Minutes:
Richard Penn (Deputy Director for Kent and South London) and Simon Curd (Area Flood and Coastal Risk Manager)
1) The Environment Agency officers present discussed various aspects of the joint works, including the following:
a) Mr Penn outlined the strategic framework guiding the agency’s work, including the national plan for a climate?resilient environment. He described collaboration that had occurred via the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum. This had encompassed updates to the multi?agency flood plan, the integration of drought planning within severe weather plans also incorporated and improved community?level resilience being of note.
b) Mr Curd described the significance of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCCs) on approving capital investment programmes. The officer presented an overview of current and upcoming flood?risk projects across Kent, including major embankment works, beach?management schemes and property?level protection schemes.
c) Officers explained that new national funding rules, effective from April 2026, would allow the first £3 million of any project to be fully grant?funded, with only 10% required thereafter. This would allow more schemes to progress and included projects that had delivered natural flood?management measures or sustainable drainage.
d) Summarised recent weather conditions, noting exceptionally high rainfall over the Winter which had raised groundwater levels and had in turn had heavily impacted winterbournes (Stream fed chalk aquifers) which in turn had required a multi?agency operational response.
2) Members made a number of questions in regard to the presentation:
a) Local flood issues that had impacted the Paddock Wood area were raised by Members. Presenting officers responded that works were ongoing with local representatives to address issues in Paddock Wood.
b) Issues were flagged on the specific responses received on the subject of the bathing water quality of Deal and Walmer. The Environment Agency officers acknowledged the concerns the Member had raised and suggested that a meeting with the Member, and the respective town Councils take place to address the issues.
c) Members queried on what lessons had been learned from the introduction of property?level protection schemes and a greater need for communications with residents. Officers responded that lessons from previous property?level protection schemes were continually reviewed and shared online.
d) The recent Storm Goretti had recently caused significant impacts along the Kent coastline. However, it was indicated by Members that none of the established storm alarms had been triggered. Officers acknowledged the issues and confirmed that the storm had not met the predetermined criteria required to activate the alarms. Further discussions were taking place with hydrological experts in Southampton to understand why the expected alerts had not triggered in the impacted areas. Officers from the Environment Agency would look to update members at a later date.
e) In response to a query on UV treatment, the Environment Agency officers confirmed that this would be fed back through the appropriate channels. It was noted that implementing such an approach would likely require a significant legislative change. The Environment Agency, as an operational body, was not in a position to initiate or advocate for changes to legislation. Officers suggested that responsibility for progressing such changes would lie elsewhere. Nonetheless, it was acknowledged that UV treatment had the potential to offer significant benefits in the future.
f) Officers explained that a number of natural flood management schemes had previously been implemented, including trial projects in Bedgebury forest and other locations. Although further site names could not be recalled at the meeting, it was confirmed that natural flood management remained an active area of work locally.
g) In response to the question regarding the number of incidents reported and whether they were attended in person, officers advised that the data would need to be taken away and confirmed. It was clarified that the query related to environmental incidents rather than flood incidents. Officers agreed to confirm if the information could be provided.
h) The Environment Agency had routinely attended water company?related incidents, which were often those with notable impacts and encompassed large areas of disruption. Officers highlighted that the agency had been able to recover its costs for attending such incidents, meaning there was no additional burden to the public purse.
i) Regarding property?level protection for other residents in affected areas, officers advised that they would need to review what information and support may be available and report back at a later date.
j) A Member sought advice and feedback on behalf of residents regarding Southern Water’s Investment Programme to improve water quality. Reference was made to concerns previously raised in Deal and Walmer, which were reflected equally by residents in Whitstable. It was revealed that Whitstable was considered a priority area by the Environment Agency, with an official target to reduce storm overflows to 10 spills per year by 2030 was already in place.
k) Members acknowledged that Southern Water (Utilities partner) had undertaken a level of engagement with the community, although some residents perceived this as more public relations than meaningful engagement. Despite the concerns discussed, the communication had been welcomed.
l) Concerns were raised regarding recent spill data, including 169 hours of discharge recorded in February 2026 from Swalecliffe No.1 outfall, located near an oyster fishery and a blue flag beach in a coastal town heavily reliant on its seaside economy. This represented discharges on 50% of days that month.
m) It was discussed that one untreated sewage spill had lasted 28 hours at a rate of approximately 205 litres per second, equating to a substantial total volume discharged. The level of activity appeared inconsistent with the ambition of achieving only 10 spills per year by 2030 and would likely lead to significant public doubt about progress. The Member therefore asked what supervision, inspection, and oversight the Environment Agency currently provided in relation to Southern Water’s programmes in Whitstable and other impacted areas and how councillors and members of the public could access any information on oversights of partner agencies.
n) In response to the Members concerns officers reported that the Environment Agency had increased its inspection activity, with a target of 10,000 inspections of water company assets between April 2025 and March 2026 and had confirmed that the target was still on track. Compliance inspection reports were now published online, and a link would be provided for circulation to communities
o) Officers also referred to the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP), noting that the Environment Agency and Ofwat jointly monitor delivery of the five?year investment programme. Failure by water companies to meet milestones may result in financial penalties from Ofwat.
p) In relation to recent sewage spills, officers acknowledged public concern and explained that combined sewer overflows operated during periods of heavy rainfall, with January and February recording significantly above?average rainfall. Further analysis would be carried out to determine whether recent spills were compliant with permit conditions, based on event duration monitoring submitted by water companies. Links to published inspection data would be provided.
q) A Member asked if any accessible system would be available for the public to view inspection dates and compliance information for sewage treatment works, noting that the absence of visible data to date had contributed to public scepticism and low confidence.
r) Officers advised that the Environment Agency did not publish its forward inspection programme, as doing so could alert water companies to the timing of inspections. However, the published Compliance Assessment Reports provide information on past inspections and encompassed when sites were last visited. Officers discussed that inspection frequency was risk?based, with sites that have a history of non?compliance receiving more frequent inspections than consistently compliant sites. It was added that inspection priorities may also change during the year.
s) Members raised the impact of climate change on coastal communities and natural flood?management opportunities in Kent. Natural flood?management trials had been undertaken in several areas, with further opportunities being assessed.
RESOLVED to note the Environment Agency presentation