In response to the Motion passed by Council on 27 June 2023 (Minute 18 refers) representatives from Thames Water will attend the meeting to give a presentation and answer questions from the Committee on their investment plans for Reading and on the company's work and operations within the Borough.

Further to the Motion passed by Council on 27 June 2023 (Minute 18 refers) and at the invitation of the Chair, Richard Aylard, Sustainability Director, James Bentley, Operations Director, and Nikki Hines, South Thames Valley Stakeholder Engagement Manager, of Thames Water gave a presentation and answered questions on Thames Water's investment plans for Reading and on the company's work and operations within the Borough. Thames Water’s presentation covered several different topics including:

·                Recent leadership changes, the company’s liquidity position and shareholder investment;

·                Thames Water’s refocused three-year Turnaround Plan;

·                Thames Water’s recently published five-year PR24 Business Plan (for the period 2025-2030);

·                An overview of how a Sewage Treatment Works functioned, including an explanation of storm discharges and the reasons for needing to make them;

·                Ways that storm discharges from Sewage Treatment Works could be reduced;

·                An explanation of why flows in foul sewers increased after heavy rainfall;

·                A demonstration of Thames Water’s interactive storm discharges map;

·                An overview of storm discharge points within the Borough;

·                A summary of the number of storm discharges that had taken place within the Borough in the previous four years;

·                An assessment of Reading’s performance in relation to storm discharges compared to the average across the rest of the Thames Water network;

·                An overview of Thames Water’s plan to reduce the number of storm discharges it made by the Government’s 2050 target date;

·                An overview of the impacts of pollution on river water quality and the Reasons for Not Achieving Good (RNAG) status in the Thames River Basin area;

·                Planned investment at the Reading Sewage Treatment Works;

·                Past, current and planned sewer maintenance works within the Borough; 

·                A brief overview of Thames Water’s approach to dealing with sewer abuse from residential properties and food service establishments;

·                Guidance on what customers should do if sewer flooding affected their home and ways to report problems to Thames Water;

·                An overview of how Thames Water communicated with Council officers, including detail on the resumption of regular liaison meetings.

The Committee discussed the presentation and asked several questions and. some of the points raised included:

·       Thames Water and the Council’s Highways & Traffic Services Manager advised the Committee that regular liaison meetings between relevant RBC officers and their counterparts at Thames Water had been reestablished to proactively address problems within the Borough. Thames Water had also provided Council officers with its Professional Partners Line number and its dedicated Highways Authority number to allow professionals from both sides to communicate effectively on a routine basis and in emergency situations.   

·       Thames Water responded to concerns that the Council had invested large amounts of money resurfacing roads in the Borough only for the newly resurfaced road to be dug up shortly afterwards by Thames Water to conduct repairs and maintenance. Concerns were also raised about the effectiveness of traffic management measures put in place by Thames Water and by their contractors when conducting emergency repairs and maintenance in the town. These often resulted in traffic problems, particularly at pinch points in the town. Recent examples included the Thames Water works in Caversham and on Shinfield Road, Oxford Road and Castle Hill.

·       Thames Water responded to concerns about an apparent lack of communication with residents when conducting emergency repairs and general maintenance works. This included a need to keep local residents informed about how and when repair works would be taking place and whether they would affect residents’ access to their homes. The Committee also expressed concern around the lack of explanative signage at roadworks that would allow people to know who was conducting certain roadworks and therefore who they should contact if there was a problem.

·       Thames Water responded to concerns relating to sewage/storm discharges into the Foudry Brook from the Reading Sewage Treatment Works. They advised that the treated effluent that came out the works was generally of good quality and met with Environment Agency standards. However, there had been occasions when untreated effluent had been discharged from the site. Such discharges had taken place when the works were working at full capacity and so were unable to process and treat the large volume of sewage travelling through the site. This tended to occur during periods of heavy rainfall which increased the amount of sewage needing to be processed. In such instances Thames Water had a permit from the Environment Agency to allow it to discharge effluent into the Foudry Brook. Thames Water took measures to avoid needing to discharge untreated effluent and, whenever possible, sewage would be stored in storm tanks and then treated, however this was not an option if the tanks had reached capacity. Thames Water advised that there had been a long-term average of 8 discharges from the location per year. The number of spills that took place each year would vary depending on if it was a wet year or a dry year. The current long-term average of 8 per year was below the Government’s target of 10 spills on average per site, per year by 2050. Thames Water reassured the Committee that it wanted to reduce the number of discharges from the site as much as possible and that a considerable amount of money had been invested to make improvements at the site that would hopefully help to bring the number of discharges down further.   

·       Thames Water responded to concerns relating to the odors and smells that sometimes came from the Reading Sewage Treatment Works and which particularly affected residents living in Whitley Ward. A considerable amount of work had taken place to investigate the causes of the smells and to try pinpoint the source. Thames Water outlined some of the remedial measures that had been instigated on the site, including targeted maintenance/repair works, changes to operational procedures and regular inspection visits from Environmental Health officers. All of which it was hoped would help to minimise unpleasant odors coming from the facility. Thames Water also encouraged residents to report incidents of strong smells emanating from the site as soon as possible so that any problems could be swiftly investigated and addressed.

·       Thames Water explained that its key performance indicators (KPIs) were approved by the regulator Ofwat and were published on its website. Performance against KPIs was reported in the company’s annual performance report. There were financial penalties if the company fell short of targets and bonuses for outperforming them. The KPIs and performance reports were available for public scrutiny on the company’s website.

·       Thames Water responded to concerns relating to surface water flooding and blocked drains and gullies on roads in the Borough. Some examples included the regular problems with flooding on Woodcote Road (A4074) and along Caversham Park Road. Thames Water advised that the causes of flooding could vary and that a holistic approach was required to investigate and resolve problems. Resumption of regular liaison meetings with Council officers would help to identify, establish responsibility for and address issues at problem locations. Thames Water undertook to investigate the specific locations mentioned above further.

·       Thames Water responded to concerns following the Crown Court judgment that saw the company issued with a £3.4m fine for allowing untreated sewage to enter a river near Gatwick Airport. Thames Water also described what it was doing to reduce sewage discharges into the tidal River Thames.

·       Thames Water responded to concerns about senior executives’ salaries, bonuses and perks in the wider context of rising customer bills. Thames Water advised that its former Chief Executive Officer and the current Interim Co-Chief Executive Officer both forwent any payment that might have been made to them in the previous year in recognition that Thames Water services needed to improve.

·       Thames Water responded to concerns about its customer services and to a request for the company to implement a call queuing system on its emergency helpline. Thames Water explained that it operated a priority services register for vulnerable customers which anybody over a certain age or who had a medical condition could register. Those who had signed up to the priority services register would receive a personal bespoke service should they experience any issues with services provided by Thames Water and, if they contacted the emergency helpline by phone, would go straightto the front of the queue. It was for this reason that a call queuing system could not be introduced as it was possible that a caller’s place in the queue would change if a priority user called in.  Thames Water also advised that it had multiskilled its customer services staff so that all staff were trained to take emergency calls during busy periods.

·       Thames Water responded to questions relating to the company’s finances. They advised that the company’s liquidity position was good. The Committee heard that Thames Water’s shareholders had invested significant amounts of money into the company and also that dividends had not been paid out to them for six years. Thames Water undertook to provide the Committee with a written technical explanation of what an “internal dividend” was.

·       In response to a question relating to the number of outstanding Section 81 notices in the Borough (a Section 81 notice was a notice that could be served to a utility company, in this case Thames Water, if their apparatus was found to be defective) Thames Water advised that it did not have the compliance statistics relating to the resolution of Section 81 notices to hand but that, generally speaking, Reading, whilst not one of the better performers, was not one of the worst performers either.

It was suggested at the meeting that Thames Water could attend the Committee on a regular basis to provide updates on the company’s performance and talk on specific topics such as the Climate Emergency.

Resolved –  That Thames Water’s representatives be thanked for their attendance and for their presentation and for responding to the Committee’s questions.