There were two main issues at Brent Scrutiny yesterday evening, both vital to the safety of Brent residents. The meeting was chaired by vice chair Cllr Kasangra as Cllr Roxanne Mashari, the chair, is unwell with long covid.
The first item came under 'Topical Issue' and was a follow up to a previous Scrutiny discussion about the impact of flooding, particularly in the Kilburn area. Thames Water appeared to answer questions but unfortunately the Environment Agency, despite requests to attend, did not.
This is important because Thames Water are responsible for sewer flooding, Brent Council for surface water flooding, and the Environment Agency for river flooding. Clearly the 3 factors interact with each other, so a joint approach is necessary along with services such as the London Fire Brigade.
Mike Benke, (Thames Water Local Government Liaison Officer) and Alex Nickson (Lead Responder on July 12th Flooding) addressed the meeting and answered questions.
The July 12th rainfall was much more intense that had been planned for. Thames Water said that they had not responded as well as customers had a right to expect - they had just not been quick enough. They had been overwhelmed on the day and their response had not been good enough.
Thames had already implemented changes such as an increase in resources at call centres and were looking for other sustainable solutions and property protection measures.
Cllr Johnson asked how, with a housing target of 3,200 dwelling, Thames would work with the borough to ensure drainage was adequate. The Committee were clearly shocked to hear the Thames Water were not a statutory consultee on planning applications - they didn't have to be consulted on large developments, but councils do consult them. Thames are pro-active in looking at where developments are proposed. Thames was not anti-development by any stretch but tried to get developers to engage with them. They offer a free pre-application advice service on how to make developments sustainable. However, developers are under no obligation to consult with Thames.
Cllr Kasangra felt Thames should be a statutory consultee. Nickson said that in a perfect world they would be. He remarked that it was not just large development: the cumulative impact of small changes, such as paving over of gardens could be more significant than some large developments.
Thames has appointed an Independent Review into the July 12th events. It was arm’s length to ensure independence despite Thames Water funding it. The three experts will procure evidence from independent professional advisers. It would report in April or May with a particular focus on the Maida Vale areas.
Of 14 recommendations made by the internal review into July 12th nine had been implemented so far and Thames was 'planning for the worst rather than hoping for the best' and working with agencies including the London Fire Brigade. Some actions had been tested during August and October storms without any serious flooding. They would provide the council with an update on the outstanding 5 actions. They were working to improve their communication of events via social media.
A Brent officer said that the council were currently updating their flood planning and looking at attenuation of flood risk via green spaces. They were scoping the whole borough looking at major areas in danger of flooding and nearby green spaces. The surface flood risk plan for the whole borough would be updated and they were also working with neighbouring boroughs on a surface water management plan.
Cllr Mashari had sent in a question asking why Brent was not included in sewer infrastructure upgrade plans. Nickson said he was not aware that Brent was not being covered and would go back to colleagues for a response. There was a rolling programme of works on sewers with a low capacity for growth.
Cllr Hylton asked about the release of sewage into the River Brent. Thames Water said that was currently legal when capacity reached a certain point, but they no longer felt that this was acceptable. They were working with the government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency to change the system.
Thames Water had updated system whereby residents could provide details of instances of flooding. Prior to July complainants were asked to send in a questionaire response, now a website has been set up and they could complete it on-line but to avoid digital exclusion a written response could still be made. A record of the responses would be submitted to the Independent Review.
Cllr Janice Long raised the issue of burst water mains and the resulting flooding of roads. In some cases, traffic continued to use the road and the resulting back wash was the course of the flooding of homes lining the road. She asked that in such circumstances roads should be closed. Nickson said this was an excellent point and could be done as a result of liaison between the borough, Thames Water, the Police and the Fire Brigade.
The Committee made three information request:
1. To receive the Independent Review into the events of and response to the floods of July when that is made available
2. To also receive Thames Water's response to that review
3. To receive an update report to the Council's multi-agency flood plan and to make a committee date for this
4. Receive a report on the level of funding in Brent for drainage repairs compated to other London boroughs.
In addition they made a recommendation that the Planning Department of Brent Counciul work more closely with Thames Water on drainage issues arising from planning applications.
The review of Fire Safety is the second item on the above video (beginning at 1.01:15) and was not as comprehensive as the Flood item.
A Brent council tenant who listened carefully to the discussion said:
The scrutiny committee did not seem to know much about the subject they were discussing with the biggest fault being they made no mention as to how residents will be involved, which was the main focus of the Building Safety bill and they failed to even mention Dame Judith Hackitt's three reports on Building Safety and the Fire Safety Act which updated the Fire Safety Order (2005.
Their 'experts' seemed to believe that it is only new buildings that the Building Safety bill applies to but that is not the case, as it also applies to current buildings.
Although they mentioned cladding, no one mentioned fire doors but to be generous the absentee technical officer might have brought them into the discussion and Cllr. Conneely tried to raise issues like fire doors but was told it was a 'housing issue'.
They were also vague about the training competences required but if they had read the Health & Safety reports on Building Safety led by Mr. Baker, the Regulator, they would understand that any new Inspectors would need to start from level 7 (Honours Degree) and have post grad qualifications in Fire Safety and related areas. That is why it is so hard to find suitable candidates, as most surveyors only have an honours degree but nothing higher.
I could go on, but I suppose it was a start, but I would give it a 3 rating (out of 10) as the council needs to start reading all the material that has already been published, although they seem to be waiting for someone to guide them to it.
As Dame Hackitt said only 10% of councils are 'on the ball' e.g. Camden but unfortunately Brent is within the remaining 90%.
Details of the proposed legislation HERE
