Hurray! Thames Water turns up to flush sewage from the Wealdstone Brook

 

Sewage pouring into the Wealdstone Brook

Local residents were delighted today when Thames Water turned up to flush out the Wealdstone Brook. The action followed weeks of campaigning and complaints to both the Environment Agency and Thames Water.

Households and care homes backing on to the brook were experiencing their 6^th week of continuous pollution with the pungent bad egg odour evident to all. Residents were unable to open their windows because of the potentially dangerous gases filling their rooms. Brent Council had told the Environment Agency that one gas could be hydrogen sulfide LINK . Campaigners had suggested that a criminal negligence case could be possible over the lack of action by Thames Water, despite a total of at least 7 complaints over the problem.

 

Thames had promised to begin work on cleansing the brook at the weekend. Both cleaning the river and testing of the gas with specialist equipment costs money which the the Forum thought Thames appeared reluctant to spend LINK.

 

They suggested air samples could be taken from conservatories and the rear communal lounges of care homes as well as bedrooms. With children at home for the school holiday and families celebrating various religious holidays together it was  important that any illnesses and potential gas poisoning should be reported.

 

Brent Parks Forum also feared that any wild life that had been in the brook at the important microbial level has probably been damaged beyond repair.

 

The action was long overdue and Wembley Matters hope that the flushing works and we are able to update readers with far more pleasant images of the brook.

Thames Water has not yet started cleaning of sewage in Wealdstone Brook

UPDATE FROM BHRA:  Cleaning and wash down of the Wealdstone Brook sewage pollution  did not start on 31st March nor on 1st April as had been promised.  No works have started to date. Thames Water is aware of the food packages that hopefully are picked up ahead of the rats.

Two locations causing the sewage that are most likely the cause(s) is (are) Rosslyn Crescent and Elexus garage and offices close to Rosslyn Crescent in The Hawthorne Crescent. Thames Water mentioned that no further sewage flow is apparent at the moment, but observers within Brent and Harrow Rivers Alliance (BHRA) have continued photographing the  pollution that is increasing in the very slow moving water.

We await confirmation from Thames Water that the cause has been found - nothing yet. All the the photographs are being kept on file and timed dated.

Thames Water baulks at cost of clearing worst ever sewage pollution of the Wealdstone Brook

From Brent and Harrow Rivers Alliance  BHRA -  Harrow Friends of Wealdstone Brook  Supported by Brent Parks Forum.   

 

 

 

 From This:  Ducks and Wagtails feeding...

 

 

 To This:  60m and growing raw sewage left untreated with no source yet found  

Since around the 6th March there has been a constant flow of sewage into the Wealdstone Brook from a still unidentified site in Harrow.

The Environment Agency were immediately advised and have not responded to repeated updates of  the incremental thick raw sewage flow that continues unabated.   Thames Water - were also advised in the correct manner direct to their office after the contact Pollution Line was in effect blocked with calls about pollution events (we assume).

Brent Officers; and the CEO of Thames Water attended an unprecedented meeting at the Brook at Woodcock Park on 28th March and took part in a morning walkabout of the site and  saw for themselves the worst, longest running pollution event since recording has begun.

We are awaiting action from Thames Water who were concerned that they would have to deploy operatives from another job to attend the site and the cost of the job itself - which involves flushing a tank of clean water into the brook to move the daily increasing 50-70 m of sewage along! 

There was no  reaction from Thames Water to the imminent threat to the wildlife all the way along past the Civic Centre, three schools and into the River Brent through the Wildlife restoration Project that Thames21 runs. The pollution will slowly increase and move along the waterway!   Unless the source is found and remedied the threat to wildlife will be compounded.   As it has been left since the 10th March - 'vacuuming' - out the pollution is now out of the question - Thames Water do not have tanks large enough to cope with the volume that is increasing steadily.   A factory misconnection is suspected......

Now over 400 food packets (we think out of date), have been thrown into the Brook at the trash screen in Kenton - which has now got thoroughly stuck in the midst of the sewage and the bags are exploding open to feed the sewage fungus in the gel - sludge.   This amount of plastic in the sewage will act as fungus and e-coli carriers as they move towards the wildlife water improvement projects further downstream.   

Volunteers cannot reach them where they are located and have come to rest!  

Thames Water could send in operatives but they are concerned about the cost!   

We await some action to stop the sewage flow into what was a duck filled brook!  

We thank the Brent Engineer - who has visited and has now written a full report of the Brook and his findings.    We also thank Brent Parks Officers who are and continue to be supportive, within their capacity.   

It is possible that that the first signs of sewage were on 17th, 23rd and 27th February when reports to the Environment Agency mentioned murky brown water and silt. The sewage outbreak was reported on February 28th.  If an early warning system was in place Thames Water might have investigated much earlier and resolved the issue.

A Thames Water officer has indicated that the cause of the sewage  flow has been located and Friends of Woodock Park have emailed to confirm the location and the need for flushing.  They assume that the sewage currently visible from Becmead Avenue may indicate an equivalent amount underground at the source.

The Wealdstone Brook, marked in blue on an extract from an 1895 Ordnance Survey map

Flood and Fire at Brent Scrutiny - are the actions adequate?

 

 

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

Independent London Flood Review announced into flooding events of July 2021

The London Flood Review has been set up to examine the flash flooding that affected many parts of the capital in July 2021.  The review seeks to better understand the extent and causes of these floods, to assess how the drainage systems performed, and to recommend how the increasing risks of future flooding events can be managed.

The review, which has been commissioned by Thames Water, will play an integral part in ensuring the company future proofs its infrastructure to protect its customers, their communities and the environment as such severe weather events look set to become the norm across the UK.

The review will also play an important role in improving collaborative working between all parties responsible for managing future flooding risks. As part of its focus, the review will provide insights on London’s wider drainage infrastructure and broader recommendations that could be adopted by all organisations with surface water management responsibilities.

 

INDEPENDENT REVIEW INTO THE FLOODING IN LONDON ON 12 & 25 JULY 2021

Terms of Reference

1. Why has Thames Water commissioned an independent review?
 

On 12 and 25 of July 2021, London experienced extreme rainfall events that led to extensive flooding, with more than a thousand homes and businesses flooded, and health, social and transport infrastructure also affected. Given the scale of the impact on its customers and local businesses, Thames Water has taken the unusual step of commissioning an independent review into the flooding as the organisation believes it is important to understand the root cause of the flooding, how its assets performed and to learn lessons so the company and other parties may better prepare for future risks, in an open and transparent way.

This review will also assist with Thames Water’s role (as a Risk Management Authority) in supporting Local Authorities in undertaking their flooding investigations as required by Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). Thames Water’s ambition is that the review should take no more than 6 months, with interim reports published as it progresses. This timeframe is planned so that the review concludes within a period where the findings are relevant to the key stakeholders and also are able to inform Thames Water’s draft PR24 business plan. As such, the review must balance the desire for comprehensive scope, level of detail and stakeholder engagement, with the need to complete within this timeframe.

This will mean that the review will primarily focus on the performance of Thames Water’s assets, within the context of other Risk Management Authorities’ assets, and be developed using existing Thames Water models.

A Brent Council spokesperson said: 

Brent Council welcomes the Independent Review into the flooding events of last summer that has been commissioned by Thames Water . We look forward to working with the review body to inform it's evidence base and to assist the review to meet its objectives.

2. What is the aim of the independent review?

The review has four core objectives. To:

1) Research, understand and report on the ‘what, when, why and how’ of the two July storms

 

Key to the investigation is capturing as accurately as possible what occurred, where and how customers were affected, i.e. the number and type of properties impacted, the type of flooding (internal/external, surface/sewer) they experienced etc. This needs to be undertaken in the context of understanding the storms that occurred i.e., characteristics of rainfall and also where it occurred because the impact will not be the same across the different affected areas. This will also identify whether there were other factors (such as high tide, time of day etc) that potentially contributed to the flooding and what impact
they might have had.

2) Examine the flooding mechanisms and to consider the performance of drainage systems against design standards.

 

This will determine how well Thames Water’s assets performed on 12 and 25 July in accordance with the duty set out in Section 94 of the Water Industry Act.

 

 The assessment should be of Thames Water’s drainage and sewerage assets in general in the affected boroughs, with a specific focus on recent flood alleviation schemes, including Maida Vale, Counters Creek and Westbourne Grove and their performance against their project objectives (this will include where Thames Water has installed FLIPs and other local flood risk management measures).

3) Consider how changes to existing and planned drainage system works, operations and/or policies might have alleviated the flooding and make London more resilient to future storms.  

 

Whilst the focus of the recommendations will be on the public sewerage system, these must be made within the context of the interaction between the Thames Water operated and maintained public sewerage system and third-party drainage and flood risk management systems. The review should highlight wider points on the future of the London’s sewerage and drainage system and identify key opportunities that should be considered in Thames Water’s DWMP and PR24 Business Plan, and other stakeholders’ plans and programmes.

4) Be as evidence based as possible.

Further lines of inquiry may be included as raised by the participants of the review, but as noted previously, these should not detract from the aim of achieving the core objectives within the stated timeframe.

3. How will the independent review be run and managed?

In order to be properly independent, the review cannot be led by Thames Water, but neither can it be entirely independent of Thames Water, as Thames Water is the major provider of information and resources for the review and will be a key recipient of its recommendations.

The structure of the Independent review is as follows:

1. An Independent Expert Group (‘IEG’) that will lead the review. The IEG’s role is to:
a. Agree the terms of reference and scope for the review, including the brief for thecontractors, in consultation with the Strategic Stakeholder Panel
b. Work with Thames Water to appoint the contractors to support the IEG
c. Work with the contractors to produce the interim and final reports in consultation with the Strategic Stakeholder Panel
d. Be responsible for the successful outcome of the review
e. Stand behind the findings of the review
f. Promote the review and the dissemination of its findings, including attending any potential scrutiny/inquiry meetings.

The IEG will consist of three experts with industry-leading knowledge and experience in sewerage and drainage modelling, legislation and regulation, and flood risk management. The experts will be appointed by and paid by Thames Water, but be otherwise independent.

A key early stage to the review will be an assessment by the IEG of available data/models in order to agree what gaps may exist and how best to resolve these gaps within the time available.

2. A Strategic Stakeholder Panel (‘SSP’) comprising representatives from the key strategic organisations in London with a responsibility for and interest in surface water and sewer flood risk management. The SSP will be consulted on the scope and objectives of the review, inputting into its course, receiving, and (where appropriate) endorsing, promoting, and
enacting its findings. The SSP will include senior representatives from:

a. Greater London Authority
b. Transport for London
c. London Councils

d. London Drainage Engineers’ Group
e. Environment Agency
f. Consumer Council for Water
g. Ofwat (as an observer)
h. Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee
i. Thames Water

The IEG will, as a minimum, meet with the SSP at each key stage (see ‘Key Deliverables’ below):
• Inception meeting to discuss and agree the Terms of Reference
• Meeting to review the work programme and agree data requirements from the SSP and other parties
• Review the findings of each stage of the review ahead of publication of the interim reports
• Review the findings of the final report and development of a non-technical summary

3. A contractor (Mott McDonalds) to provide the technical capability and resources to undertake the work detailed in a brief approved by the IEG. The contractors will be procured and funded by Thames Water, but report to and be managed by the IEG.

 

4. Key Deliverables

The following key deliverables are included to provided structure and clarity around what outputs are required. It is intended that each stage will build on the prior one:
• Stage 1: Full assessment of impact of the storms, detailing the nature of the storms that occurred and the impact (extent) of the flooding (who and what was flooded).
• Stage 2: Assessment of the flooding mechanisms and a technical view of where and how  flooding occurred.
Stages 1 and 2 together will form the ‘baseline statement’ for the review:
• Stage 3: Explanation of the performance of the sewerage system, including stating whether the sewerage system and key flood alleviation schemes performed to the intended levels of service.
• Stage 4: Lessons learnt - details of where improvements to the sewerage system and potentially third-party assets and policies may be appropriate. To be completed by end of April 2022.

A report will be published for each of the stages.