Agenda item

Report of Thames Water.

 

This report provides an update on works and investment carried out by Thames Water in Camden and action taken by the organisation following the recent Belsize Road and South Hampstead bursts (17/12/22: 42-inch pipe burst and 5/09/23: 15-inch pipe burst).

 

 

 

Consideration was given to the report of Thames Water.

 

Consideration was also given to the deputation statements referred to in Item 4 above.

 

The following responses were given by the deputees to members questions:

 

• In terms of engagement and the compensation offered by Thames Water to residents impacted by the flood on Belsize Road, there was a lot of engagement when the incident happened with a representative and van present on site. In relation to compensation a lot of the residents claimed through their insurance company.
• The questions and issues raised with Thames Water were around how long it took to get the water shut off, the focus of the group now was around the response since the flooding of evaluating what needed to be done to prevent a recurrence in the future.
• What residents and the South Hampstead Flood Action Group were requesting was that Thames Water and the Council had a coordinated and comprehensive approach. Looking at all the different things that had happened in the area which were all connected causing erosion and was likely to lead to more pressure on the pipes leading to more flooding in the area. There does not appear to be a coordinated approach between the different organisations.
• Thames Water seemed to be looking at the number of leaks rather than the devastating impact on residents.
• In terms of obtaining flood insurance for the area this was a major issue. It was a bit of the luck of the draw with some people unable to sell their flat because purchasers had not been able to get insurance for their flat.
• In terms of the 2022 flood there had been a lot of satisfaction with Thames Water sorting out repairs and compensating people for the damage.
• What was worrying people was the need to pay out £20,000 to reinstate their flat and the constant fear that the flooding might happen again.
• What residents were asking from Thames Water was a full and accurate response rather than assertions on soil composition and traffic in reports which local residents and their expert advisers believe were inaccurate.
• With regards to contents insurance there were some residents in the area that could not afford contents insurance and when their property was flooded lost everything .and almost lost their lives.
• In terms of whether the Council had the power to implement proposals such as lane rental charges, TfL had the lane rental charge powers, there were fines for over running projects with a number of London Boroughs fining Thames Water for this.
• The idea was for this to act as an incentive for Thames Water to comply with the regulations and make life easier for residents, there was also a huge demand on Council officers time to check everything.
• The aim was if there were penalties for work undertaken out of hours and powers for councils to step in and complete reinstatements and charge costs to the utility companies this would act as an incentive to reduce such failures from the utility companies.
• Residents were asking that Thames Water continued to monitor areas where the vulnerable pipes were located and the ground around the pipes.
• With regards to the challenges faced by residents south of Euston Road and areas of Goodge Street and Mortimer Road there had been 25 separate leaks in the last 2-3 years. There had been 100 to 150 road openings in the quarter square mile and it would be interesting to hear from Thames Water how that number could be reduced.

 

The Director of Environment and Sustainability and the Street works Authorisation and Compliance Manager made the following comments in response to the deputations and members questions:

 

• Camden continued to work with the South Hampstead Flood Action Group and Thames Water to mitigate surface water flooding in the area.
• The Council had commissioned a ground penetration survey along Belsize Road to scan for void space under the ground that could affect underground utility. This would help to provide information to support maintenance of the infrastructure.
• The Council was also working on the delivery of two sustainable drainage system schemes in the area, Priory Terrace and Goldhurst Terrace which was funded by Thames Water, the Council and local community infrastructure levy funds respectively.
• These schemes aimed to mitigate some of the surface water issues that had been discussed by the deputees.
• With regards to specific planning points raised around permitted development rights and Article 4, the government granted permitted development rights to what was considered to be small scale development without the need for planning permission.
• The government had also sought to expand permitted development rights to homeowners which meant that local authorities had less control over developments of that nature.
• Where works were permitted development, the local authority could regain control over these by showing Article 4 directions. The Council had already imposed a number of Article 4 directions that were relevant to this discussion.
• In the borough Article 4 removed permitted development rights for the excavation of basements which meant that all basements required an application for planning permission of which the impact of the development of any permission was considered on geology and hydrology and ensured that the scheme would not adversely affect drainage or cause damage to the water environment.
• South Hampstead already had an Article 4 Direction in relation to installing paving in front gardens which was connected to the creation of off-street parking, which was not supported by the Council’s policies and planning permission was required for those type of works.
• Belsize had similar article 4 preventions on paving of front gardens in addition the Council’s emerging local plan which was currently at the consultation stage considered flood risk, sustainable drainage systems and the risk of flooding from any source requiring flood risk assessment. The Council welcomed comments on the local plan, there was a link to the app on the Council’s website where residents could leave their comments.
• With regards to the lane rental proposals, Camden was part of the New London Lane Rental Strategy Group. The Council had only been granted the powers to have lane rental recently by the Department for Transport (DfT) and a group had been set up to establish a borough lane rental scheme for London.
• This was a London wide scheme rather than just Camden which local authorities would join to mirror the TfL scheme. The working group consisted of Camden, TfL, Kensington and Chelsea, Enfield and Lambeth.
• The group had been working with the DfT and TfL to establish a framework for the governance of the scheme that would be acceptable by the DfT.
• The draft scheme had gone out for consultation to all stakeholders for 6 to 8 weeks and would then go to DfT for final approval. There were a lot of legalities involved. The intention was for this to work the same way as the permit scheme worked which would give local authorities London wide more powers with utility companies.

 

Simon Moore – (London Water System Planning Manager Thames Water), Michael Benteke (London Stakeholder Engagement Manager Thames Water) and Emily Hedger (Systems Planner Thames Water) were present to respond to the deputations and Committee’s questions. They provided the following information:

 

·       Thames Water had looked through and would continue to consider the proposals in the deputations in more detail and were committed to having a follow up conversation with the deputees.

·       The organisation would come back with a response to all the issues raised in the deputations.

 

Action By: London Stakeholder Engagement Manager Thames Water, and London Water System Planning Manager Thames Water 

 

·       The thoughtful and constructive approach the deputees had taken was appreciated.

·       An update had been provided in the Thames Water report in the agenda on the network performance issues highlighted a year ago at the Scrutiny Committee meeting.

·       The report also provided a further update on where Thames Water was with the major replacement network programmes in Camden and some of the performance issues.

·       In terms of the unstable ground in Belsize Road and how this was affecting Thames Water assets this had been touched on in previous calls with the deputees in the past week. Therefore, in relation to the work the organisation had done and the data collected they had not seen any evidence which was why the void survey would be critical in providing an understanding of what was going on in the area.

·       The organisation was aware and appreciated the strength of feeling locally, when the issues with the burst water pipes occurred in the area Thames Water commissioned experts to investigate to understand the issues and cause of the failures in the area. The environment appeared to be an area which was hostile to buried cast iron pipes.

·       Although there had not been any direct monitoring of the pipes, however in terms of performance of the pipes, and numbers of bursts in the area, from experience if the issue were ground movement there would be an expectation that a lot more pipe bursts would have occurred in the area if this were a major factor.

·       It was important for the void survey of the area to be carried out, the outcome of which was waited on with great interest.

·       Thames Water did have concerns with the 15-inch pipe which was not uncommon in London.

·       This mains pipe on Belsize Road was being monitored by the organisation and was on the long list of schemes to be considered for replacement once the team were aware of how much money it would have.

·       There was 2000 kilometres of large trunk mains around London with 27,000 kilometres of distribution mains in London. This was a large network managed by Thames Water which required using a rational logical data driven approach to try and ensure that the expenditure of the network was spent fairly as well as providing the best benefit to its customers.

·       This included trying to bring down leakages as quickly as possible, reducing the number of bursts across the network and supply interruptions to customers.

·       This was being looked at in terms of investment as a business and the 5-year investment cycle.

·       Replacing water mains was a real priority for the organisation and therefore a large submission had been put forward to replace about 500 kilometres of pipes.

·       The 42-inch mains pipe appeared to exhibit a different mode of failure, this was a much newer pipe, here there appeared to be more of a local issue around ground movement due to climate change factors.

·       There appeared to have been something unusual that happened in that area and the whole section had been replaced as part of the repair of that pipe.

·       In terms of insurance and responsibility for the flooding caused by a burst main, Thames Water would take responsibility for that and would not expect customers to go to their insurers without contacting Thames Water. This appeared to be what had happened with most customers.

·       In terms of compensation, Thames Water did not pay direct compensation, however within settlements there was payment for hardship that took this into consideration and the intention was that everyone entitled was paid fairly. Old or damaged items were replaced with new items.

·       In terms of Insurance companies pulling out from insuring households within high-risk areas of flooding, this was a huge issue within the industry, which was being experienced globally, unfortunately Thames Water was not in a position single handedly to change this.

·       Thames Water had raised this issue directly with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as a serious issue to be looked at as well as a joint letter signed by several local authorities asking that the government look into this issue.

 

Invited to comment on the Thames Water response, the deputees noted that:

 

·       a lot of what had been said by Thames Water representatives was what had been heard before, however they looked forward to receiving a detailed response to the points and issues raised.

·       It was good news that the void ground penetration surveys were happening.

·       The issue for residents was that they did not have a point of access to the people at Thames Water making the decisions when things went wrong.

·       There was a need to convey back to the Head Office how they could better engage with the Council and residents.

 

In response Thames Water’s London Water System Planning Manager commented that he worked at the Head Office in Reading, although there were people in far more senior positions in the business helping to shape the plan, he was head of London Planning trying to build a plan for London. He had attended the meeting to talk about where the organisation was with the plan and to receive first-hand knowledge of local issues.

 

In terms of future plans the organisation could not commit to anything until it knew how much money would be allocated. Camden had two thirds of its pipes replaced, the organisation was aware that there were areas of Camden which had not yet had its pipes replaced where there were issues of poor performance and the aim was to ultimately replace all the pipes in the area. Thames Water was happy to commit to continue to engage with Camden and come back in a year’s time to provide an update on the long-term plan.

 

The Chair thanked the deputees for attending the meeting and their deputations informing them that the Committee expected a full response from Thames Water to the issues raised.

 

Action By: London Stakeholder Engagement Manager Thames Water, and London Water System Planning Manager Thames Water 

 

Committee members made the following comments:

 

·       Given what was happening, the current privatisation proposals did not appear to be a sensible approach to take and it was hoped that this would change in the future.

·       Given all that had been discussed it was worrying that Camden was still not viewed by Thames Water as a priority area.

·       How could Thames Water be trusted to invest properly in the improvements required across its network, when the true facts were not forthcoming in how much profit the company was making.

 

In response to Committee members questions, Thames Water representatives, advised that:

 

·       Risk mitigation of basement flooding was a top priority for Thames Water as well as the impact of supply interruptions to large areas and environmental impacts of flooding.

·       Thames Water had submitted an enhancement case which sought permission to spend over and above its regulatory capital to improve basement flooding mitigation. It was hoped that this would be approved as part of the next business plan.

·       Consequences and impacts of flooding were assessed from a model point of view and considered with local operational teams. Having meetings in the local areas also helped as it provided an in-depth picture of the situation in the area.

·       The replacement of pipes in the borough had reduced flooding to around a quarter of the bursts previously seen.

·       Most of the mains repairs carried out in Camden were through proactive activities found working through the fixed program on the network where leaks were located and repaired.

·       In terms of the comparison with the local boroughs, the London Water System Planning Manager could not say for sure why these boroughs were selected, other than to say that they were selected by the team over the past year and were in relatively close proximity to Camden. However, this did not mean that the replacement program had finished it was still ongoing with a lot more work still to do.

·       To complete the programme of replacement work would require Thames Water prioritising its money, water bills going up, investors increasing their investments in the business which they were committed to continue to do and also realising that it took time to complete.

·       In terms of solving the flooding in an area and London, a London Water Strategic Group comprising Thames Water, London Councils, Environment Agency and the GLA had been set up at the end of 2022. The long-term approach was to obtain funding streams and to develop a London wide strategy working with local community groups to look into the issue of flooding in the capital.

·       As already mentioned, the primary criteria for looking at an area was burst per kilometre of pipe.

·       The number of leakages in the Belsize Road area did not make it stand out from a purely data driven approach.

·       Thames Water would take away the information provided this evening and determine whether it pushed the Belsize Road area ahead of other pipes across the network.

·       Thames Water was developing a Public Value Framework approach for its decision-making criteria which took into account extra things that benefitted the environment and the community that was not just money and data driven.

·       Ultimately all the pipes would get replaced over a period of time, age was only one factor when considering pipe replacement, performance of the pipes in terms of bursts and leaks was a major factor.

·       All the pipes could not be replaced at once, they had to be replaced in the right order and would take a long time. Thames Water was looking to replace 300 to 400 kilometres of highest risk trunk mains pipes even at an accelerated rate this would not be completed until 2050.

·       There was also a deliverability issue because of the impact of replacement on London streets, with not more than 2 or 3 trunk main schemes being replaced at a time because of the traffic impact.

·       In terms of the statement made by Thames Water’s Operations Director at the Scrutiny meeting attended in February 2023 about the company making a loss of £11m whereas the press reporting the company making a profit of £400m, the company had not refuted this in the press.

·       This would need to be clarified, however the £11m loss referred to related to cash available to the company while the £400m referred to gearing and valued worth of debt.

·       It was important to point out that with regards to the proposals in Professor Travis document, rather than generate friction between the organisation and the Council which the proposals appear to encourage it would be helpful if Thames Water, the Council and other utility companies could continue to work together and build on the relationship established.

 

Thames Water officers were thanked for attending the meeting noting that the Committee expected a detailed response to the issues raised in the deputation.

 

RESOLVED –

 

THAT the report be noted.