Agenda item

To discuss with Thames Water the causes of outages in November 2023, the management of the crisis, and measures being put in place to avoid such outages arising in the future.

The Chairman reminded the meeting that the purpose of the item was to consider the outages in November 2023, the management of the crisis, and measures being put in place to avoid such outages arising in the future.  He welcomed three representatives from Thames Water: Tess Fayers, Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties; Paul Wetton, Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties; and Huw Thomas, Head of Engagement, Thames Valley and Home Counties.

 

The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties began with an apology to those affected by the water supply disruption in November.  She proceeded to lead a presentation on the water supply interruptions in the Guildford area (the slides for which had been published as part of the agenda papers).  The presentation provided an overview of the incident, the key lessons learnt and priority actions taken since, and investments and plans by Thames Water to improve the resilience of the Guildford water supply system.

 

The Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties informed the Committee of the characteristics of the Guildford water supply area.  He indicated that the water supply for the area consisted of two island zones, unconnected to the rest of the network, and that Guildford was reliant on treating water within the area as none was brought in.  The meeting was advised of the benefit of connecting the two island zones to improve supply resilience.  In addition, the Committee was advised that the daily demand within the Guildford supply area was 50m litres, which exceeded the storage capacity of the area’s service reservoirs. 

 

The Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties advised the Committee that on 2 November 2023 power fluctuations due to Storm Ciaran impacted eight sites, including four water treatment works, while Shalford water treatment works was affected by increased turbidity from the river sources supplying it.  He explained the variances in water pressure and supply likely to be experienced by customers during the incident.

 

With reference to the limited capacity of the Guildford system, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated the challenge of removing assets from supply to undertake the necessary improvements.  He advised the Committee that due to improvements introduced since November 2023 the Guildford system had been able to maintain supply during periods of very high turbidity at the Shalford water treatment works. 

 

The Committee was advised by the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties of the geographical area affected by the outages in November and the number of properties affected (14,520 properties had 12 or more consecutive hours of supply interruptions, of which 14,009 were household properties and 482 non-household properties). 

 

With reference to the provision of alternative water supplies during the outages, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties informed the Committee that tankers were used to supply over 2m litres to hospitals and other sensitive locations and to directly infuse the network.  She stated that 130 Thames Water staff were involved in running four bottled water stations from 4-12 November 2023.  The meeting was informed that during the incident priority was given to vulnerable customers on tiers one and two of the Thames Water Priority Services Register.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties confirmed that during the incident over 5,000 calls concerning it were received in Thames Water’s customer contact centre and a further 129 complaints had been made to date.  In response to a question from the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties, the Chairman indicated that the issue of compensation was best considered during the question session following the presentation.

 

With reference to lessons learned from the outages and actions planned, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that the leadership team across the Guildford and Godalming area had been improved.  He reminded the Committee of the investments programmes already agreed and suggested that long term it would be necessary to improve the resilience of the Guildford system by connecting it to one of the London water supply systems.  The Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties noted that such a connection would be many years in the future.  He explained that a change in working habits since the pandemic had lessened the drop in daytime demand in the Guildford area and a traditional emphasis on reducing both leakage and consumption would not be adequate. 

 

The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties informed the Committee that Thames Water acknowledged it needed to do more to support vulnerable customers during such outages other than focus on tiers one and two of their Priority Services Register.  She advised that Thames Water was working to improve the scope and scale of the Register.  The Committee was advised that feedback from Surrey’s Local Resilience Forum was critical of the service provided to the Farnham Road Hospital during the November incident.

 

The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties stated that communications with customers during and after the incident had not been timely, clear, and transparent.  She indicated that more information should have been provided sooner to inform customers of the challenges of the incident.  The meeting was informed that in terms of clear messaging it had at times been unhelpful to have a line of communications running to a Member of Parliament.  

 

With reference to the investment in the Guildford system, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties emphasised the importance of improving both the resilience of water treatment works and network connectivity.  The £93.1m of total investment committed to the Guildford system until 2025 and planned for the period 2025-30 was summarised.

 

The following information and responses were provided during the ensuing discussion:

 

·       A member of the public, Ms Zöe Franklin, who had provided notice of her question in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules, asked:

 

In November last year, thousands of residents across Castle, Onslow and St Nicolas and other wards found themselves without water, or with very low water pressure, for days.  Since then we have been waiting for compensation, many have received nothing or much less than they would expect given the length of the outage.  I would like to ask the committee chair to seek answers from Thames Water on how they are making compensation decisions relating to the outage and ask them to justify how it is fair or appropriate that residents on the same road and/or who experience similar length outages have received very different compensation amounts or none.

 

·       The Chairman invited the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties to comment on the points raised by the question from the member of the public.  In response, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties advised the meeting of Thames Water’s Customer Guarantee Scheme and levels of compensation.  The meeting was informed that the Thames Water account of any customer who had experienced interruptions lasting longer than 12 hours would automatically be credited with £30, with an extra £30 for every further 12-hour period that the water supply remained interrupted.  She indicated that compensation for business customers operated to the same time periods but with a £75 allowance rather than £30. 

 

·       The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties advised that flow and pressure measurements, together with property ground height were being applied to help establish eligibility for compensation.  In addition, Thames Water had undertaken to include factors such as intermittent supply, the uniqueness of the incident, and the time at which supply had been restored in reaching its decisions concerning compensation.  The meeting was informed that over 5,000 customers impacted by intermittent supply would receive compensation, with a total of over 18,000 customers receiving compensation; the amount of compensation for customers in the Guildford and Godalming area totalled £1.7m to date.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties agreed to examine specific ward concerns raised by Ms Zöe Franklin.

 

·       In reply to a question, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that it would not be possible to set up an application programme interface (API) to enable members of the public to connect to the flow and pressure measurements used by Thames Water to help establish compensation payments.  He undertook to see if further data could be made available to the public but highlighted the possible impact of different internal plumbing on water pressure at adjacent properties.

 

·       In response to queries from a Committee member, the compensation levels were clarified and the meeting informed that over 500 compensation payments were related to business customers.  The Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties advised that businesses might be able to recover lost income from an interrupted water supply through their business insurance.

 

·       With reference to lessons learned by Thames Water, the meeting was advised that the Asset Management Plan to fund investment in the Guildford system from 2025-30 was subject to OFWAT agreement.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that OFWAT’s determination was expected in June 2024. 

 

·       In reply to a question, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties advised the meeting of the limitations and challenges of the Priority Services Register and stated that Thames Water was to an extent reliant on others to build up the Register.  The Head of Engagement for Thames Valley and Home Counties suggested the Council might possess information relating to vulnerable people that could usefully be shared with Thames Water.  The Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Housing stated that during the incident the Council did provide Thames Water with information about vulnerable people and, as a result, she was aware that some vulnerable residents were not included in direct deliveries.  The Head of Engagement for Thames Valley and Home Counties noted the merit in a regular sharing of information on vulnerable users rather than only during an incident. 

 

·       With reference to communications from Thames Water during water supply incidents, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties identified this was an area of constant improvement for the company.  She noted that feedback from Surrey’s Local Resilience Forum confirmed the updates to the public during the incident had proved to be overly optimistic and that it was better to provide more candid information.

 

·       In reply to a question on the increased leadership and technical presence in the Guildford system following the incident, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties outlined the increase in staff.  In addition, he stated that prior to the incident all the water treatment works in the Guildford system had been unmanned and monitored by a central control system in Reading, whereas Shalford water treatment works was now manned 24/7. 

 

·       In reply to a question from a Councillor, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties outlined how the Priority Services Register was used during water supply incidents. 

 

·       With reference to the tankers used to supply the Farnham Road hospital, a Councillor suggested that engine idling was a noise nuisance for nearby residents and sound dampening was needed.  In reply, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that the issue would be reviewed.

 

·       A member of the Committee questioned the impact of the November 2023 incident on residents of Burpham and Merrow and a lack of communications from Thames Water.  The Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties confirmed that there had been supply issues throughout the Guildford system.  He was unable to state why Burpham and Merrow had not been included on Thames Water maps of the affected area.  In response, the member of the Committee indicated that priority water deliveries were undertaken by Thames Water in Burpham and Merrow which suggested Thames Water was aware the area was affected.  In response to a question later in the meeting, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties agreed to look further into the situation in Merrow and Burpham.

 

·       In reply to a question about the maintenance and replacement of the network, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties advised the meeting that approximately thirty visible leaks and fifteen detected leaks were fixed each week.  He advised the Committee that sample pipes from repairs helped monitor the condition of the network and inform decisions over future replacement works. 

 

·       In response to questions, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that the fail-safes at Shalford water treatment works were to guarantee water quality.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties and the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties invited Councillors to visit the water treatment works relevant to their wards.

 

·       A Councillor attending the meeting remotely criticised the apparent lack of engagement by Thames Water since the incident and asked if Thames Water would indemnify hospital trusts that had to close or reduce services because of water supply issues.  In addition, the Councillor referred to her questions submitted to Thames Water prior to the meeting requesting details of the company’s spending on infrastructure for Surrey since 2010 and then for the Borough of Guildford (broken down by ward and by water treatment works or reservoir), along with the cost for each treatment works and reservoir in the next four years.  The Councillor commented on the proposed pipeline from Pewley to Netley and asked for clarification as to whether it was two-way or not.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties thanked the Councillor for her feedback.  The Chairman requested that responses to the specific queries raised be provided for circulation to the Committee members.

 

·       A Councillor questioned whether there was sufficient capacity in the system to meet future demand and referred to work undertaken at Ladymead water treatment works.  The Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that managing water resources in the Guildford system was a challenge and advised that a second contact tank had been added to the Ladymead water treatment works.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties outlined the increased resilience gained from investing in an additional contact tank at Ladymead water treatment works.

 

·       In reply to a query, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that the current Water Resources Management Plan for the period until 2050 needed to be re-visited as growth and demand in the Guildford area was outstripping predictions and models.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties suggested the value in a colleague attending a future Committee meeting to discuss the Water Resources Management Plan with Councillors; the Head of Engagement, Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated he would liaise with the Senior Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) to progress such a meeting.

 

·       In reply to a question on the power supply for Thames Water sites and system resilience, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated that most of the water treatment works in the Guildford system had double feeds from the principal sub stations and Thames Water were not reliant on investment by UK Power Networks

 

·       In response to questions, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties informed the meeting of monitoring arrangements both for ground water and for the pipe network and indicated that discharge points for consented storm outfalls were not an issue for water treatment works in the Guildford system.

 

·       In reply to a question concerning poor communications from Thames Water about a burst water main in Shalford on Boxing Day, the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties acknowledged that such incidents were not viewed as routine by residents whereas they were considered business as usual for Thames Water.

 

·       In reply to a question, the Committee was informed that Thames Water was not a statutory consultee on all planning applications.  The Head of Engagement for Thames Valley and Home Counties acknowledged that Thames Water needed to improve its response-rate to consultations on large planning applications and suggested the matter might be discussed more fully with the Committee at a future meeting. 

 

·       In relation to communications, the Chairman suggested the value in increased collaboration within Thames Water.

 

·       A Councillor requested that the information to be provided to the Committee on how Thames Water investment plans fit with Guildford’s Local Plan should include Ash.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties stated that there were no investment plans for Ash Vale water treatment works.  She advised that there was capacity within the Ash Vale water treatment works to treat flow from an additional 3,000 properties.

 

·       With reference to the inaccessibility of bottled water stations for some residents during the November outages, a Committee member asked if the creation of more collection points had been considered.  The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties acknowledged that some vulnerable customers with mobility challenges could have been better supported although the company would help customers with transient vulnerabilities and respond to individual requests.

 

·       Responding to questions and statements, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties told the meeting of the duty of care Thames Water had to its staff and how the necessary rotation of staff had inadvertently led to miscommunication and misunderstandings.  He advised the meeting of instances of hostility towards Thames Water staff at bottled water stations. The Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties indicated the value of feedback about the location of bottled water stations. 

 

·       A Councillor asked why when the only remaining area affected by the outage was Onslow the decision was made to keep the bottled water station at the Spectrum open, rather than the closer one at the cathedral site.

 

The Chairman thanked the Director of Operations for Thames Valley and Home Counties, the Director for Clean Water for Thames Valley and Home Counties, and the Head of Engagement, Thames Valley and Home Counties for attending and answering questions. 

 

In concluding the item, the Chairman asked that the additional information requested by Councillors be forwarded to the Senior Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny), that Thames Water liaise with the Council to progress improvements to its Priority Services Register, and action be taken to progress a Committee meeting to consider Thames Water’s Water Resources Management Plan and the Councillor visits to relevant water treatment sites.