Agenda item

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 county to better understand the scale of the issue.

h)    Officers responded to previous concerns regarding groundwater flooding and the inclusion of related information within the report. The officer explained that groundwater flooding did not fall within the County Council’s direct responsibilities in the context of the report and advised that while such information may be held by the County Council, it would largely be derived from partner agencies. As a result, it had been agreed that the report should be limited to information generated by the County Council itself, on which officers could provide informed comment.

i)      The officer clarified that where groundwater flooding resulted in incident responses involving the County Council, these would be included within the report under the incident response section and that the provided report covered the period January to March and, to their knowledge, the County Council had not responded to groundwater flooding incidents during that quarter.

j)      Members discussed the role of the committee in providing oversight of these matters and noted the value of having representation from both District Councils and the County Council. Additional comments emphasised the importance of effective communication, coordination and information sharing between the County Council and district councils during emergency incidents in order to respond effectively to residents' concerns.

k)    Highlighted the need for continued scrutiny of the water company's emergency response arrangements and requested further information on the implementation of planned improvements.

l)      Members expressed concern that further water supply incidents were likely during the summer period and emphasised the importance of understanding when the mitigation measures identified by the water company would be implemented and become operational.

m)  A Member requested that any future report submitted to the Committee provide greater detail on the anticipated timescales for delivering proposed improvements. This was considered particularly important in relation to the establishment of alternative bottled water distribution locations and the implementation of other response and resilience measures.

n)    In response the officer addressed the concerns raised and that they were able to comment on improvements to Kent County Council and Kent and Medway emergency response procedures, including the development of the water supply disruption plan previously referenced but was unable to comment on aspects that lay beyond their own responsibility or sat within other organisations.

o)    The Committee sought an update on the reported failure of the storm warning system during Storm Goretti in January and its impact on coastal areas of Kent. The Committee was advised that, to the best of their knowledge, the incident had not required a significant response from Kent County Council’s Emergency Planning Service. Members requested that clarification be sought from the Environment Agency regarding the reported failure and any lessons learned.

p)    Additional concerns were raised regarding water supply outages. While the improved email communications issued by officers during incidents were welcomed, concern was expressed that updates relating to water distribution hubs were not always provided in a timely manner. Members emphasised the importance of reviewing and strengthening incident response arrangements to ensure that information was communicated more effectively during future disruptions.

q)    Discussed current planning and development practices, noting apprehensions that new developments were sometimes permitted to raise ground levels or building foundations to reduce flood risk to those sites. It was highlighted that such measures could have implications for drainage arrangements and surface water management in surrounding areas.

r)     Attendees were reminded that the Select Committee Review established by Full Council was the agreed mechanism through which water outages and wider water-related matters would be examined in detail. The recent Short Focused Inquiry (SFI) was also discussed.

s)    Members reiterated the importance of having an appropriate mechanism to monitor and review progress in implementing the recommendations and to examine developments arising between formal reports to the Committee.

t)      The discussion highlighted the need for continued oversight of water supply resilience, infrastructure planning and partnership arrangements to ensure that concerns raised by residents were addressed effectively.

RESOLVED to note the verbal update on KCC Severe Weather Response Activity Report