Agenda item

Purpose: To review Thames Water's investment priorities within West Berkshire.

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he had been nominated as Chairman of Newbury Flood Action Group. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

(Councillor Biyi Oloko declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he had previously worked for Thames Water. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

The Commission considered a presentation from Thames Water on their future investment plans for West Berkshire (Agenda Item 6). The presentation addressed issues raised by Members that had been sent to Thames Water in advance of the meeting. The presentation covered the following topics:

·         Improving River Health

·         Overflows

·         Sewage treatment works

·         Investment

·         ‘Go to Green’

·         Groundwater Impacted System Management Plans (GISMP)

·         Clean water

·         Planning

·         River Pang Chalk Stream Project

·         Plan for Reducing Harm to Water Quality in the River Thames Catchment

·         Leakage

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter was invited to address the meeting as Portfolio Holder for the Environment and Transformation. He highlighted that climate change resilience was a key plank of the Council’s Environment Strategy. Concern was expressed that Thames Water lacked focus on sustained improvements for flood risk management. Thatcham had been badly affected by flooding in 2007, with other areas affected more recently. Thames Water had previously supported the Thatcham Flood Water Management Plan, but had had not signed up to the most recent proposal. They were asked how they would help Thatcham and other local communities in future. Thames Water confirmed that known problem areas were being tackled. They offered to arrange a meeting to discuss the Thatcham scheme. It was stressed that investment had to be prioritised in terms of need and the ranking process was overseen by the Consumer Council for Water. Thames Water was also increasing spend on sustainable drainage which had a role in managing flood water, and they were keen to work with local authorities and others on such schemes. If the Council had specific issues then they would explain what they were doing to address these or explain why they could not help.

Action: Thames Water to contact Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter to arrange a meeting regarding flood protection works in Thatcham.

Members asked why investment in capacity had lagged behind need and why things had come to a head now. It was noted that investment in the network took place to support new development and to support predicted increases in population. Thames Water always sought to have spare capacity at sewage treatment works. Occasionally development came forward more quickly than expected, or calculations were proved wrong, but often the problem was with surface water, particularly where a development was poorly designed or constructed with cross-connections between surface and foul sewers. If surface water could be kept out of foul sewers, then Thames Water could cope.

Members asked if the oversight process was fit for purpose. It was explained that approvals were often contracted out to third parties who did not check whether schemes had been built in accordance with agreed plans.

Thames Water was asked if they were lobbying central government on this issue. They suggested that the secondary legislation required to remove the automatic right of developers to connect to the network had not been enacted due to lobbying from housebuilders. The water industry was working with local authorities and MPs to lobby Defra on this issue. Challenges were greatest in areas with high groundwater levels and work was ongoing to find where surface water was going to foul sewers, but this was particularly challenging. 

Members highlighted an issue with the sewer to the west of Theale, which was being extended to Aldermaston, and the local pumping station had been severely overloaded on occasion. Outline planning permission had been granted for a major development of circa 430 homes and Thames Water was asked about their planned investment. Thames Water confirmed that their Modelling and Operations Teams were working together to investigate the network and understand what improvements were needed to ensure that the network would be able to cope with the additional flows. The Systems Modelling Group had also done a study to consider growth across the whole of Theale.

Other developments at North Newbury and Compton had also been highlighted as concerns by Members. It was confirmed that in North Newbury, work to accept the sites was ongoing, and Thames Water was working with both developers to understand build and occupation rates so they could complete their works in time. An earlier blockage was thought to be a one-off event. There were no concerns upstream of Dene Way pumping station and efforts were focused on the downstream network. The pumping station would be upgraded in the medium to long-term. In the short-term, the downstream network would be kept free of debris and silt. For Compton, Thames Water expressed concern that a family had been restricted in their toilet use for 120 hours, and asked for further details. Improvements had been carried out in the village including 380m of leak-tight lining, sealed manholes, and patch repairs to a sewer. Thames Water was also looking at plans for redevelopment of the former animal research centre and it was agreed that the homes should not be occupied until existing issues had been addressed.

Action: Thames Water to liaise with Councillor Carolyne Culver regarding the affected household in Compton.

A question was asked about independent verification of discharge monitoring. It was confirmed that monitored discharges were reported to the Environment Agency (EA) annually. The EA could check the records and equipment at any time. Where there were local concerns about monitors not reading correctly, webcams could be installed. This had been done at Mortimer and an offer was made to do the same at Kintbury if necessary.

Members expressed concerns about the time taken to repair some leaks and highlighted long-standing issues at Kintbury and Enborne. Thames Water indicated that repair times were decreasing and targets had been achieved for the last three years. However, it could be challenging to find the source of leaks, particularly where they were not visible on the surface. In some cases, issues were found to relate to natural springs.

Action: Thames Water to liaise with Councillor James Cole regarding installation of a webcam at Kintbury, as well as figures for repair times and long-standing leaks at Kintbury and Enborne.

Members indicated that effluent was held and treated at the sewage treatment works in Thatcham before being discharged as potable water to the River Kennet. However, there had been an incident where a poisonous chemical had been put into a drain and this had subsequently been discharged into the river. Thames Water stated that treated effluent was not potable. It was recognised that unscrupulous individuals sometimes discharged illegal substances into manholes, which could kill the bugs that carried out biological treatment.

A further question was asked about whether there was sufficient storage capacity at Thatcham to avoid discharge of untreated effluent into the river. It was confirmed that where contamination was detected, effluent could be diverted to storm tanks, which would give up to 12 hours of protection. However, sewage was not routinely sampled. Members encouraged Thames Water to consider additional storm water storage facilities at Thatcham.

A question was asked about the use of technology and how Thames Water would reduce its energy consumption and decarbonise their operations (e.g. through hydrothermal processes). Thames Water explained that they used natural processes to treat sewage. The carbon impacts were associated with processing the sludge, which was taken to a treatment centre where it was subjected to thermal hydrolysis followed by anaerobic digestion and dewatering. This produced a high quality ‘cake’ product for use in farming.  Thermal destruction was being considered due to issues with micro-plastics, anti-microbial resistance and pesticide residues. However, the costs would be huge. Currently, floating and land-based solar power and wind turbines on Thames Water’s estate were supplying 25% of their power needs. Some sites were self-sufficient or net exporters to the grid.

Concern was reiterated about the Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme, which had been dropped by Thames Water after 14 years of partnership working.

An issue was raised in relation to streetworks - the process seemed uncoordinated and prone to delays and performance concerns. Members asked that these concerns be recognised and given a high level of focus. Thames Water acknowledged that streetworks were problematic everywhere. An offer was made to broker discussions between the Council and Thames Water’s Streetworks Team and to look at individual concerns. It was noted that they sought to minimise disruption and to comply with regulations. Reassurance was provided that poor performance was not related to profits or cost-cutting – shareholder dividends had not been paid for five years.

Action: Thames Water to arrange a meeting between Councillor Richard Somner and the Streetworks Team.

Members expressed concern about the proposed Sandleford development, which would have significant implications for the Newbury network. It was noted that incentives for water efficiency measures could be worth £3.6 million to the developer. Thames Water was asked how reduced water supply rates for new developments could be incorporated into Local Plan policies. Also, Members asked if additional land would be required within the London Road Industrial Estate and about upgrades through to Thatcham sewage works. Thames Water offered to provide details of the Local Plan expert within the organisation. Thames Water confirmed that they wanted to reduce consumption, since that minimised the need for additional investment. It was noted that the revenue correction mechanism meant that Thames Water was penalised for additional water sold. It was suggested that major new developments could have dual potable and grey water systems, which would reduce demand for fresh water and reduce waste water. New developments should also have good surface water drainage / sustainable drainage. These issues needed to be resolved at the planning stage.

Action: Thames Water to provide contact details for their Local Plan expert.

Members noted that surface water was overloading the Mortimer Sewage Works and asked where this entered the system. Thames Water indicated that water was infiltrating sewers in wet weather when the ground was saturated, but they did not know where. There had been 34 discharges at Mortimer between January and March, but none since then. The monitor was being checked using a webcam. If the figures were confirmed, then it would go on the list of ‘high spillers’ and measures would be identified to address this.

An issue was highlighted with a development in Tilehurst South and Holybrook where residents were paying two fees because Thames Water had not adopted a pump. Thames Water requested further details.

Action: Councillor Biyi Oloko to provide details of the affected development.

A question was asked as to whether the £1.25 billion that Thames Water had committed to spend would be enough to prevent further discharges of sewage into watercourses. It was confirmed that the commitment was to achieve a 50% reduction in the duration of discharges by 2030, and an 80% reduction in sensitive catchments. However, the network had been designed to overflow to the environment when capacity was exceeded and it would take much more than £1.25 billion to address this.

Members asked for further information about sewage works that were operating close to capacity. Thames Water indicated that the issue was related to the quality of the effluent, which had to meet strict standards. Efforts were focused on improving the quality of the treatment in order to build more headroom. The more sewage put through the works, the less treatment it received.

Members queried a gap in the monitoring of discharges at Stratfield Mortimer. Also, a question was asked about a suspected pollution incident at Reading and the categorisation system. It was explained that a pollution incident was an acute problem when something went wrong – these were categorised from 1 (complete disaster) to 4 (no impact). All pollution incidents were investigated and categorised. These were different to discharges, which was how treatment works were designed to operate. Discharges would only be categorised as a pollution incident if fish were killed or if there was some other environmental impact. Thames Water offered to look into individual incidents if required.

Thames Water was asked about a recent incident affecting Northbrook Stream adjacent to the A4. This had been reported by local residents who had not received a satisfactory response. It was explained that pollution reports were fast-tracked through the customer centre and someone dispatched to investigate within two hours 24/7. Thames Water urged people to report pollution incidents immediately.

Action: Thames Water to liaise with Councillor Steve Masters regarding the Northbrook Stream pollution incident.

Members asked to see a copy of Thames Water’s Carbon Net Zero Plan.

Action: Thames Water to send a copy of their Carbon Net Zero Plan to Councillor Adrian Abbs.

Thames Water was asked about how they supported a river to recover after a pollution incident. They confirmed that Thames Water was prosecuted after each major incident. This could take 5-6 years, and any fines would go to the Treasury. Now, Thames Water undertook voluntary reparation - they would meet affected parties to discuss their financial losses and what could be done to put things right (e.g. compensating for lost income, renting fishing rights on alternative waters, etc). Fish could be restocked once water quality recovered, but fresh water, sunshine and fresh air helped invertibrates to recover. It was noted that Thames Water had very few incidents that resulted in major fish kills.

Officer provided further detail regarding the outstanding element of the Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme. The scheme was cited as an exemplar of flood alleviation, which included sustainable drainage to hold water back and relieved pressure on the Thames Water sewer. The Council had worked closely with Thames Water to ensure that it met their criteria. Although the funds sought were relatively modest, when match-funding was considered, this resulted in a major shortfall. The Council was disappointed that Thames Water had withdrawn their support and asked if the scheme could be reviewed. Thames Water undertook to find out why it had been rejected and to reopen discussions.

Action: Thames Water to review the Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme in discussion with Jon Winstanley (Service Director – Environment).

The Chairman thanked Thames Water for their attendance, and noted that a number of actions had arisen from the discussion, and that there were also things that the Council could do to support Thames Water particularly in relation to the Local Plan and new development.

Action: West Berkshire Council to add its weight to lobby central Government to enact the relevant legislation to remove the automatic right of developers to connect to the sewerage network.

Action: West Berkshire Council to ensure that Thames Water’s comments were fully consider in the new Local plan, particularly regarding the need for large new developments to have dual potable and grey water systems.