Minutes:
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 drought was highlighted as a key priority: while current planning is based on a 1?in?100-year drought, future resilience will extend to events of up to 1?in?500 years. When these uncertainties are factored into the plan, a wide range of outcomes emerges. In the most optimistic case, the region could face a shortfall of just under 1 billion litres, whereas in the most pessimistic case, the shortfall could approach 3 billion litres by 2075.
j) Available supplies are expected to diminish over the next 50 years. At company level, surplus is likely until around 2030, after which deficits emerge. In Kent, supplies decline sooner due to required abstraction reductions, potentially cutting up to 45% of current sources.
k) Environmental investigations will determine the scale of reductions, while population growth (approx. 14%), climate change, and drought resilience pressures add further demand. New interventions and customer demand?management will be essential to address future shortfalls.
l) A strategy follows a twin?track approach: securing new water supplies through infrastructure projects while reducing demand among household and business customers. Over £1 billion has been allocated over the next 50 years to cut leakage, in line with government policy requiring a 50% reduction by 2050. Customer consumption must also fall from the current 140 litres per person per day to 110 litres by 2050, alongside a 15% reduction in business use by 2040.
m) Smart meter programme will support these demand reductions. A further £1 billion is planned for major infrastructure, including two reservoirs, inter?zone transfers, cross?company transfers, and a long?term desalination scheme to deliver more water into Kent. Without intervention, Kent would face supply shortfalls from around 2030.
n) Discussed the in-place hosepipe ban and how demand over a dry summer has impacted the region, with additional concerns raised of a potential dry Winter. If this winter does not deliver 100% of the long?term average rainfall, resources will not fully recharge ahead of next summer. A subsequent dry spring and summer would leave us in a worse position than this year. These are the factors that must be weighed carefully, and we need to wait until we are confident that sufficient rainfall will occur to achieve the required recharge
2) In response to the Presentation Members raised the following:
a) Officers confirmed that nitrate issues had arisen primarily from groundwater supplies, which had accounted for over 85% of sources and were linked to historic farming practices in catchment areas. It was highlighted that no nitrate concerns were associated with treatment from the River Medway.
b) The Chair Highlighted the ongoing leak in Tenterden and asked for clarification on how after heavy investment in identifying leaks there was still a delay in respond to fixing them. It was noted that leaks not directly impacting supplies require planned interventions, including road access arrangements, which can delay repairs.
c) While acknowledging that some leaks have run for extended periods, officers explained that immediate repair would only be prioritised where water supply issues arise. The presenter outlined the accountability framework governing suppliers, explaining that penalties are imposed when performance targets are not achieved. It was further disclosed that suppliers have failed to meet these targets for the past two consecutive years.
d) Targets and KPIs are set for both the Agency and contractors, with penalties for underperformance and incentives for meeting objectives. Continuous improvement remains a priority, with average leak runtimes already reducing this year.
e) Three nitrate schemes were being developed and targeted groundwater sources in the western region of Sussex, and Kent. All would be designed to address impacts from historic land use in groundwater catchments.
f) Officers emphasised that water companies were not statutory consultees in the planning process and were instead required to provide infrastructure for new housing once developments are confirmed. While there is industry debate about giving water companies a stronger voice, this has not been their role to date. water efficiency in new housing is a key opportunity to reduce demand, though water companies currently have no formal influence over such planning decisions.
g) In regard to the water outages that had impacted areas such as Tonbridge and West Kent, Members discussed the issues faced with Tanker replenishing Reservoirs and the continued draw from the River Medway which would only grow as housing targets begin to rise.
h) Desalination options supported by AI were raised by members as an alternative option and to relieve some pressure faced by reservoirs. All present noted a desire to assist water companies in the challenges they faced.
i) Members highlighted the water outages that impacted Whitstable, and that bottled water solution provided was not sufficient for multi days outages of supply. Members also queried on the rationale of the current hosepipe ban and why other water utility companies in similar regions companies had not imposed bans.
j) Concerns were raised on the time frame for the Broad Oak reservoir project, the current progress and the impact of increased housing planning on sewage figures. Concerns were acknowledged, and these aspects would be considered for further discussion specifically targeting the subject matter at a later Committee.
RESOLVED to note the South East Water Presentation