activities.

c)    Members were advised that the team had managed a high volume of enquiries, receiving more than 8,500 enquiries during 2025/26 compared with an average of approximately 8,000 enquiries each year. Members were informed that, despite the team’s small size, workload levels remained consistently high, and the work undertaken was essential to maintaining highway safety and managing flood risk across the county’s highway network.

d)    Highlighted a number of ongoing challenges, including issues relating to third-party assets, securing compliance from landowners regarding drainage responsibilities, and coordinating works with district and borough council partners. It was noted that these factors could affect the timely delivery of maintenance and flood risk management activities.

e)    In addition, the team would also be responsible for a large number of assets, including up to 250,000 drains, around 250 ponds and lagoons, 15 pumping stations (20–30 pumps), and approximately 8,500 soakaways. The team was further supported by an electronic asset system used to identify hotspots, target recurring issues, and inform future investment. Maintenance was a key function, including cyclical, risk-based cleaning, with high-speed and strategic roads serviced annually.

f)      Aspects further outlined how the cyclical maintenance operated on a risk-based approach, with strategic and high-speed roads (e.g. key routes) would be cleaned annually and Minor roads were cleaned every one to two years, depending on risk factors such as flood history, road hierarchy and traffic level. It was anticipated that all roads would now be cleaned at least every two years.

g)    Confirmed that the annual maintenance programme was established at the start of each financial year and delivered throughout the year. Members were advised that, in addition to planned maintenance activities, reactive works were undertaken in response to urgent issues reported by residents and highway users to ensure that highway drainage assets continued to operate effectively and that flood risk and highway safety were appropriately managed.

h)    In addition, it was highlighted that while there was no statutory duty under the Highways Act to address internal property flooding and the service recognised the distress caused and sought to respond where possible. The Officer further expanded upon the investigation process of drainage systems and rooting out the causes of issues that could impact the public.

i)      Plans for the 2026/27 maintenance programme included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Mr David Goff (Chairman-Kent Flood Action Group Forum) – was in attendance for the item.

1.Mr Goff discussed the following:

a)    Introduced the role of Flood Action Groups, explaining that they were volunteer-led groups with significant local knowledge and experience of flooding issue and worked closely with local communities and partner agencies to raise awareness of flood risks and preparedness.

b)    Advised that Flood Action Groups monitored local conditions, coordinated community responses and often acted as flood wardens, including supporting vulnerable residents during flood events and also played a role in advocating for improvements to flood management arrangements.

c)    Discussed the collaborative works with the Kent Resilience Forum and the Environment Agency and outlined that Flood Action Groups aimed to engage with communities and increase awareness of flood risk.

d)    It was discussed that recent evidence indicated a proportion of residents remained unaware that they were at risk of flooding and that improving awareness was a key challenge, particularly in the context of strengthening community resilience to flooding.

e)    Highlighted the important role played by parish councils and Flood Action Groups in supporting local flood resilience. Concern was expressed that, despite often operating within the same communities, communication and coordination between these groups was not always as effective as it could be.

f)      Noted that Internal Drainage Boards also played an important role in local water management. The officer advised that there were five Internal Drainage Boards operating across Kent, working alongside other risk management authorities to support drainage and flood risk management activities.

g)    Advised that the National Flood Forum acted as the secretariat for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on flooding, meeting with Members of Parliament on a quarterly basis. Work undertaken at a local level was fed into these national discussions, alongside information received from central government.

h)    Mr Goff outlined a number of ongoing challenges associated with flood risk management, including development within floodplains, the impact of agricultural practices and surface water runoff, and collaborative work with the Environment Agency to address obstructions within river systems. It was noted that effective partnership working remained important in managing these issues and reducing flood risk.

i)      Raised concerns on the resourcing pressures face both the Environment Agency and the County Council and how the Flood Action Groups could play a supportive role by assisting communities to engage with flood risk management and contributing local knowledge.

j)      Discussed the role of the forum in coordinating and collating information during flood events to support situational awareness and the local response. Members were advised that elected Members also played an important role in sharing information from affected communities and helping to ensure that local concerns were communicated to the relevant agencies.

k)    Highlighted the concerns that residents living in areas at risk of flooding could face difficulties obtaining mortgage terms beyond 25 years. Concern was expressed about the potential long-term implications for affected communities, including impacts on property values, investment and the sustainability of local areas.

l)      Closed out the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.