The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Tunbridge Wells Council met on Monday 15 June 2026 to discuss water supply issues with South East Water and to consider the Community Governance Review for Royal Tunbridge Wells. The committee also reviewed the draft Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2025-26 and discussed the future work programme.

South East Water: A Question and Answer Session

The committee held a question and answer session with representatives from South East Water, including Douglas Whitfield, Water Supply Director; Matthew Dean, Head of Operations Control; and Rob Crumbie, Head of Communications. The session addressed concerns about recent water supply interruptions, particularly in the Tunbridge Wells area.

Mr. Whitfield began by apologising for the recent water supply interruptions, acknowledging that they fell short of the service expected by customers. He explained that two separate incidents had affected Tunbridge Wells: an outage in November/December 2025 due to a treatment problem at Pembley Treatment Works, which was exacerbated by low raw water reserves and quality fluctuations. This was followed by a January 2026 incident primarily caused by network infrastructure failure, compounded by lower-than-normal storage levels and increased demand due to a cold snap and freeze-thaw event. He also mentioned the impact of Storm Goretti on raw water quality.

South East Water outlined their five-year investment plan, focusing on resilience, with a significant portion of their £2.1 billion investment dedicated to this area, particularly for Kent. Key projects include expanding the Buell Treatment Works and upgrading the Pembley Treatment Works to increase water production and improve regional connectivity. They also acknowledged criticisms regarding communication during events and detailed ongoing work to improve this, including workshops with local resilience forums and councils.

Councillor Hugo Pound, a former member of the committee who had been instrumental in formulating questions for South East Water, addressed the committee. He expressed disappointment that board members were not present and that the advance questions had not been answered prior to the meeting. Councillor Pound raised concerns about South East Water's negative supply-demand balance in certain resource zones, high leakage rates, and the projected shortfall in supply-demand balance until 2039-40, questioning the company's ability to meet future housing demands. He also highlighted customer dissatisfaction, citing a poll where 93% of respondents favoured nationalisation.

The discussion covered various aspects of South East Water's operations, including:

• Planning Tools and Funding: Mr. Whitfield explained that South East Water appealed Ofwat's determination for the first time in the current price review period, securing additional funding for resilience investments, such as the expansion of Buell Treatment Works. He also mentioned the use of 25-year Water Resource Management Plans and the collaborative work with other water companies in the Southeast Group.
• Leakage: The company acknowledged above-forecast leakage for three consecutive years and outlined efforts to reduce it, attributing the increase to volatile operational years and weather extremes.
• Resilience Standards: The Independent Water Commission review's output on establishing resilient standards for storage and headroom was discussed as a benefit for justifying investment.
• Investment Profiling: The £2.1 billion investment plan (PR24) was described as being back-end loaded due to a slow start in year one and the CMA process concluding in March 2026.
• Kent Resilience Projects: Specific projects for Kent were detailed, including commissioning a new 20-megalitre source at Butler Treatment Works, expanding Buell Treatment Works, and starting work on the Broad Oak Reservoir. The creation of 50 million litres of storage tanks across Kent was also highlighted.
• Leakage Reduction Technology: The importance of technology, smart networks, and smart metering for achieving leakage reduction targets was emphasised, with plans for a smart meter rollout.
• Root Cause Analysis: An internal report and an external root cause analysis report for the November incident were completed and presented to the board.
• Enforcement Orders: South East Water confirmed close and regular engagement with Ofwat regarding enforcement orders and investigations.
• Tunbridge Wells System Resilience: Mr. Whitfield explained short-term improvements to the Pembury Treatment Works, including a bypass on the Kipping's Cross reservoir and filters at Pembury, allowing for increased water transfer from Buell. He also noted that Tunbridge Treatment Works was back online.
• Boil Notices: Guidance for residents in the event of a boil notice had been developed, including a comprehensive FAQ set.
• Emergency Plans: While full emergency plans could not be published due to security regulations, South East Water engaged with local resilience forums and councils through workshops to develop these plans.
• Rural Village Outages: Councillor Thomas Mobbs raised concerns about outages in rural villages, highlighting that Benenden had been without water for a week and his villages (Brenchley, Matfield, Horseman's Den, Lamberhurst) had experienced three outages since January. He questioned South East Water's infrastructure capacity for additional housing and the impact of increased pressure from Buell water.
• Housing Growth and Water Supply: The disconnect between Water Resource Management Plans and current housing growth numbers was discussed, with South East Water stating they could accommodate housing growth if informed in advance.
• Tanker Fleet Costs: The cost of the tanker fleet was discussed, with 11 tankers purchased at approximately £350,000 each.
• Data Sharing: The possibility of sharing more telemetry data with the council was raised, with South East Water stating they would need to come back on this.
• Trust and Communication: Councillor Jayne Sharratt raised concerns about the breakdown of public trust due to inconsistent communications and inconsistent messaging during the boil notice. South East Water acknowledged the loss of trust and committed to being honest and open about challenges and solutions, emphasizing that trust would be earned through delivery. Rob Crumbie, Head of Communications, acknowledged inconsistencies in the initial boil water notice communications and committed to clearer messaging in the future.
• Affinity Water Comparison: Councillor Martin Brice questioned why Affinity Water did not seem to experience the same problems, to which it was explained that Affinity had a number of large treatment works abstracting from the River Thames, providing them with more headroom.

Community Governance Review: Royal Tunbridge Wells

The committee considered the recommendations from the Community Governance Review Working Group regarding the establishment of a town council for the unparished area of Royal Tunbridge Wells. Jane Clark, Head of Policy and Governance, and Councillor Ben Chapelard, Leader of the Council, presented the report.

The review proposed establishing a parish of Royal Tunbridge Wells, with a boundary encompassing existing borough wards, to be styled as a town council named Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Council. It was recommended that the town council be divided into six parish wards: Culverden, Pantiles, Park, Sherwood, St James', and St John's, with a total of 17 councillors.

Key discussion points included:

• Low Consultation Response Rates: Councillors expressed concern over the low response rates in both consultation phases (2.83% and 0.9%). While acknowledging there was no minimum threshold, members debated whether this indicated sufficient public appetite for a town council. Councillor Davidson noted that of those who responded, over 60% were in favour.
• Initial Responsibilities: The report indicated that the town council's initial focus would be on allotments, which currently generate a surplus. However, concerns were raised about the lack of clarity on the initial precept and potential for significant increases in council tax, as town council precepts are not capped. Councillor Mobbs highlighted instances of substantial precept increases in other areas.
• Shadow Council and Remuneration: Councillor Jayne Sharratt raised concerns about the significant time commitment required from shadow councillors with no extra remuneration. The report clarified that there was no formal requirement for a shadow council, but a working group of interested borough councillors would be established.
• Political Nature of the Council: Councillor Martin Brice questioned whether the town council would be politically made up or apolitical, noting that most existing parish councils were not politically affiliated. It was stated that there was no requirement for the council to be non-political, and political parties would likely contest elections.
• Cost Implications: Councillor Mobbs pressed for figures on the initial cost of establishing the town council and the potential precept. While no definitive figure was provided, it was suggested that a range could be explored, referencing existing parish council precepts nationally.
• Transfer of Allotment Functions: The report confirmed that the transfer of allotment functions would be a key initial responsibility.
• Unitary Authority Context: Councillor Chapelard explained that a unitary authority would likely focus on larger services like adult social care and may not have the same level of concern for local amenities like parks as the current borough council. He argued that a town council focused purely on Royal Tunbridge Wells would be beneficial.
• Working Group Arrangements: The report outlined the potential work of a shadow working group, which would have no decision-making powers but could prepare draft policies and procedures.
• Consultation Feedback: A significant amount of feedback from the consultations was included, with many respondents expressing concerns about cost, bureaucracy, and the low response rates, while others supported the idea of local representation and control over town assets. There were also specific suggestions regarding ward names and boundaries, with some advocating for Culverden to be a separate entity or for different warding arrangements.

The committee debated the recommendations, with particular focus on the low consultation response rates, the potential financial implications for residents, and the scope of the town council's initial responsibilities. The committee ultimately agreed to note the report and its recommendations for consideration by Full Council.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report 2025-26

Caroline Britt, Democratic Services Team Leader (Interim), presented the Draft Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report 2025-26. The report summarised the committee's work from May 2025 to March 2026, highlighting key scrutiny activities, including presentations from Southern Water, South East Water, and discussions on the Strategic Plan, Community Governance Review, Planning Enforcement, and Homelessness and Housing Providers. The committee noted that the report would be updated to include the March meeting and the period until the end of the municipal year before being presented to Full Council. The committee agreed to approve the draft report.

Work Programme

The committee discussed its future work programme for 2026-27. It was agreed that an invitation would be sent to Southern Water to provide an update on their business and role in wastewater services. Councillor Martin Brice suggested a review of the Joint Transportation Board before Local Government Reorganisation. Members were asked to submit suggestions for future topics to Caroline Britt.

Urgent Business

There was no urgent business to discuss.

Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next meeting was noted as Monday 27 July 2026.

The meeting concluded with thanks to all attendees for a constructive session.