UPDATE Kilburn Life tweet on Monday April 25th
With recent experiences of flooding in the Brent area and the prospect of extreme weather events increasing, along with the large number of new developments in the area, Thames Water has been questioned at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. There appearances have resulted in more questions and requests for information. The Tracker table for the meeting on Tuesday April 25th includes updates for information requested at the February 22nd Meeting. LINK
Responses are still awaited on these important requests:
Below I list the Committee's requests and the answers received:
9th February 2023
To receive a copy of the independent review into the events of and response to the floods experienced across London in July when published and Thames Water’s response to the review.
Thames Water: All reports can be found here - London flooding response https://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/investing-in-our-region/london-flooding-response
Remainder requested 22nd February 2023
In relation to the Belsize Road burst
water main incident in December 2022, provide
detail on how Customer Guarantee Scheme
(‘CGS’) compensation is calculated; the
criteria for residents to receive compensation;
and detail
on how many residents’
compensation claims remained outstanding.
Thames Water: Where flooding has
occurred, we have not paid out compensation directly.
However, as part of their insurance claim customers are entitled to pursue a claim for distress and inconvenience as part of their claim settlement.
For customers who lost their
water supply, we have in place our Customer Guarantee
Scheme (‘CGS’).
This is a scheme by which we automatically pay money into a customer’s account if they lose water for a 12 hour period. If someone is without water for 12 hours, then we will credit their account £30 without them having to contact us. For every extra 12 hours, we will credit another £30. Ofwat’s CGS is entitled in the below scenarios:
i. CGS 2 – Emergency
interruption over 12 hours in duration
ii. CGS
6 – Planned
un-warned
interruptions over 4 hours in duration.
We defined a ‘planned job’ as a
job that Thames Water have been notified
of but not attended for over 24 hours.
iii. CGS
8 Overrun of a warning. Any duration if the interruption continues
after the time we said the water would be restored.
Our process is to use the data
available to determine the earliest start time of an interruption. This can either
be valve operations, pressure telemetry data from assets such as Critical
Pressure Points, Pressure Reducing Valve and various others, customer contacts
advising of No Water or NST site feedback such as a 0 pressure reading.
There are various systems for our team to gather this information, which we collect
as evidence for audit purposes so each reportable interruption has
an evidence pack to prove our reporting is accurate. Ofwat also have a rule
called precautional principle, this is where we have 2 sets of data given us different results, such as 2 different times recorded of a valve operation. In
these scenarios we have to take the worst case.
The average time people were out
of water was 7.5 hours but as a number were out for over the 12 hour
period, we have made 538 payments. We have written to more
than 300 other properties which qualified as they are listed in the name of a housing company or
local authority so we are finding out who will receive the payment.
With regards to recommendation 3 in the London Flood Review (LFR), provide further information on how many planning applications Thames Water had commented on/objected/challenged/made a recommendation for additional mitigation to avoid flooding over the last 5 years.
Thames Water: We do challenge planning applications, especially where they fail to meet London Plan / Local Plan policy requirements, although we can only object where there is clear evidence of not meeting existing planning policy requirements.
Planning applications reviewed in
Brent over the last 5 years:
i. 214 sites reviewed
ii. 321
planning applications relating to those 214 sites
iii. Of
those 321 planning applications, we received 213 applications direct
from the Council, the other 108 we identified ourselves.
iv. Of the 241 sites, 42 sites had
planning conditions requested
v. 63
specific conditions sought on those 42 sites
vi. Of
the 27 sites where we sought conditions and planning has been granted,
20 sites have had them attached but on 7 occasions the council
chose to approve without our requested conditions.
Provide detail on the investment in flood risk management in the Brondesbury Road area as this area has been prone to flooding.
Thames Water: Regarding Brondesbury Road, our reports don’t extend pre-2008. We have the following reports of flooding:
• 2021 - Hydraulic
(very heavy rain)
• 2013 - 1
Blockage
• 2009 - 2
Blockages
As such with only one internal
flood reported due to heavy rainfall, this Road is not high on the priority flood
action list. If Cllrs are aware of any unreported flooding, their assistance in
encouraging its reporting would be much appreciated.
