Agenda item

Lindsay Faulkner, Environment Agency, was in attendance for this item.

1.    Ms Faulkner presented on Kent flood risk resilience.

2.    In response to comments and questions from guests and Members it was said:

a.    The Chair thanked Ms Faulkner for her presentation and invited her to return to the Committee.

b.    When asked to keep pressure up on Southern Water to ensure services were delivered. Ms Faulkner shared that there were a significant number of enforcement investigations ongoing. The Government had given the organisation an uplift in funding to increase the regulation and enforcement of water companies.

c.    A Member questioned the impact of a lack of funding on the delivery of results by the service. Ms Faulkner explained that funding had not changed and that the treasury rules controlled the spending of funds. Ms Faulkner added that the organisation had a marine team who covered a large remit of bathing beaches. Resources were spread thinly, there was hope for additional funding following a review of the regulations.

d.    A Member questioned whether there was guidance to give to residents on what should and should be flushed down the toilet and the link between littering and water quality. Ms Faulkner explained that the partnership with Folkstone and Hythe on communication allowed the service to develop clear communications that could be provided to residents, this was to be sent to Members to distribute to their communities.

e.    A Member questioned whether the SWIMFO website could become more public facing and have more data available. Additionally, asking how bathing waters uses were measured. Ms Faulkner was to come back to the Committee with the information and was to feedback the need for further usability and accessibility of the SWIMFO website.

f.     A Member questioned whether there were any place on the River Medway where wild swimming was be recommended. Additionally, asking whether there were opportunities for citizen testing in the River Medway and where could results be fed back to. Furthermore, questioning where the pollution issue in Deal originated from. Ms Faulkner shared that there were surface water outfalls in Deal which the service were working to identify. Additionally, the service were researching the continuity of ground water with bathing water, adding that in an urban area, the issue would usually be localised to the bathing water location. There was a specific employee who coordinated citizen science work, Ms Faulkner was to share his contact details with Members.

g.    When asked why only certain areas were considered bathing water. Ms Faulkner explained that communities and local councils applied for this status, it was not the Environmental Agency that assigned this to areas. Ms Faulkner shared that in terms of testing water quality, funding was an issue, which was set to the statutory obligations of the service.

h.    A Member noted that Kent were good compared to European Standards, requesting that Members be sent this guidance. Additionally, asking how far the service tests the long shore drift, noting the importance of the accuracy of the results. Furthermore, questioning what classified bathing water as a risk to health. Ms Faulkner explained that the set standard for a risk to health was when a water sample entered into the ‘poor’ classification. Ms Faulkner offered to bring a marine scientist colleague to the Committee at a future date to advise further on the algorithm for water quality.

3.    RESOLVED that the Committee note the content of the presentation.