Update: Otterpool Park Water Plan Faces Climate and Supply Questions

Otterpool Park is not just a housing scheme. It is an 8,500-home test of whether a seriously water-stressed part of Kent can absorb a new town, a business district, schools, shops, leisure uses and wastewater infrastructure under worsening climate pressure. The documents do not say water has been ignored. They say something more important: water is one of the scheme’s critical dependencies.

People in Westenhanger, Sellindge, Lympne, Hythe and the wider district will not drink a planning condition. They will drink water, flush toilets, run taps, send children to schools, use shops, visit workplaces and live with whatever infrastructure Otterpool Park actually delivers. That is why the water question matters before the first home is occupied, not after residents discover whether the modelling was right. Otterpool’s own documentsr describe a phased strategy built around early Affinity Water capacity, a later Paddlesworth reinforcement main, household water limits, a new wastewater treatment works, wetlands, SuDS, nutrient neutrality and future climate allowances.

The scale is the first fact. Otterpool Park is not simply 8,500 homes dropped into the countryside. The Utilities Strategy describes a mixed settlement with up to 8,500 homes, up to 87,500 square metres of employment floorspace, up to 67,000 square metres of education, community and related space, up to 29,000 square metres of retail, up to 8,000 square metres of hotel space and up to 8,500 square metres of leisure space. In plain English: this is household demand plus business demand, school demand, visitor demand and public-building demand.

That matters because the water company area is already under pressure. The government’s 2021 classification says the Secretary of State accepted Environment Agency advice and determined water-company areas as “areas of serious water stress”. Affinity Water’s own climate adaptation report says its “whole” supply area is at risk from climate change, with key risks including changing demand, reduced water availability, flooding, raw-water quality and higher import costs. The company also describes its region as under “serious water stress” and “highly vulnerable to climate change”.

The official Otterpool position starts with the first 1,500 homes. The Utilities Strategy says Affinity Water confirmed capacity for those first 1,500 homes based on 400 litres per household per day, or 126 litres per person per day. Otterpool’s documents then say residential consumption will be limited to “110litres/person/day”, with water-efficient fittings and recycling measures. That is the central household water pledge in the public paper trail.

But 110 litres per person per day should not be dressed up as magic. It is the current tighter optional water-efficiency standard under Building Regulations Part G when imposed through planning. The government has also consulted on reducing the national standard from 125 to 105 litres per person per day and the optional tighter standard from 110 to 100 litres per person per day. So Otterpool’s 110 figure is important, but it may not remain especially stretching if national policy tightens.

Then comes the pipe. The documents say the first 1,500 homes can use existing supply capacity, but beyond that a new main from Paddlesworth Reservoir becomes critical. The Commitments Register says the reinforcement would be approximately 11 kilometres long, 560mm in diameter, crossing HS1 and the M20, and must be operational before occupation of the 1,501st dwelling. It also says that further reinforcement would be required before occupation of the 7,501st home.

The cost question is where the public record becomes less satisfying. The December 2025 Infrastructure Schedule lists “Water supply Paddlesworth reservoir reinforcement” as “Critical”, identifies Affinity Water and the developer as responsible, says funding is “To be funded (by developer)”, and records the indicative cost as “TBC”. That is not a transparent public cost. It is a placeholder where a pound sign should eventually be.

The planning committee report also shows the degree of future dependency. It says enough potable water is available for the early phase up to 1,500 homes, but that subsequent phases require the Paddlesworth reinforcement main. It also says detailed assessment of those works would be carried out by the statutory undertaker when that scheme comes forward. So the water case is not one finished object. It is a staged promise, with major off-site infrastructure still doing a lot of work.

Climate change makes that more than a technical footnote. The Environmental Statement says climate change is expected to increase peak rainstorm intensities and produce “more frequent periods of drought”, reducing the availability or reliability of surface and groundwater resources for water supply and for transporting and diluting wastewater effluent. That is the scheme’s own environmental evidence recognising both sides of the problem: too much water in storms, too little dependable water in dry periods.

The Sustainability Statement responds with the expected toolkit: drainage design with climate-change allowances, SuDS, low-flow fixtures, rainwater harvesting and possible greywater recycling in higher-density areas. Those measures matter. But they do not remove the core question. A drainage strategy can reduce flood risk. Low-flow fittings can reduce demand. Neither proves, by itself, that a new settlement’s full household and business demand is permanently secure under future drought and peak-demand conditions.

The wastewater treatment works has now moved from argument to approval. FHDC says the application for the Otterpool wastewater treatment works, wetlands and primary substation was validated in February 2025 and approved in April 2026. The official project page says the application was “approved in April 2026”. FHDC also says the scheme covers more than 22 hectares and includes wetlands, landscaping, public access and measures intended to achieve nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain.

This is not a story about some distant, faceless planning machine. It is a story about political accountability. Cllr Jim Martin is not commenting from the sidelines. He is Council Leader and the cabinet member responsible for Otterpool Park and Planning Policy. So when he welcomes the wastewater treatment works as “vital” to the new town’s needs and to “sustainable water management”, residents are entitled to ask the next, obvious question: where is the full public water ledger — household demand, business demand, the Paddlesworth pipe cost, the delivery timetable, climate headroom and who pays if the assumptions prove too optimistic?

A wastewater treatment works treats wastewater. It does not create drinking water, pay for the Paddlesworth pipe, guarantee water-company headroom, cap business demand, stop leaks in the wider network, or remove climate pressure. The Utilities Strategy itself shows the WWTW being phased for about 3,000 units and non-residential development, then about 6,600 units and non-residential development, and finally the full development. In other words, even wastewater has a staged delivery logic.

The business side of water is the quieter issue. Otterpool’s public documents give a simple household target: 110 litres per person per day. I have not found an equivalent public-facing, easy-to-read litres-per-day cap for the employment, education, retail, hotel and leisure uses set out in the Utilities Strategy. That does not prove the modelling is absent, but it does mean the public paper trail is much clearer for households than for non-household water demand.

That is not a small omission in a water-stressed region. The government’s 2024/25 water resources analysis says non-household water use includes businesses, schools, hospitals and similar premises, and records non-household use at 2,706 megalitres per day in 2024/25. It also says the Environmental Improvement Plan aims for a 9% net reduction in non-household water use by 2037–38. If national policy now treats business water demand as a major pressure, Otterpool’s business water ledger should be as visible as its household target.

Leakage also belongs in the story, carefully. It is not Otterpool-specific. But in a seriously water-stressed supply area, every lost litre matters. The government’s 2024–25 water resources analysis records Affinity Water leakage at 15.7% of distribution input, compared with a national figure of 18.8%. That does not mean Otterpool causes leakage. It means new demand is being added to a wider water system where leakage, climate pressure and peak demand are already part of the public-interest test.

South East Water is not Otterpool’s drinking-water supplier, so it must not be muddled with Affinity Water. But its recent failures are a warning about the South East’s water resilience. After the Tunbridge Wells and Pembury crisis, then chief executive David Hinton told ITV Meridian: “I can never give a cast-iron guarantee.” A separate BBC report carried by AOL quoted South East Water’s Nick Price saying: “I absolutely can’t guarantee it will not happen again.” The lesson for Otterpool is not that Affinity cannot supply the scheme. The lesson is that water-company assurances in the South East must be read as conditional, not absolute.

Parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made the same regional point in harder language. Its report said Ofwat had found South East Water had “failed to maintain sufficient headroom” in its eastern region since 2018, and the committee said predictable peak demand and extreme weather “can and should” be prepared for. Again, that is not an Affinity Water finding. But it is a reminder that the right question is not merely whether a supply model exists. It is whether there is enough headroom when heat, drought, growth and infrastructure failure arrive together.

The ShepwayVox Team has been asking versions of this question for years. In 2019, it warned that Otterpool’s homes would need water, noted the Paddlesworth Reservoir supply route, discussed the 560mm pipe and 11km length, and asked whether climate change had been “factored in”. Some of that earlier article was campaigning analysis rather than official finding, and the official scheme has since moved to the first-1,500-homes position and the 110 litres per person per day commitment. But the underlying question has aged well: where is the secure, costed, climate-tested water plan for the whole town?

The concern is not confined to campaigners. The planning committee report records Saltwood Parish Council raising the “lack of potable water supply” in an area of water stress and the security of supply to existing residents. It also records Sellindge Parish Council saying potable water and wastewater needed to be considered in the longer term, not just for the early phase. Strip out the planning jargon and that is a perfectly ordinary local question: what happens after the easy first phase?

So the honest conclusion is not that Otterpool has no water strategy. It does. Nor is it fair to say the wastewater issue has been ignored. It has not. The documents show a serious, engineered response: water-efficiency limits, Affinity Water phasing, Paddlesworth reinforcement, SuDS, wetlands, a new WWTW, nutrient-neutrality work and climate-change allowances. But they also show a town whose water case depends on things residents cannot yet see in one place: final pipe cost, delivery risk, non-household demand, climate headroom, leakage context, environmental performance, long-term maintenance and what happens if the assumptions prove optimistic.

That is why Otterpool now needs a public water ledger. Not another glossy assurance. Not another sentence saying sustainable infrastructure is “vital”. A ledger. It should set out household demand, business demand, school and community demand, hotel and leisure demand, wastewater flows, WWTW capacity, wetlands performance assumptions, discharge controls, Paddlesworth pipe cost, funding responsibility, delivery timetable, climate allowances, drought assumptions, leakage context and contingency headroom. In a seriously water-stressed area, that is not anti-growth. It is basic accountability.

Until that ledger is published, the public is being asked to accept a very large promise in pieces: 1,500 homes here, an 11km pipe there, a wastewater works over there, wetlands somewhere else, and a “TBC” cost sitting quietly in the infrastructure schedule. Otterpool Park may yet prove its water case. But in the South East of England, under climate pressure, with thousands of homes and a new business district planned, “trust us, the pipe is coming” is not enough.

Seen something the public should know about? Send tips, documents or concerns to TheShepwayVoxTeam(at)proton(dot)me. You can contact us in confidence, speak off the record in the first instance, and help us follow the evidence where it leads.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime