Minutes:
Carol Valentine (Highways Asset Drainage Manager) – was in attendance for the item.
1. The officer presented the following information:
a) Introduced the item by outlining the structure and responsibilities of the highway’s drainage team, with particular reference to duties under section 100 of the Highways Act. The officer explained that the team’s role was to ensure that surface water was kept off the highway and that highway assets were maintained and constructed to keep roads as reasonably safe and practicable from flooding.
b) The officer advised that the team comprised of 24 staff and was organised into four principal functional areas. Two teams focused on planned works and capital delivery, while the remaining two were responsible for maintenance and technical support activities.
c) Members were advised that the team had managed a high volume of enquiries, receiving more than 8,500 enquiries during 2025/26 compared with an average of approximately 8,000 enquiries each year. Members were informed that, despite the team’s small size, workload levels remained consistently high, and the work undertaken was essential to maintaining highway safety and managing flood risk across the county’s highway network.
d) Highlighted a number of ongoing challenges, including issues relating to third-party assets, securing compliance from landowners regarding drainage responsibilities, and coordinating works with district and borough council partners. It was noted that these factors could affect the timely delivery of maintenance and flood risk management activities.
e) In addition, the team would also be responsible for a large number of assets, including up to 250,000 drains, around 250 ponds and lagoons, 15 pumping stations (20–30 pumps), and approximately 8,500 soakaways. The team was further supported by an electronic asset system used to identify hotspots, target recurring issues, and inform future investment. Maintenance was a key function, including cyclical, risk-based cleaning, with high-speed and strategic roads serviced annually.
f) Aspects further outlined how the cyclical maintenance operated on a risk-based approach, with strategic and high-speed roads (e.g. key routes) would be cleaned annually and Minor roads were cleaned every one to two years, depending on risk factors such as flood history, road hierarchy and traffic level. It was anticipated that all roads would now be cleaned at least every two years.
g) Confirmed that the annual maintenance programme was established at the start of each financial year and delivered throughout the year. Members were advised that, in addition to planned maintenance activities, reactive works were undertaken in response to urgent issues reported by residents and highway users to ensure that highway drainage assets continued to operate effectively and that flood risk and highway safety were appropriately managed.
h) In addition, it was highlighted that while there was no statutory duty under the Highways Act to address internal property flooding and the service recognised the distress caused and sought to respond where possible. The Officer further expanded upon the investigation process of drainage systems and rooting out the causes of issues that could impact the public.
i) Plans for the 2026/27 maintenance programme included the cleansing of approximately 60,000 drainage assets across the strategic highway network, together with associated pipework where silt and debris commonly accumulate. Members were informed that around 9,000 gullies located on high-speed roads were cleaned annually, with these works typically scheduled between April and September.
j) It was further noted that approximately 80,000 gullies on the minor network would be cleaned on an annual or biennial basis, depending on risk. The officer emphasised the significant scale of the drainage maintenance programme.
k) Issues identified through routine maintenance activities were referred to the planned works team where more substantial drainage interventions were required. Members were informed that these schemes were then assessed by the relevant teams, with engineers responsible for the design, development and delivery of any necessary works.
l) Advised that delivery of drainage improvement works was undertaken by external contractors, with the team responsible for managing contractor performance, programme delivery and budgets. Members were informed that the capital drainage budget was approximately £5 million per annum over the next three years and was used to deliver drainage improvements and reduce flood risk. It was further noted that opportunities to secure additional funding were actively pursued where available to enhance the programme and increase the scale of works delivered.
m) Storm event responses were discussed and the notable challenges faced. The officer advised that the team sought to minimise disruption to residents and road users wherever possible through coordinated response arrangements and the deployment of appropriate flood mitigation measures. Members were also provided with a brief overview of the flood defence measures in place and the compensation arrangements available in certain circumstances following flooding incidents.
n) A programme would be developed for the inspection and improvement of ponds and lagoons. Members were informed that the required works would be phased over the next three to five years to bring these assets up to the required standard and support their ongoing effectiveness in managing drainage and flood risk.
o) Discussed that a mainline cleansing programme would be introduced to address blockages within drainage pipes beyond gullies, particularly in strategic locations.
p) Flooding hotspots would be more comprehensively mapped within the asset management system to support improved planning ahead of winter highlighted the importance of collaboration and innovation, including the use of new technologies to better predict and manage flooding risk. Longer-term scheme planning would be developed in partnership with contractors to support delivery over a two-to-three-year period.
2.Members raised the discussed points:
a) In response to Members’ questions, officers advised that there was no countywide ranking or ‘league table’ of flooding hotspots. It was further noted that questions relating to insurance claims and compensation arrangements fell outside the scope of the presentation and would be more appropriately directed to the relevant insurance specialist.
b) Members raised concerns on flood events impacting Drill Lane Ford in Ickham. A number of cyclists had been injured in 2026 and members asked if better signage could be explored to help combat the current issues faced. The presenting officer addressed the concerns and would look to talk with the Highways Improvement Team to explore what has been completed to date and what further options are available.
c) In relation to a question regarding recurring flooding at pedestrian subways in Maidstone, the officer acknowledged the long-standing nature of the issue and advised that the matter would be reviewed in greater detail to better understand the causes and potential solutions.
d) Questions were raised on the regularity of drain cleanings and debris removal. In response the officer discussed the forward and ongoing programme of maintenance and suggested exploring publishing timetables to make the wider public aware of the areas that will be treated. The officer would look to update the committee on the current publish Ing progress.
e) In response to concerns raised on the flooding of Church Road, the officer acknowledged the ongoing impacting issues and highlighted that a number of solutions that had explored. The presenting officer suggested meeting with the Member to discuss the options in greater depth.
f) Members highlighted the restricted budgets that had been in place and asked how big of a scale was the current outstanding drainage works. In response it was discussed authority had been managing a significant backlog of approximately £5 million in 2023–24. It was noted that this level of backlog was comparable to, or in excess of, the annual budget available.
g) The officer advised that the backlog had the potential to increase over time, placing additional pressure on available resources. Efforts were being made to address the situation, including improvements to processes and the introduction of new assets where possible, in order to manage demand and mitigate further growth in the backlog.
h) Concerns were raised on the drainage option for the proposed 1500 homes to be located in Paddock wood. The officer acknowledged the points made and discussed that all new development proposals were referred to the drainage team as part of the authority’s established approval process. This had ensured that drainage considerations were incorporated at an early stage.
i) A Member sought clarification regarding the proposed changes to the frequency of cleansing on the minor road network. It was noted that the current arrangement involved a three-year cycle, while the new contract proposed more frequent servicing.
j) The officer explained that all minor roads would be included within a two-year rolling programme. This meant that if a minor road was cleaned in one year, for example in 2026, it would next be cleaned in 2028, ensuring consistent coverage across the network.
RESOLVED to note the Highways and Transport-Road Drainage presentation.