Minutes:
Mr J Yates – Head of Delivery, Clean Rivers and Seas Taskforce and Mr M Russell-Stakeholder Engagement Manager presented the Item.
1.Mr Yates presented the following updates to the Members:
a) Discussed the establishment of the Clean Rivers and Seas Taskforce in 2021, post COVID funding trajectories and the work that had been targeted across the five catchment areas of the Southeast.
b) £35 million was successfully invested from early 2023 to the end of March 2025 to provide improvements to the combined sewage overflows.
c) Discussed the use of storm overflows in the prevention of flood damage to homes and businesses. It was indicated that through accountability from customers, stakeholders and regulators that there was a need to reduce the amount of times combined sewage overflows were used.
d) Mr Yates (Head of Delivery) outlined the challenges that had arisen from increased weather events, ongoing infrastructure developments, and the reduction of permeable land. It was highlighted that these pressures required a different approach to land use in relation to building practices, customer engagement, and compliance with the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) reduction plan.
e) Reported on progress achieved during the Pathfinder project stage, and the early success that had been secured. Work had now commenced on Herne Bay as part of the 2027 regulatory outputs. It was discussed that catchments could be located only miles or even metres apart, but their needs might be very different. As a result, approaches that had proved effective in Whitstable could not simply be replicated to other impacted areas due to these constraints.
f) The importance of taking learnings from one catchment area and applying them carefully to new areas was further expanded. Catchment areas would need to be fully understood before interventions were designed. The rationale also applied equally to inland catchments areas such as Tunbridge Wells, where tailored solutions would be required.
g) It was further noted that a “playbook” approach would be developed to guide work across catchments, with the starting point always being a review of internal practices and capabilities.
h) Highlighted the significant regulatory challenge the authority faced in relation to combined sewer overflows (CSOs). It was discussed that under current requirements all CSOs must be reduced to fewer than ten spills per year across the regulatory milestones of 2027, 2030 and 2050. This represented a robust and demanding reduction target that required sustained investment, careful planning, and coordinated delivery across the asset maintenance programme.
i) It was reported on the key learnings from the Pathfinder programme, which had run during the final two years of the last Asset Management Plan (AMP), covering 2023 and 2024/25. It was discussed that the work could not be delivered in isolation without the continued collaboration of Kent County Council and Kent County Council Highway teams.
j) By working jointly with KCC Highways the project needs would be tailored to secure the best overall solution. Southern Water emphasised that these outcomes demonstrated the value of partnership working and confirmed that one of the most important lessons learned was the benefit of collaboration in achieving improved results.
k) Highlighted Sittingbourne works where a significant programme of sewer sealing was currently underway. Mr Yates elaborated that intervention had resulted in considerable customer and constituent impact notably through traffic management requirements and disruptions to roads. By planning the work in advance, the Council had been able to manage delivery successfully whilst also adapting to reactive roadworks that had arisen during the programme.
l) Reported on the successes achieved in Kent and highlighted the collaborative scheme undertaken along Gloucester Avenue in Margate, Cliftonville. This was described as one of the first true partnership projects, and that conventional road gullies were removed and replaced with swales and tree pits to slow water flows and divert them from the network.
m)Explained that the scheme had utilised an existing green verge and that careful designs had ensured that the tree pits and road structure would not be compromised. All designs were submitted through Kent County Council’s design arm for review, ratification and approval. Southern Water confirmed that significant learning had been achieved through the process and reinforced the value of collaborative working and innovative design approaches.
n) The Whitstable Library at Diamond Road (CSO) was highlighted as a key example of how collaborative design can create spaces that are beneficial to the community and the environment. A further scheme at Countywide Circle in Whitstable was also described, where approximately 1.2 hectares of surface water would be diverted into a sustainable attenuation tank. This intervention would slow the flow of water that had entered the network and deliver significant benefits to the Diamond Road.
o) Work was underway with Cura Terra to install a Centaur system. The system comprised of a modulating penstock gate within the chamber. The gate would move up and down in response to expected flows and allow for dynamic management of capacity and an improved control of water discharged.
p) Outlined the approach to stakeholder engagement within catchments. It was confirmed that the organisation would maintain a visible presence and share information openly with partners and the public. Two principal tools were being used to support the work. The Clean Rivers and Seas Plan provided an interactive map showing how £1.5 billion of regulatory funding would be invested over the next ten years. Secondly, the Rivers and Seas Watch platform reported on the real?time performance of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs).
q) Utilising both platforms, Mr Yates explained that teams would be deployed to the right locations at the right time and ensured that accurate information was gathered and shared. The approach strengthened transparency, supported stakeholder confidence, and enabled a more effective management of catchment?based interventions.
2. Members asked a number of questions on the presentation which included:
a) Members questioned the reported 47% increase in domestic bills and sought clarification on whether the increase would be directed towards shareholder returns or infrastructure works. Additional questions were raised regarding those who had avoided paying bills
b) Mr Yates acknowledged the rise in domestic bills and noted that prices had been kept artificially low for a significant period. It was clarified that the bill increases would not be used to pay shareholders. Dividend payments could resume in 2030 and would be contingent upon the company’s performance.
c) The hardship fund was highlighted as a support option for customers experiencing difficulty in paying their bills. To date approximately 155,000 customers had benefited from the fund and had received a 45% reduction on domestic bills.
d) Members inquired about the current status of initiatives to harvest and store water from large buildings, including schools and businesses. It was discussed that initial funding for schools to implement water harvesting systems would sit within the authority of the Department for Education (DfE), which had reportedly caused significant delays and had made the initiative appear unviable in some cases.
e) Mr Yates acknowledged the issue and its impact to the area (Tonbridge). The ‘SuDs for Schools’ programme was discussed as a potential avenue to explore for support. Mr. Russell (Stakeholder Engagement) added that funding was limited and allocated only to designated catchment areas which could result in delays and slow progress of installation.
f) Members raised the impacting issues of leaks and the length of time taken to resolve them. Mr. Yates acknowledged these issues and referred Members to the ongoing discussions with contractors aimed at improving response times. It was explained that the process would be guided by key performance indicators (KPIs) to ensure that all contractual timeframes were met with penalties imposed if they were not.
g) The water quality rating of Folkestone & Hythe beaches was discussed and the downward trend in ratings pinpointed. Concerns were raised about the lack of prioritisation for this key tourist destination. Mr. Yates addressed the comments and confirmed that Folkestone & Hythe was considered a priority area for bathing water quality by Southern Water.
h) Mr Yates addressed concerns regarding surface water run-offs and outfalls in the areas of Dymchurch and Littlestone. Southern Water clarified that not all run-off issues fell within their remit, and that collaboration with ownership partners such as Kent County Council (KCC) and the Environment Agency would be necessary to strengthen resilience in the discussed affected areas.
i) Concerns were raised about the volume of foul water discharges into rivers and seas. Mr. Yates responded that Southern Water’s operations are regulated based on the occurrence of discharge events rather than the measurable volume of wastewater released.
j) Southern Waters response times to spills were discussed. Mr. Yates acknowledged the concerns and raised that since COVID there had been a shift in focus to allow for a more targeted review of infrastructure. It was further explained that scrutiny and criticism directed at Southern Water and regulatory bodies such as OFWAT had been acknowledged and would be addressed. Penalties would be imposed if performance targets were not met and there would be a commitment to greater transparency through the publication of targeted results.
k) The reporting frequency had now shifted to a quarterly schedule, with one submission having been completed and a second currently pending. Discussions also covered ongoing trajectories within the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) and discussed the significant investment planned over the next 10 years. The role of scrutiny would shape programme targets and deliverables were emphasised as a key factor in ensuring accountability and effectiveness.
l) Members acknowledged the infrastructure investment targets and expressed a desire to review progress against these targets at a future Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee meeting in six-month timeframe.
RESOLVED to note the Southern Water presentation