Agenda item

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

Members noted the updates on actions from the previous meetings.

Comments were made in relation to the following terms:

·       Action 119 - it was considered that the terms equity and equality had not been properly defined, so this action was not considered to be closed.

·       Action 122 – Members asked if it would be possible to see the Bus Survey results.

Actions:

Gordon Oliver to seek further clarification of the definitions of equity and equality from officers.

Gordon Oliver to ask for the Bus Survey results to be provided to Scrutiny Commission Members.

The Chairman read out an update on flooding/sewage issues. It was agreed that this would be appended to the minutes. The following matters were discussed in relation to the update:

·       It was explained that Gold Command meetings were only used for emergency incidents. However, Strategic and Tactical Groups had been set up for the recent floods. It was acknowledged that it would be useful to review the effectiveness of these groups.

·       The importance of maintaining sluice gates was highlighted, since these could exacerbate flooding if they could not be opened. The Environment Agency lacked powers to require landowners to maintain them.

·       It was suggested that people living in mills were often unaware of their responsibility to manage river levels and that this should be considered as part of future discussions with Thames Water and the Environment Agency.

·       Ownership of one of the bunds in Linear Park had changed hands and it was suggested that changes in ownership needed to be tracked so authorities knew who to contact if there was an issue.

·       Jon Winstanley committed to provide an update on the uptake of flood grants to the October meeting.

·       The threshold of 50 affected properties for local authorities to be eligible for flood grants was seen as a high bar for small local authorities like West Berkshire. DLUHC had been unwilling to make concessions.

·       It was noted that sonic equipment could detect leaks in pipes/sewers. It was suggested that Thames Water be asked if they were using this equipment.

·       In addition to sewer lining and manhole sealing, the need for major infrastructure was highlighted (e.g., London Road Pumping Station).

·       Although Thames Water had visited Hampstead Norreys on 12 April, they had not found evidence of pollution, despite ongoing sewage leaks from a manhole cover into the river.

·       The latest edition of the Newbury Weekly News had featured a story about a child falling into sewage and subsequently becoming unwell.

·       It was suggested that the Council’s ‘report a problem page’ could be used to log issues reported by residents. Officers confirmed that they always encouraged residents to report issues to Thames Water directly. Any issues reported through the website were referred onto the relevant organisation.

·       Apologies were given for officers not responding to Newbury Town Councillor Steve Masters’ request for West Berkshire Council to issue an abatement notice against Thames Water under Section 79e and section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. This was being investigated.

·       Thames Water was nervous about water levels remaining high into next winter. If water levels remained high over the summer, then there would be no respite from the issues, and Thames Water would be unable to implement any remedial measures.

·       It was confirmed that Richard Aylard had left Thames Water, but it was not known if he would be replaced. Tess Fayers was suggested as an alternative contact.

Actions:

·       Scrutiny Commission to review the Section 19 report at the October meeting.

·       Officers to prepare a report similar to that produced following scrutiny of the 2014 flooding response in order to provide reassurance that the Council was joined-up when it came to:

a) its flood and water management related strategies;

b) the various council teams that responded to such emergencies; and

c) communication between authorities.

·       For officers to consider how we might work more effectively with Thames Water and the Environment Agency on information/education campaigns.

·       For officers to provide an update about take-up of flood grants at the October meeting of the Scrutiny Commission.

·       Pumping of groundwater and cellar water and the need for a long-term solution to be discussed at the October meeting of Scrutiny Commission.

·       For Scrutiny Commission to consider how lessons learned were being  captured and how these could be used to inform Environment Agency decisions about future flood alleviation schemes.

·       Chairman of Scrutiny Commission to write to the Flood Forums and Sewage Groups to thank them for giving their time to gather data and evidence, advise and support residents, and challenge the authorities about what action they were taking.

·       Seek clarity at the October meeting of Scrutiny Commission that the WBC Section 19 report and any other relevant documentation and evidence gathered this winter/spring will be used to inform revisions to the GISMP documents.

·       At October Scrutiny, ask Thames Water how they log calls, ask why people were told they were the only ones affected, check that the automatic reply email system has been rectified, and ask why people have been told there was no evidence when there clearly was.

·       Scrutiny Commission to establish who was responsible for clean-up.

·       Scrutiny Commission to be updated about progress with Councillor Gourley’s motion that was passed at March Council.

·       Officers to provide a response to Steve Masters’ request for West Berkshire Council to issue an abatement order to Thames Water.

·       Seek an update from Councillor Gourley about whether action would be taken following the results of the Northbrook tests.

·       Councillor Stuart Gourley to share contact details for Tess Fayers at Thames Water.