AGENDA
Meeting Environment Committee Date Wednesday 15 January 2020 Time 10.00 am Place Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings.
Members of the Committee Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Shaun Bailey AM Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) Nicky Gavron AM Tony Arbour AM David Kurten AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM
A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat Tuesday 7 January 2020
Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Lauren Harvey, Committee Officer; Telephone: 020 7983 4383; Email: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458
For media enquiries please contact Aoife Nolan, External Communications Officer, Telephone 020 7983 4067; Email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report.
This meeting will be open to the public, except for where exempt information is being discussed as noted on the agenda. A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government bodies, including the use of film, photography, social media and other means is available at www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Openness-in-Meetings.pdf.
There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. There is limited underground parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis. Please contact Facilities Management on 020 7983 4750 in advance if you require a parking space or further information.
v1 2015
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].
Certificate Number: FS 80233
Agenda Environment Committee Wednesday 15 January 2020
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements
To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.
2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;
(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and
(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).
3 Minutes (Pages 5 - 48)
The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 October 2019 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
The appendix to the minutes set out on pages 9 to 48 is attached for Members and officers only but is available from the following area of the Greater London Authority’s website: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
3
4 Summary List of Actions (Pages 49 - 82)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to note the closed, completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings.
5 Action Taken under Delegated Authority (Pages 83 - 92)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to note the recent action taken by the Chair under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, namely to agree:
(i) The output for the 22 May 2019 meeting’s discussion on green spaces in London; and
(ii) The output for the 27 June 2019 meeting’s discussion on Tube dust.
6 Climate Change and Extreme Weather (Pages 93 - 94)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Howie Ripley, [email protected]; 020 7084 2850
The Committee is recommended to:
a) Note the report as background to putting questions to invited guests on climate change and extreme weather and note the subsequent discussion; and
b) Delegate authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
7 Environment Committee Work Programme (Pages 95 - 98)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Howie Ripley, [email protected]; 020 7084 2850
The Committee is recommended to note the progress on its work programme and note the topics agreed by the GLA Oversight Committee on 17 December 2019 for its meetings from January to March 2020.
4
8 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 13 February 2020 at 10.00am in the Chamber, City Hall.
9 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent
5
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2
Subject: Declarations of Interests
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 15 January 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests1;
2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and
2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.
3. Issues for Consideration
3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:
1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v1/2019 Page 1
Member Interest Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM European Committee of the Regions Gareth Bacon AM Member of Parliament, Orpington; Member, LB Bexley Shaun Bailey AM Sian Berry AM Member, LB Camden Andrew Boff AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Leonie Cooper AM Member, LB Wandsworth Tom Copley AM Member, LB Lewisham Unmesh Desai AM Tony Devenish AM Member, City of Westminster Andrew Dismore AM Len Duvall AM Florence Eshalomi AM Member of Parliament, Vauxhall Nicky Gavron AM Susan Hall AM Member, LB Harrow David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM Deputy Mayor Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Alternate Member, European Committee of the Regions Caroline Russell AM Member, LB Islington Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Fiona Twycross AM Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience; Chair of the London Local Resilience Forum Peter Whittle AM
[Note: LB - London Borough]
3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:
- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at
(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or
(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions
- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and
- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting
UNLESS
- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).
3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.
Page 2
3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.
3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.
3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.
3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on- line database may be viewed here: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.
3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.
3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4383 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES
Meeting: Environment Committee Date: Thursday 10 October 2019 Time: 10.00 am Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA
Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Present:
Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM Shaun Bailey AM Andrew Dismore AM David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from the Deputy Chair, Léonie Cooper AM, for whom Andrew Dismore AM substituted; and Nicky Gavron AM, for whom Joanne McCartney AM substituted.
2 Declarati ons of Interests (Item 2)
2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
2.2 Resolved:
That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 5 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 10 October 2019
3 Minutes (Item 3)
3.1 Resolved:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2019 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)
4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
4.2 Resolved:
That the outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Committee be noted.
5 Action Taken under Delegated Authority (Item 5)
5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
5.2 Resolved:
That the recent action taken by the Chair of the Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the response to the London City Airport Draft Master Plan 2020-2035, be noted.
6 Flooding in London (Item 6)
6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on flooding in London to the following invited guests: Cassie Sutherland, Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority (GLA); Alex Nickson, Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water; Sarah Smith, Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency; and Steve Iles MBE, Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council.
6.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 1.
Page 6 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 10 October 2019
6.3 During the course of the discussion, the Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: The timescales for and details of the forensic analysis of what caused the flood in Finsbury Park, and how that information would be used for future learnings; Whether Thames Water committed to compensating all consequential loses following the flood; and A copy of Thames Water’s performance report, detailing the profit made by the organisation over a three-year period.
6.4 During the course of the discussion, the Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: The list of 88 projects to reduce the risk of fluvial flooding included in the Environment Agency’s six-year programme; An update on the Silk Stream project; and A chart that contains the areas of flood risk across London, whether local authorities have designated them, and clarity on what local authorities have the power to do.
6.5 During the course of the discussion the Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: The extent to which advice on flooding is taken into account by developers and borough planning authorities when determining planning applications; and Whether Croydon had used their powers to designate flood risk areas.
6.6 During the course of the discussion, the Policy and Programme Manager, GLA, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: Copies of any tools or guides that are used to help educate Londoners on permeable alternatives; Further information on where the Edgware Road underpasses are; The extent to which the relaxation of permitted development rights impacted the work of the GLA; and The link to the map that identifies key areas at the highest risk of surface water flooding.
Page 7 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 10 October 2019
6.7 Resolved:
(a) That the report and discussion be noted; and (b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussion.
7 Environment Committee Work Programme (Item 7)
7.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
7.2 Resolved:
That the progress on the work programme and the topics agreed by the GLA Oversight Committee on 1 July 2019 for the Committee’s meetings for July to October 2019 be noted.
8 Date of Next Meeting (Item 8)
8.1 The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 7 November 2019 at 10.00am in the Chamber, City Hall.
9 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 9)
9.1 There were no items of business that the Chair considered to be urgent.
10 Close of Meeting
10.1 The meeting ended at 12.22pm.
Chair Date
Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Committee Officer; telephone: 020 7983 4383; email: [email protected]; minicom: 020 7983 4458
Page 8
Appendix 1
Environment Committee Meeting – Thursday 10 October 2019
Item 6 - Question and Answer Session – The Impact of Flooding in London
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): That now brings us to today’s main item, which is a question and answer session with our guests to discuss the impact of flooding in London. Can I welcome our guests first of all? We have Cassie Sutherland, who is the Policy and Programme Manager for the Greater London Authority (GLA) Environment Team, and Alex Nickson, who is Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager at Thames Water. We have Sarah Smith, who is the Area Flood Risk Manger from the London Environment Agency, and we have Steve Iles MBE, who is Director of Public Realm at Croydon Council. Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for joining us.
Just two days ago any of us in north London and actually people all over London became very aware very quickly that there had been a massive Thames Water burst main, with quite a bit of impact on many Londoners. If I could invite Alex [Nickson], who is a wastewater person, so not someone that normally deals with burst water mains, to give an update on that situation, that would be very helpful. Thank you.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Thank you very much. On behalf of Thames [Water], I would like to reiterate our very profuse apologies to all our customers who were affected by the burst on Tuesday morning. Obviously, people are still suffering, and we particularly feel for those people who were affected by the flooding, but we also recognise that wider customers and stakeholders were affected. There were people who lost supply of water or had low pressure due to the fact that we needed to shut off the main to stop the flooding, and also those who had wider disruption due to our activities. We are very sorry to all of those.
The update I can give you is that 103 properties have been confirmed by our surveyors as being damaged by flooding. We have not been able to get access to all properties, so we expect that number to rise probably to about 120. Fifty-eight families have been rehoused. We have made sure that we have picked up their expenses and they are being rehoused. Some of them will just have been put into hotels because it is a temporary effect to them. Some of them have been put into short-term lets because they are going to be out of their properties for a longer time. We are working with those families to make sure that we are picking up all of their needs.
Our priorities are to fix this pipe and to understand what happened. Why did it burst? It was not on one of our highest risk registers, so it was not on our watchlist, but it did burst. Our priorities are to clear up the mess and most importantly to support the customers and the businesses that were affected. That means providing full compensation for the impact and the inconveniences caused. We have the industry-leading best compensation package. We do things like replace new for old. If customers choose to use their own insurance companies rather than our insurance company to do the claim, we will make sure that they get the fullest compensation. Anything additional, our insurance package will have offered. We will make sure that they are paid for that, and we will work with their insurers to make sure the process is as painless as possible.
We reckon that about 25,000 homes were initially affected by low pressure when we had to shut off the main to reduce the flooding. That was reduced to 1,146 homes by lunchtime, though there will be continuing airlocks, etc, due to that low pressure, and we are working to sort those out. There were 130 households
Page 9 identified on our priority services register as being vulnerable. We attended each of those and provided them with hand-delivered bottled water, and we continue to liaise with them to make sure that they have the support they need.
During the incident we provided constant updates to the boroughs, emergency services, local politicians, the GLA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat), the Consumer Council for Water, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you very much for that update. One thing that struck me, in particular, was that you said the main was not on your high-risk register. Do you know what the timescale is to understand why the burst happened? It was a pretty catastrophic burst. There were those images of water just pouring out.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): As soon as we got access to the pipe, we cut the section of the damage away, and that has gone away for a metallurgy study. We will use that against our wider reference of damages caused by bursts to understand what the cause was. Was it metal fatigue, etc? This is an 1890 period main, so it is an old main, but I have to say age is not necessarily a predictor of performance when it comes to water mains. This is a one metre diameter main. It is a big, big piece of metal and it is several inches thick of metal, but it might have been poor casting. It might have been damage when it was laid in situ. It might have been subsequent stresses as it has lain in place for over a century. A key thing is for us to understand what caused that failure and to update our failure log to see if there might be other mains that might be displaying similar weaknesses.
When I say it was not on our top list, it was in our top 20%, but that is based on a risk register that takes account of what the damage is that could occur from a main bursting, as well as the age and condition, as we understand it, of that main.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): The thing that is worrying is if it was not in the very top risk register and it produced such a catastrophic burst, are there lessons to be learned going forwards?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): There are always lessons to be learned, and we always make sure that for every burst we undertake a forensic analysis of what caused it, and we use it to update our risk analysis profile to then recalibrate our list of mains at risk of bursting.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): The timescale to get that analysis back and to be able to make those learnings: do you know what that --
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I am afraid I am going to have to get back to you on that one. It really depends on whether the cause is easily diagnosable or not. If it is just a bad bit of metal due to the welding or the seaming, that should be easy to ascertain. If there is some form of corrosion or something, that might be easy to ascertain, but other reasons may be more difficult. I would not want to mislead you by saying, “We will know by tomorrow”, but certainly I will go back to the office and make sure we can give you our best estimate on that.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Of course. I think the question is then, if it was a bit of bad welding, there could be bits of bad welding all over the place, all over the system. Are there ways for you to be able to detect other bits of pipe that might have a similar risk in future, going forward?
Page 10
Andrew Dismore AM: Just on the issue of compensation, are you committing to compensating all consequential losses as well? I saw your representative on the television (TV) news last night. He seemed to be very shifty when he was asked about the extent to which you are prepared to compensate people.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I am afraid I have to get back to you on that one. As I say, we have an industry-leading compensation package. It has been externally reviewed.
Andrew Dismore AM: That is not quite the same, is it, as saying that you will compensate everybody for all the consequential losses they may suffer?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I just do not want to make a promise to you that is erroneous, so we will write back to you straight away to clarify that point.
Andrew Dismore AM: I think it is important, because people will have lost a lot out of all this, and not just damage to their properties. For example, there was a woman on the TV saying it is costing £50 in a taxi to take a kid to and from school because she has been rehoused in Enfield.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I totally understand.
Andrew Dismore AM: Other people have lost earnings while they have been trying to sort out the mess that you created for them. I think consequential losses have to be fully compensated. As I say, your chap on the TV last night was distinctly shifty, and he was put up to actually deal with this. It does make one question whether in fact your offer of compensation is as good as you say it is.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: I was in the area this morning and was with, as Andrew [Dismore AM] has just said, families who were popping back for school uniforms for the rest of the week and stuff from the area because they have been moved out. I just have to say a comment, really. It seems that Thames Water really needs to get a grip. I cannot understand that it knew that we were talking about flooding and there was this disaster of a leak and other issues in north London, and they did not supply us, through you, Chair, with a statement and an update.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): I did receive an email yesterday evening with an update, which I passed on to the Scrutiny Team. I am sorry I did not circulate it to everyone.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: To Andrew’s [Dismore AM] question, we have a history of going back over ten years of leakage, some of them as drastic as this, and Members will recall not so long ago where it was not just the north, it was the north, the south and the west. What that speaks to is an absolute need for investment into the infrastructure. I am not going to ask about that because, Alex [Nickson], with respect, as you know, it is not within your remit, but it is just to say that this will not rest, and I understand there will be questions asked in Parliament. Somebody has to say, “This has got to stop”. People cannot be paying their rates for a service and for that service not to be investing in the infrastructure that will enable them to get on with their lives.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): If I could just respond to that point, Chair, yes. Jennette [Arnold OBE AM], you are exactly right. We had a cluster of bursts in October 2016 and January 2017. We had eight major bursts. That led to an independent forensic review into our approaches by Paul Cuttle [Director, Cuttle Consulting], who I believe attended this Committee and
Page 11 answered that, and it led to 83 recommendations. One of those recommendations was that we undertake a strategic review of our mains and our mains care practices. That led to a further £95 million being put up to do an intensive care period of looking at our mains. That was funded by our shareholders. It did not come from customers’ bills. That led to a programme of intensive rehabilitation of mains, so relining the mains at Leigham Vale and Upper Street.
We exacerbated our programme of detection of leaks to be more proactive to help us identify where these things are before they burst. You have to remember that leakage is a much bigger issue than the big bursts we see at ground level. What we need to do is identify those before they appear catastrophically, as they do now. We do a lot of checking and maintenance of our isolation valves, so making sure, when a burst does occur, we can isolate that burst as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, a large number of our isolation valves get concreted over or tarmacked over when there are road replacements or other utility companies do works in the carriageway.
We have boosted the number of what we call Network Service Technicians available in central London on a 24/7 basis. Whether it is Friday morning or Sunday afternoon, we have the same ability to respond and get the right people and the right numbers of people to the location in time. We have been working very closely with Transport for London (TfL) to improve our risk maintenance register about where these things are likely to happen.
I am afraid the network is, on average, 80 years old. 13% of our mains are 150 years old. We would dearly, dearly love to replumb London, but we have to do it at a rate that is sustainable to London in terms of not bringing the city to a standstill and is affordable to our customers. We are currently having discussions with our regulators about what is the right rate and cost of doing so. Our ambition is to reduce leakage by 15% on the end of this year figure by 2025, and to get to 50% reduction on that figure by 2050. We do spend £1 million a day on this. This is not a subject we take lightly. Every drop that is lost in leakage is water that has been taken from the environment, and we take that position very seriously.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Thank you for that, Alex, and through you, Chair, it might be worth putting down and considering a return to the Cuttle report. It is always good when we get a response and an organisation quotes a huge figure. Alex [Nickson], what was the figure you quoted about investment?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): £95 million additional.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: When you quote that figure, that has to be seen against what is actually needed to get the system right. If we need an investment of £500 million, and £95 million is put in, we can then see the scale of what needs to happen. It is through the Chair, and I will not take up any more of your time because we have the big issue of flooding. Through you, Chair, I think it is worth considering a review of that report and the work that was done there to update it.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Sorry, are you asking that Thames Water review it or that we do?
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: No. I think it is us. No. It is us. We take the leadership. If we are waiting for Thames Water, we might be waiting a good few hundred years, as I understand it.
Andrew Dismore AM: Until 2050.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Alex, would you like to reply?
Page 12
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): It was just to clarify we spent about £1 billion on leakage over the five-year asset management plan period. The £95 million was additional money to try to understand what was causing that spate of bursts from October 2016 to January 2017 and to instate a plan to exacerbate our trunk mains replacement programme. It is not £95 million; it is that on top of effectively £1 billion.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes. Thank you for clarifying that.
Andrew Dismore AM: What was your profit last year?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I am afraid, as a strategy wonk, I do not have that answer. Certainly, it is available in our annual performance report, and I can get that sent to you very quickly.
Tony Arbour AM: It did not pay a dividend.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Are there any other Members who want to come in on this issue? No. Just for the minutes, I think you have said, Alex [Nickson], that you will come back to us about the risk analysis that you are doing on this particular pipe. You will be coming back to us on the issue of the consequential losses.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Yes, the compensation for consequential losses.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): If you could also drop in the profit for the last three years, that would also be very helpful. Thank you very much. Obviously, if you can keep reporting to the Assembly as you review what is happening in this particular case. Thank you for taking those questions, because I do appreciate it is not your area of main work.
To bring us now neatly back to flood risk in London, the seriousness of flood risk is very well illustrated by what has just happened in Finsbury Park, and that flooding does not have to come from a burst water main. It can come from extreme rainfall, surface water run-off, or the river.
Just as an opening question to all of you, can you comment on a current appraisal from your perspective of London’s flood risk? If I could start with Cassie [Sutherland] for the GLA.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Thank you very much. Overall, London does suffer from a number of different types of flood risk, as you have described, so tidal, river and then surface water flooding. We have the people who are responsible for those different types of flooding with us, so I will leave them to talk about how they manage all of those risks. Of course, there are large numbers of people at risk, either at high risk or medium risk of those different forms of flooding in London.
For tidal flooding, we are pretty well protected. We have a pretty high level of protection with the Thames Barrier and with the network of barriers and fences that run down the river, and also for fluvial risk.
At the GLA we have a big focus on surface water flood risk and work closely with the boroughs, who have responsibility for surface water flood risk, but recognise that there are nearly 200,000 residential and commercial properties that are at medium or high risk of flooding from heavy rainfall. This is something that
Page 13 we work strongly on. We have a programme called the London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan (LSDAP), which is looking at retrofitting sustainable drainage to manage surface water better, so trying to turn more impermeable surface in London into permeable surfacing to allow that water to percolate through the ground but also be stored and, therefore, have a slower movement towards our sewer system to prevent that overflowing.
We have some strong policies in the London Plan as well to ensure that any new development in London is not contributing to that level of impermeable surfacing and, therefore, exacerbating the issue. We are also now running some nice programmes, which I am happy to talk about a bit more in detail, because I know you have only asked for an overview, about community-level actions as well around smaller actions that we can take on smaller parcels of land, whether it is community gardens or people within their own gardens, around managing that surface water flood risk to try to reduce the overall risk in London, recognising that we do not necessarily have large areas of land we can do big projects on. Those decentralised projects are going to be very effective.
Recognising the risk at the GLA, we have some strong policies set out in the London Environment Strategy around what we are going to do, lots of it working with the partners who are around this table, which is great. I am happy to talk about those projects in more detail as we go through.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Great. We are very aware of the surface water flooding risk here in City Hall, where we have basement rooms that go out of action as soon as we get heavy rain. In fact, the doors into the building, the circulating doors, get closed and they fill them up with those absorbent sausages because the water just pours off the slope of More London. This is a building that is only 20 years old, yet you see the water just pouring through the light fittings into the basement when you get extreme rain.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes, and that is why, for us, that retrofitting of sustainable drainage is as important as making sure that new developments are built with that in mind. We do have a lot of that hard surfacing. I also stood outside the building last week and watched the water flow over the paving outside. Really tackling that as well in areas that have already been developed is a huge area of focus.
As with any retrofitting programme, it sometimes means that it is harder to get it at scale, but that is something we are working on with a sector-based approach. Whether it is in retail or education or health sectors, there are different challenges with the types of land use those different sectors employ. We, therefore, need different solutions to help them. You put maybe different measures in a car park of a hospital than you would do in a playground in a school, and how can we actually get that information to the people who can then install those sustainable drainage features?
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Great. Thank you. Alex [Nickson], if you could give, from your perspective, an overall view of London’s flood risk.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Thank you. To the list of sources of flooding - tidal, fluvial and surface water - I would also add groundwater and sewer flooding. We have statutory responsibility for foul water flooding from the combined sewer, foul sewers and surface water flooding, where it comes from the surface water sewers, just to be clear on the responsibility there.
A lot of these things are things that we need to manage in partnership. We are totally in step with the GLA and the Environment Agency and others in saying that every drop of rainwater we can keep out of our system is water that either we do not need to treat if it goes into a combined system, or if it is misconnected and ends
Page 14 up in a river with foul water, or is water we do not need to then build larger sewers for if it goes into our surface water system. We are passionate about increasing the amount of surface water storage, using sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and other green infrastructure, and we believe that capturing and using that rainwater that could otherwise cause flooding to displace the use of potable water is something that needs to be very strongly brought forward. Things like rainwater harvesting systems, we believe, are urgent and important replacements to the way we currently build. We are working very closely with the Government on things like the future housing standards and big regeneration programmes.
We have worked closely with the GLA on identifying areas where new growth in the Opportunity Areas causes very high stress on our systems, and then to develop what we call Integrated Water Management Strategies. It is to identify areas where, rather than just building as we normally do, where can we do something very different and look at rainwater, combined greywater harvesting systems, considering water use, flood risk and environmental improvement? To date we have done five of those, and we are looking at new ones as well.
We estimate that probably there are about half a million people at risk of surface water flooding from our surface water network. That is a modelled number, so it needs to be taken with some caution. What we have been able to do is identify the hotspots for that, and we provide that information to the GLA as part of the evidence base for the London Plan and the London Environment Strategy. We are a member of all the key working groups in London working to manage flood risk at the strategic scale. We are members of the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the flood risk partnerships within London. We are members of the London Drainage Engineers Group/Drain London Programme to identify ways to deliver the LSDAP, and we are members of the Mayor’s Water Advisory Group where we try to work collaboratively with other water sector players to make sure that we are identifying strategic opportunities.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): The Environment Agency has a strategic overview of all sources of flood risk but is responsible for the management of flood risk from main rivers and the sea. In London, with that overview picture, there are 68,000 properties at high risk of surface water flooding, compared to just over 10,000 properties at high risk of flooding from fluvial and tidal flood risk. When I say fluvial, I mean the rivers that run into the Thames in north and south London that are fluvially influenced, rather than the tidal estuary itself. Four times the number of people are at risk of surface water flooding than river flooding, so it is a really big issue for London and set to increase as the climate changes and we see more intense storms in the future.
On top of that, there are about a million properties that lie very close to an area of surface water flood risk. Even if you are not directly affected with an internal property flooding from surface water, you could see access or roads or infrastructure services affected by surface water flooding, if we experience those high-intensity storms.
On the tidal flood risk element, there are 1.3 million people and around £275 billion worth of property and infrastructure at risk of tidal flooding in the whole of the Thames Estuary, but we do have a very good network of tidal flood defences, and that includes, obviously, the iconic Thames Barrier, which will be familiar to you, but also eight other flood barriers and over 350km of walls and embankments, and 400 other structures, such as floodgates, outfalls and pumps. They all work together as a system to protect London, Essex and Kent, because we do treat it as the whole estuary rather than just London.
To date, the barrier has been closed 186 times for flood risk management purposes, the last of which was just last week when we saw high spring tides affecting the tidal flood risk in London. It was closed over a number of successive tides to manage that flood risk.
Page 15
I would mention the groundwater flood risk as well as another element which probably neatly segue-ways into Steve [Iles MBE]. In south London, in particular, the boroughs of Bromley and Croydon have groundwater flood risk as well as some others, but the incidents that we saw in the winter of 2013/14 really brought that back to the fore. Whereas before we were thinking a lot around the tidal flood risk and the surface water risk, actually, the groundwater risk is something that hangs around for a long time when that water does come up.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): You mean that is water in the ground, just getting so saturated?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Yes. It rises from the ground when it is saturated and it stays above ground level for often some many months, rather than the very intense surface water storms that you might see. The water is there, and within a few hours it might be completely gone. The damage is still caused, but the actual water has gone in that time. Yes, that is probably from an Agency point of view.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. That brings us neatly to Steve [Iles MBE]. Would you like to just give us an overview from your perspective?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): Thank you for the invite, Chair. From a borough perspective, as a council, we are the lead local flood authority. Our role is to ensure and protect against flooding within our respective boroughs, but actually we have a duty to co-ordinate and work as a multi-agency approach to tackling and preventing flood events.
The conversation around groundwater. Just to give you an example, the 2013/14 flood event in Croydon was primarily around groundwater. Groundwater levels rose over a period of a couple of weeks by something in the region of 22 metres. That brought water above ground and it stayed, as Sarah [Smith] highlighted, for a number of months. We were trying to tackle an issue and divert and move water, which was just continually coming out of the ground and overflowing and overwhelming not just surface water systems but also foul water systems. That flood event became a quite significant and longstanding event that the borough has recovered from. People are now getting back to normal, and we have got sufficient plans in place to do so.
As I said, as a flood authority, we do have responsibility to have a flood management plan. That flood management plan is in place. It is constantly reviewed, and there is an action plan that sits off the back of that. That picks up and tackles where there are flood risk areas within the borough. We do have a number of them. We do have a number of properties that are at risk, and at high risk, particularly along the A22 corridor, which was the event in 2013/14.
We participate, as we rightly should, with the number of groups that sit within London. We share and work as a collective of a number of boroughs. We are part of the South West London Flood Group - that is group 8 - which oversees a number of boroughs. Wandsworth, Richmond, Croydon, Sutton, Merton, Kingston, that corner of the borough. As an outer London borough, we also work very closely with our neighbouring counties, so Surrey County Council and the District Council, to ensure that where we have flood risk issues on the boundaries, we work collaboratively to tackle them. We have established a few groups that work and meet on a regular basis to tackle events that we know of and that we are dealing with - the A22 corridor of the Caterham Bourne - and we also have a particular issue at the top of Caterham on the Hill. Interestingly, it is actually on the top of the hill where there is a major flood event. That work is under way as to how we can manage that.
Page 16
Talking about SuDS, we spoke about that earlier. SuDS is a good way of trying to manage the flow, but equally there is a lot of water, particularly rainwater that comes down, and then groundwater that comes up. It is being able to have the provisions in place or mitigation in place to have a sustainable approach, should those events happen.
What we also do is work very closely with our residents. Communication with residents is critical. Residents are at risk and do fear flood events. When you have a torrential downpour, which we have had more recently, very quick, localised flooding does appear, and it does concern local residents. We have a means to be able to support those residents but equally provide those residents with advice on how they can protect their properties and where they can get information to work and to make sure those protections are suitably robust. That communication with residents is critical to ensure that they are not alone. We are here to help, and we do co-ordinate and mitigate and reduce the risk of flooding.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. Is the issue of groundwater an ongoing issue? With these very extreme rainfall events that we have been having just recently, that sounds like a worrying combination.
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): It is, yes. As I said, there are sensors in place. There are boreholes along particular corridors where the groundwater is monitored. We do have an activation process, and should we do that, we work very closely with the utilities around how we activate and trigger any activities that we do. That said, we have also looked and put sensors along the Caterham Bourne itself. We are able to monitor flow rate. That, again, gives us the ability to trigger an escalation process to activate and mobilise any resources we need. It is working constantly, monitoring not just the weather but actually what is happening on the ground as well.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. Shaun, did you want to come in on this point?
Shaun Bailey AM: The timing question. Sarah, you said the Thames Barrier had been activated 186 times, but you did not say over which period.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Since it came into operation in 1982. The 186 times is for flood risk purposes. It does also have partial closures for maintenance activities and also an annual test closure as well. This year the annual test closure was at the very last minute - based on the forecast - cancelled because we then needed to close it for operational reasons with the high tides we were expecting.
Shaun Bailey AM: 186 includes those test closures, or not?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): No. That is for flood risk management purposes over that time period. There will be additional closures on top of that 186. That is for in times of actual need for flood purposes.
What is worth saying is that those 186 times are not always for tidal purposes. At the moment we can use the barrier to mitigate against high river level flows coming down from the west of London. We need to recognise the Thames is one big system. From its source, way out towards the edge of Gloucestershire, all the way to the estuary, it is one large system. Whatever rain comes down through the Thames higher up in the catchment, comes down through the Thames. During the winter of 2013/14 a number of the barrier closures were actually as a result of the high river levels coming down over Teddington Weir and out to the sea. The barrier was closed, and it effectively used London as a large-scale storage reservoir to enable that water to come out
Page 17 without seeing the increased levels through London. Some of those operations were for managing west London flood risk as well as for the incoming tide. There is a combination of use there, but for flood risk management purposes.
Shaun Bailey AM: OK, thank you.
Tony Arbour AM: On that specific point, I represent Kingston and Richmond. During that period there was a belief that when the barrier was in use, it effectively exacerbated the problems in that part of the Thames. Particularly just above Teddington, you will recall that there was very substantial flooding in Staines and in Egham, and I had flooding in my patch. The belief was that to protect the lower Thames, we in our part of the Thames were punished, in effect, by the use of the barrier. Is that an urban myth?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Yes. That is a bit of a myth. The winter of 2013/14 was unprecedent rainfall. We had very, very saturated catchments. We had a huge, huge amount of rain over a very long period of time, so the ground was saturated. That is why we saw such extreme groundwater events as well. With the river flows coming down through the Thames catchment right through Oxfordshire and Surrey and into London, we would have seen flooding there anyway from the fluvial River Thames. What we were able to do was manage that risk more effectively using the barrier and allowing that water to get out to sea in a phased way, but it would not have exacerbated it. It was closed to help that risk, otherwise we would have seen a wider flood risk during that time.
Tony Arbour AM: Contrary to the myth, you lessen the risk by using the barrier?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Absolutely, yes.
Tony Arbour AM: Thank you.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Alex, did I see you wanted to come in?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Yes. It was just the point that Sarah just made. It is important we make the distinction between groundwater flooding due to very prolonged, wet weather, and surface water flooding due to extreme rainfall intensity events. It took the wettest winter in, I think, 70 years to cause those groundwater levels to raise by the 22 metres that Steve [Iles MBE] referred to. At the moment we have had four successive very dry winters, so groundwater is only just recovering back to normal levels following a very wet September. I just wanted to make the distinction between those two.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes, so we have the extreme rainfall where you get just flooding because the drains cannot cope and the gutters cannot cope. It just goes everywhere.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): The ground cannot absorb it. The ground is very dry.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Then you get very prolonged rainfall over a long period of time.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Exactly.
Page 18
Andrew Dismore AM: Just to pick up on Tony’s [Arbour AM] point - then I have another point as well - presumably the way it works is that you stop the tide coming in, so where the water would go up, where the tide would be, you get the run-off. That is presumably how it works.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Absolutely correct, yes. At low tide, the barrier is closed. All that water comes down, and then, at the change of tide, the barrier is opened. All that water goes out. You are effectively creating a big reservoir through London that can contain that water and then go out to sea.
Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. What I was going to ask you was how you identify priority waterways for intervention and how you work with boroughs and local people to identify where flood risk is because of poorly maintained waterways. I am particularly concerned, for example, about the Silk Stream in Barnet, particularly in the Colindale area, where your people came and had a look, I do not know how many times, several years ago. There seems to be continuous prevarication about doing something about it.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): We have a series of models and we have an understanding of flood risk. We have maps that highlight the areas and the communities that are at risk from flooding. Those are then prioritised in terms of developing a programme of works that we can fund. Often we require additional partnership funding to make those projects viable, and actually what we do see in London is some of those schemes, particularly on the fluvial rivers, are very complex to understand. There are often interactions between the surface water and the rivers. We do not have huge amounts of space where we can put big storage reservoirs in. We have to balance all of those things to try to find a solution that will manage that flood risk. It can take a number of years to do so.
What we do is we put forward proposals into the funding pot, into a national programme where there is Government grant-in-aid available, and we apply for that through our processes that we have. We have a six-year programme with £2.6 billion worth of Government grant-in-aid available over the six years from 2015 to 2021. There are a large number of schemes. I think there are 88 projects in the six-year programme to reduce the risk of fluvial flooding.
We try to do that on the basis of risk, so those with the highest risk would get their attention first, and those are the schemes to progress. Sometimes there is no technical viable solution. Sometimes it takes longer to bring partners together and identify a fully funded solution, so it can take some time to manage that risk.
What I would say as well is in terms of maintenance. You picked up there about maintenance. Maintenance is a really interesting issue, and we get a lot of criticism about maintenance and dredging and all sorts of things at the Environment Agency long-term. There is a maintenance programme. Rivers are maintained. Our operatives are doing routine, regular maintenance, and particularly in times of flood risk where there are trash screens and we have people out clearing those and making sure that our rivers are able to flow as well as they should be. There is routine maintenance, and then there is periodic maintenance that happens of those rivers. It is important to note that the people that own the land either side of the river, known as riparian owners, have a responsibility to maintain those watercourses themselves as well. We have lost a bit of that over the years in terms of people’s understanding of their connection with the rivers that they are bordering. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to go in and do work, but it is not a duty to do so. Maintenance is a really big thing that we want to promote; that people connect with their rivers and understand, particularly on the fluvial rivers, making sure that those rivers are flowing clearly.
Andrew Dismore AM: You have 88 projects, you say.
Page 19
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Yes, I believe so, in the six-year programme.
Andrew Dismore AM: Is that list published, and is that ordered in priority?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): It is published, yes, it is on the gov.uk website. We can circulate the link to Members if that would be helpful, over that six-year period, yes.
Andrew Dismore AM: That would be helpful, and perhaps if you could give me an update on what you are doing about the Silk Stream, because, as I say, it has been years now since you came to have a look and agreed something needed to be done.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): From memory, I recognise the Silk Stream as a project. We have about 200-odd projects in the Thames programme, and I recognise the name of it from being on there. I do not cover the operational patch of that specific part of London, but it is familiar to me as a line on the programme, definitely.
Andrew Dismore AM: Perhaps you could write and give me an update.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Absolutely.
Andrew Dismore AM: The last question from me is that a number of these projects are done in conjunction with the European Union (EU). What is the impact of Brexit going to be on those?
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Disastrous.
Andrew Dismore AM: It is true. If you look at the Ravensbourne, the Ravensbourne River through Ladywell was done in partnership with the EU. That is an example.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Can we let our guest answer?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): In the past, we have done a number of projects, particularly the Ladywell one that you mention, with the EU funding instrument for the environment and climate action (LIFE). We bid to regeneration funds and other project funds that have had European funding. We will have to look for other partnership funding sources in green investment, green financing and other financing initiatives to attract additional funding once we leave, if we leave.
Andrew Dismore AM: You are going to lose access to that money?
Tony Arbour AM: There will be plenty more.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Let’s not have a Brexit discussion. Steve [Iles MBE], you did indicate that you wanted to come in.
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): I did, and it was more just to bring down to a local level the conversation around how the Thames is used as an ability to manage the flow of water when needed. When we were dealing with the flooding in Croydon, we had to take the same approach. What was
Page 20 happening was we were trying to over-pump to protect property, and that was just causing a problem further downstream. Therefore, we identified temporary flood storage areas and in fact built them during the event to enable us to pump water into particular locations, rather than trying to push it all the way through the system.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): When you say you “built” them, do you mean you contained playing fields?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): There are a number of locations. A playing field was one where the topography of the land lent itself to being able to hold water there, so we built a temporary barrier around it to effectively hold the water there. We took advantage of a cricket field and a school playing field along the corridor to do the same thing, so we built temporary flood storage areas. Then, further down, as you went into the Purley basin area, we took control of a church car park and built an above-ground storage area to be able to pump water into it to protect properties further down. As you were getting towards the River Wandle, which the Caterham Bourne goes into and then into the Beddington Treatment Works, what we were finding was it was becoming more and more overwhelmed. We do have to manage the flow of water, and that sometimes comes with risk and actually comes with a consequence, where some properties are going to be prioritised in where you need to flood and where you do not need to flood. Those decisions are made, as you would normally do, through the Gold Command process, when a major incident like the one in Croydon was activated. Those types of decisions are needed very quickly at a time when it is critical.
Could I just also pick up the point about riparian ownership? That again was a real concern along that corridor. The Bourne along there does not naturally flow for most of the year, but when it does flow it is a combination of open ditch and culvert. For the open ditch sections, and in fact the culverts as well, we did find there are multiple ownerships and no one was maintaining it. We took the decision to go in there and take control of those watercourses and clean them, and we continue to do that because, while obviously the landowners are responsible for it, it is not always well co-ordinated. We do it ourselves, and we do work with the associated landowners to ensure that they are kept clean. They do suffer with things like fly-tipping, where people will throw stuff over the backs of their fences, so to speak, that type of thing. We have to put provision in place to manage that.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. That is very useful. I just want to bring Cassie in before we move on to the next section of questioning. I am just thinking from an overall London perspective. What is the Mayor’s team doing to build resilience and address all these different flooding issues that we are hearing about? What is the Mayor doing to really help address this?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Sure. As we have talked about those responsibilities, the Mayor does not have any direct responsibilities or ownership over a particular area of flood risk, but recognises the huge risk that it is in London and that with climate change that risk is likely to increase. The team is working on a strategic overview, looking at actions around each of those areas of flood risk.
I can take them in turn. Maybe that is helpful. On tidal flood risk, we work closely with the Environment Agency and the Mayor has a representative on the Thames Estuary 2100 Programme Board, which is where the key decisions are made about defences and future land for a Thames Barrier that we might need in the future. We have also been working closely with the Agency on the fact that we do think we may need an extra Thames Barrier around the 2070 mark and working closely to safeguard land for that barrier in the future. That has been a very strategic piece of work, working with our neighbouring authorities to work and find ways of using that land, and meanwhile use of that land, so then it could be freed up for a Thames Barrier in the future.
Page 21
The riparian owners that Sarah [Smith] was talking about before. We know, as the forecasts for sea level rise are likely to increase, that we will need some raising of defences along the Thames. We obviously do not want to all be faced with higher and higher floodwalls. It would be nice if outside City Hall we could still keep our view of the river when we go outside, and we do not end up just adding more and more defence line on top of there. That means we need some other approaches and to work in partnership with the riparian boroughs and developers and the Environment Agency to work out how we can integrate natural flood management solutions into new developments or regeneration, where we could raise the walls in part in some areas but keep them lower in others, and how we can set back development from the river. At the moment, we are working in partnership between planning teams, environment teams, the [Environment] Agency and the boroughs to try to find a consistent approach to that as well and learn lessons from each other, so we are not having to keep starting again as we move along the river. That is our strategic look for tidal flood risk.
I should say, across all areas of flood risk when we are looking through the London Plan and assessing planning applications, there are very detailed assessments of flood risk for new developments. That is all zoned. The Environment Agency has some great maps. It is very interesting if you ever want to look up your house on there, the flood risk zone. That looks at where a new development is going to be and then makes recommendations for not only the type and design of that building and how it should manage its risk, but also any of the property level flood resilience measures that should be in there. For example, should you have anybody living on the ground floor or not? In certain flood risk areas, it is recommended there are no bedrooms on the ground floor. Should sockets be higher up the walls, so that if an area were to flood, the bounce-back would be quicker, and people would be able to get into their properties more quickly afterwards? That is our strategic look on flood risk there.
In terms of some of the fluvial flood risk, we are on a number of the groups as well and actually we lead a number of the groups that my colleagues have been talking about there. They got to mention them, but they are led by City Hall. We think that this partnership working is very, very important. Things like the Mayor’s Water Advisory Group, which looks at all things water. It is chaired by Shirley Rodrigues [Deputy Mayor, Environment and Energy] and that is looking at not only bringing the water companies together but also the regulators, so the Environment Agency and Ofwat, and also some environmental charities as well. On water quality and on river flood risk we have all of those represented at the Water Advisory Group to discuss the issues of the moment there and some of the strategic ones. It is not only resilience things. If there is an issue, how do we mobilise action for London, but also what are some of the strategic changes we could be making?
We have a project at the moment that we are working on with the Environment Agency up in the Lea Valley, looking at fluvial flood risk and the potential for growth in that area and how we can start to plan for some of those river defences, taking into account growth. Sarah [Smith] mentioned the six-year funding cycle before. We are trying to look across a 25-year funding cycle in that. We are trying to make the case for some 25-year funding for that area, recognising there is likely to be large growth there at the moment, so we are trying to look strategically.
On surface water, I mentioned the LSDAP, looking at accelerating retrofitting. Also, on a slightly more micro scale, but looking through the Mayor’s green infrastructure programmes particularly, they have a strong theme of managing flood risk. Lots of the Greener City Fund measures that have been funded have flood risk. There are some areas, for example, when you are regenerating parks, looking at floodable skate parks and having some of those areas to hold the water if necessary. De-culverting rivers, so that they do not end up overflowing and do not get all blocked up, so they can, therefore, flood slightly or cope with a higher volume of water. Having some on-the-ground areas as well, and lots of that is in grant funding or partnership funding with boroughs or the landowners.
Page 22
Then we are doing our community-style stuff as well. We have a nice guide now - if you have not seen it, I would recommend having a look - called Greening the Grey, which is tips and hints for communities and private owners to then remove unnecessary concrete and paving from their gardens to allow more infiltration of the water through to the ground, rather than pooling on the surface.
I have described, hopefully, a lot of different things happening at lots of levels, because we think that for strategic approach, while it is necessary to have the overall view of London and work in partnership with the owners of the different risks, there are also certain priority areas where we really think some of the Mayor’s funding can be making a difference on the ground.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Just going back a bit, you were talking about the Lea Valley project and the potential for growth. Presumably, the Mayor will not allow building and development to go on in any way that would increase flood risk.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): No, and that is very clear in the London Plan. For any application that comes in for development, it has to be shown how any flood risk in that area is going to be managed. We work very, very closely with developers to ensure that that is being managed to the appropriate level. Yes, it would not be exacerbating a flood risk.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: It just feeds in when Cassie says about developers coming forward, and then the Planning Team here have to be mindful of the circumstances and the possible flooding. I just wondered, how close do you then work with the boroughs and the other agencies at that point? I know I see some developments that have taken place at the lower end of the Lea Valley, and I cannot recall having seen them. There were all other environmental impacts and everything. Given that some of these dwellings are about 300 or 400 yards from the river, I cannot remember a flooding assessment being made on them.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): A requirement of the planning is for a flood risk assessment for all developments that are referred to the Mayor, anyway, major developers. I understand - Steve [Iles MBE], you might be able to correct me - that that would be in local plans as well, the need for a flood risk assessment, so that would take place. That is on an application basis. We are looking at some of the measures that Alex [Nickson] talked about before about how you can integrate some of that water management on a site as well. Yes, you might have a solution for the flood risk or a way of managing that, but how are you also, therefore, using that to reduce the amount of non-potable water you might need on site? How can you have a reuse system or rainwater harvesting for any of the gardens or even for flushing toilets? Looking at that.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Is the monitoring of that left to the borough with its scarce resources? When that planning application first lands, is that when the flooding assessment starts?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): I am not a planner, so I might look to Steve [Iles MBE], so apologies. My understanding is that a flood risk assessment has to be carried out by the developers, and that is submitted as part of the application. Then it is assessed by, for example, for major developments, us here at City Hall.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): If I may come in, the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on flood risk. If there are any proposals that fall into one of the flood risk
Page 23 zones that are on our maps, then it would come to the Environment Agency for any major developments - that is over ten properties - and we would assess the flood risk.
We work on the basis that we are not trying to prevent growth. We are trying to make sure that growth is sustainable and appropriate. If the developers can demonstrate that they are mitigating against those flood risks - that might be by raising the floor levels, it might be by other resilience measures - then those developments can still go ahead, or they may put additional defences in or fund into wider schemes as well. That is what we do for tidal and fluvial rivers.
For the surface water risks, the lead local flood authorities are now the statutory consultees for drainage plans as well, so making sure that drainage is not just a bolt-on at the end of a planning application. It is part and parcel of setting out that development so that you lay it out in a way that is appropriate to manage water within your SuDS as well, and hopefully that is not just tanks. The London Plan sets out a very helpful hierarchy, trying to make green infrastructure at the top of that list, and tanks at the bottom. You go through that hierarchy and look at the best kind of management process for managing that surface water, as close to site as possible and then moving through the system. That is a little on the planning side. Hopefully that is helpful context.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Yes, it is. You call them urban myths, but Tony [Arbour AM] and I and others representing these areas have to hear them, because of course we are talking to elders who have lived in these areas and look around and they are appalled at the developments going on. They know these areas to be areas where major flooding took place when they were children.
Andrew Dismore AM: Finally on this point about developers, in fact I have a very specific example here involving the Silk Stream, which is the West Hendon development, where we have advised not to have residential in flood zone 3, but the developers have done that. The application is in. I will put in objections based on what you have said, actually. The question really is - and it is also for Cassie [Sutherland] - to what extent do developers and borough planning authorities take into account this proposal, in your preapplication advice, for example, and how do you balance that against the number of properties, bearing in mind the Mayor’s desire, which I suppose we all share, to have more affordable accommodation? This is quite a big development. How do you do that balancing act? First of all, what happens if they do not take your advice? Secondly, for Cassie [Sutherland], to what extent is that taken into account in looking at the housing targets?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Nationally, I believe it is around 97% or 98% of our advice is taken by local planning authorities. I do not know the specific statistics for London, I am afraid.
Andrew Dismore AM: It is another Silk Stream case.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): The local planning authority is the decision-making body. Obviously, flood risk is a material planning consideration for those local authorities. They have to weigh that up against the other factors that they need to consider. In terms of properties still being built, it might appear that those properties might be in a place where you would expect flooding, but where you build something in a flood risk area you then compensate for that land somewhere else. You might see that land has balancing ponds or other areas where that water can go. You might see water in and around a development, but those properties would not flood.
Page 24
What developers need to take account of is the safe access and egress of people living in those properties during a flood if that were to happen. The planning process sets that out quite clearly. The London Plan gives us another helpful, very strong steer, actually, compared to some places in the country, but it is ultimately the local planning authority’s decision. A very high percentage of the advice is taken in line with the Environment Agency’s either objections or conditions that they add.
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): Equally, I am not a planner, but what I can say is that my service, as the lead local flood authority, does review planning applications. My team does that.
Not wanting to go over what Sarah [Smith] has already said but to echo what Sarah has said, we do have provisions in place as part of the South West London Group. We have tried to bring some continuity around guidance, around SuDS, etc. These groups have pulled together guidance for developers to assist in them putting suitable and sustainable developments in place, and that goes through that planning process.
At the end of the day, I think we do have a high rate of acknowledgment that our information or responses are taken on board. If you want and if it helps, I can go back into Croydon and ask the question to our planning colleagues as to what that rate is, if that would help.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you very much.
Andrew Dismore AM: My question to Cassie [Sutherland]: how do you do the balancing act?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): I probably would echo a bit what these guys have said there, because the planning policy is designed so that flood-resilient development is built, rather than it being that that is going to stop growth or prevent any development going ahead. There is a lot of detail and it is quite prescriptive in the London Plan, about how to design to incorporate and deal with that risk and for it to be managed either on site or in the site around, because you are right: it is not only at the building level, it is also then within public realm or wider developments. All of that is to try to enable the wider ambitions and intentions of planning policy, rather than to stop it.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Are there not situations where actually building is just not possible because, with the increasing climate-related risks, the building in one place is going to worsen the risk of flooding in other places where there are already buildings, homes and business?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): I think it is a fair point and we cannot rule that out, but it is very location-specific. I do not think we can make a general point about that. I think it needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The modelling that the Environment Agency has is hydraulic, very detailed modelling that does look at those knock-on impacts as well. That data is available to allow proper assessment to be undertaken, rather than just looking at, “What happens to this individual parcel of land?”
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): All flood risk assessments have to take into account flood risks now and for the lifetime of that development, so usually a 100-year period for a residential property. In their assessments, developers will be taking account of climate change, and the modelling that we have projects that climate change using the latest data and information we have. It is taken into account.
Page 25
Part of a flood risk assessment also has to demonstrate that it does not worsen flood risk elsewhere. They are required to demonstrate that through the National Planning Policy Framework. It is set out in our highest-level planning policy as well as the additional provisions in the London Plan and indeed local plans.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. I am going to move us on now to the next section of questions, which is looking more at surface water run-off.
Shaun Bailey AM: I am going to ask a few questions about protecting against flooding from surface water run-off. This question is open to everybody. How are our partners such as boroughs, Thames Water, Affinity Water and the Environment Agency involved in delivering integrated water management and stormwater management for London?
I say that because earlier on Steve [Iles MBE] made a comment about cleaning other people’s waterways. I wonder, Steve. Do you send them the bill or do you just do that because you are nice people?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): I would like to say we are nice people, but the reality is that during that event we did not invoice the riparian owner for the work that we did. We do have the ability to do so and at this stage we have not chosen to.
Shaun Bailey AM: Are there other bits of work that are being done by agencies? How do you work together?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): One of the mechanisms that the partners work together through is a series of strategic partnerships that were set up linked to the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.
If I may just take a moment to introduce what the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee is, it may be a new organisation to some of you that you may not have heard of. The Committee that we have is for the whole Thames catchment and it brings together the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, other partners including Thames Water and some independent members with technical expertise. What they do is bring together a coherent understanding of risk, a set of plans to manage that risk, and then manage and consent the programme of work and investment in terms of managing that flood risk. They approve the programme annually about what will be invested in in terms of managing flood risk.
As part of the Committee - and it is a big Committee with 54 local authorities trying to come together as a committee to discuss the issues - strategic partnerships were set up with the help of the GLA and Drain London in London. There are groups of authorities, largely based around catchments and so there is some connectivity, but as we know water does not always respect administrative boundaries. It tends to have other ideas about where it wants to go. Those groups work together, and they meet regularly, and the Environment Agency, local authorities and other partners come together to discuss and work out the best way to manage that risk.
Additionally, the Environment Agency works closely individually with each borough to look at their local Flood Risk Management Strategy. It is a legislative requirement of local authorities to look at how they will manage surface water flood risk. As part of that, they identify measures to manage that risk. The Environment Agency will help advise how they can best put a project together. The Committee has funded out of the local levy, which is a levy raised from local authorities in the order of about £11.5 million a year, a dedicated team of advisers who will specifically support local authorities to identify and deliver their flood risk management
Page 26 schemes for surface water. We are putting resources into helping with the capability and capacity of local authorities to actively manage those risks. There is an understanding risk point of view first and then looking at what can be done, going into those studies and investigations and then into construction of schemes to manage that risk.
What I would say is that it is sometimes easier to manage risk in the outer London boroughs where you have a bit more space and can make use of playing fields to make wetlands. Enfield has some fantastic examples where they have put in place some fantastic schemes. In some of the inner London boroughs, it is more challenging and you are looking at how you can manage risk in very urban, high-density residential areas and commercial properties, and looking at how you can make tree pits and some of the other initiatives that we are working with from the LSDAP, and the measures that are appropriate for those places.
Therefore, there is a co-ordinated programme and we do work very closely, on a day-to-day basis actually, between partners and then also with Thames Water. I do not know if you want to say anything about the future surface water fund that will provide some additional funding, hopefully, for local authorities to take forward.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): The key, new, exciting gamechanger is something called the Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans. These are currently a non-statutory requirement but are likely to become statutory in the future. That is a framework that brings together all the key players who have an interest in sewerage and drainage to create long-view perspective plans for a minimum of 25 years. We are probably in London looking up to 2100. It is co-ordinated by the water companies and so the onus is on us to pull these together, but the key point of them is that they bring together the key partners to develop, to co-create and to co-deliver solutions to drainage and sewerage issues.
We think this is an idea whose time has finally come. We have just kicked off the work on these. Essentially, what we need to do is to look at all of our rivers and catchments and ask what is the risk to them now and in the future, and then to go through a sifting process to identify those where we have the most complex issues and the most complex solutions and to work with partners to build capacity and to deliver solutions. They may not always be in Thames Water’s need to deliver but in a shared interest to do so. Some of that work will be building catchment partnerships or building capacity to deliver these projects.
In our business plan for 2020 to 2025, we have said that we want to disconnect 65 hectares of land from the drainage system. This is building on a project we ran in the past five years called Twenty 4 Twenty. The idea is that we would provide funding to local authorities, third-party non-governmental organisations (NGOs), etc, to institute system-level and local-level sustainable drainage. We are currently in final negotiations with our regulator about whether that will actually be funded. We are very keen to because we think it builds the capacity of local people and local authorities to deliver SuDS in parallel with other projects because one of the key benefits of SuDS when you deliver them with other things is they become a lot cheaper and a lot more effective. If you are repaving your town centre or you have a major new development and the ‘nice to have’ green infrastructure stuff gets cost-engineered out, this gives an ability to bring back that money in and to start to put green infrastructure as a key ambition right from the start of the project rather than the, “All right, where can we hang a few hanging baskets”, at the end of the project. Therefore, we think this is very important.
Steve [Iles MBE] made a very important point about how sometimes surface water flooding happens because people do not understand whose assets they are and who is responsible for mitigating it. Caterham Bourne is the classic example, unfortunately, in London and the unwanted poster child, if you like, for that example. We
Page 27 are working with TfL to try to identify where those orphaned assets - those lost rivers, those bits that get wet when we do not want them to get wet - are and who the owners are and to try to raise awareness of their ownership. Quite often you might find that there is a parade of shops who have responsibility for a ditch outside and they are blissfully unaware and are blissfully, unfortunately, unfunded to do anything about it. How do we deal with those assets?
There are also areas where we have very interconnected systems, particularly in Brent and Ravensbourne in north London. We have areas where critical ordinary watercourses, land drainage and sewers all interact, and we have this knotty mess where no one has ownership of the solution, no one has responsibility, and no one has funding to do anything about it. It is those kinds of areas where we are already working together to try to unwind those knots and to say, “OK, we are going to have to take a collaborative and partnership approach to those solutions”.
Shaun Bailey AM: You have started to move into the area of my next question. How can we prevent the loss of permeable ground? Obviously, London is attempting to build more homes. Certainly, the middle of London is a bit of a concrete pad. Is there anything you are doing, or we could do, to cut that loss down or stop it altogether or even reverse it?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): We have been modelling what we call ‘urban creep’, the loss of permeable land, and have made various things about it. I suppose the number one thing is the loss of front gardens to parking spaces. For any permeable bit of land greater than five square metres - so enough to park a car on - you are supposed to get planning permission from your local authority if you want to concrete it over and make it impermeable. However, we know local authorities and the state of their resources makes it very difficult for them to monitor this. That small incremental gnawing away of the capacity is cumulatively a big issue.
What we have to do as part of the LSDAP: how can we show people that there are permeable alternatives? If you want to hard-pave your front garden to put your car on it, then that is your choice, but there are sustainable permeable solutions in the way you do that. You do not necessarily have to have it completely sealed in concrete or brick paving. You can have permeable joints. You can have grass strips. You can have various other things so that you still retain some permeability. The LSDAP is probably the best tool for that.
Shaun Bailey AM: Is there any kind of education about that? You have just educated me straight away. I thought it was either you pave it or you do not, but you are saying that there are lots of other things people could do. I believe people would do other things if they knew there were other things to be done. Are we trying to educate people?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes, we have a few tools and guides that are out there, and I would welcome your help in promoting them wider as well. One is the Greening the Grey guide that I talked about before, which talks about how you can take a small part of your front garden and turn the impermeable area into permeable. Also, through some of our green infrastructure guidance we have some hints and tips about the different materials you can be using in front gardens or when you are considering whether you want to pave over a garden. It also explains what the risks of that might be and what some of the solutions are. I am happy to send over some of those.
Shaun Bailey AM: I would love to see that. That would be great.
Page 28
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Can I just come in on a couple of those other things we are doing with some of that partnership work on sustainable drainage?
Shaun Bailey AM: Yes, absolutely.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Through this LSDAP that I talked about, which was launched in 2016, there are a number of actions in there and I have mainly talked about retrofitting sustainable drainage. As Alex [Nickson] mentioned, it is really about, if there are works going on - whether that is along highways, whether it is large development projects, whether it is redoing a roof or a playground of a school - how can we start not just to put impermeable surfaces in as we have before but to integrate permeable surfaces and be managing the surface water through some of those areas?
We have a few different strands of work happening, working with lots of different people. One is working closely with TfL and with boroughs and with highways engineers because that is a huge area of impermeable surfacing along the highways. How can we start to introduce some either permeable surfaces or green infrastructure along the sides of highways? At the moment, we are in the middle of rolling out some training that we have had specifically designed about sustainable drainage to borough and TfL highways engineers. We have trained 80 officers so far. I do not know if you have any feedback. I have heard all good.
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): I have not heard anything negative and so it is all good.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Fantastic. We have another 200 signed up for this training over the next six months because we heard that some of that education point was really a barrier for these things not happening. It was the engineers actually designing the projects. They did not know enough about SuDS and all this technical stuff. We are getting them in for half-day and day-long training courses and hosting those and providing bespoke designs afterwards as well to start to chip away at those barriers and get permeable materials being thought about right at the design concept when work is being done. That is one area.
Another area is we have these strategic SuDS pilots that are happening at the moment that are looking to try to make a business case and funding case for sustainable drainage. We recognise that some of the national flood risk funding, to be honest, goes towards large projects, sometimes river projects for defences, but in London we are talking about the importance of surface water and it is sometimes a series of smaller schemes that might help manage that water more appropriately. We are piloting a number of these schemes and looking at how we can therefore influence the national funding model. One of them is a nice one up in Edgware Road that is looking at highway changes where some underpasses were going to be filled in. Instead of those being filled in, they are now going to be redesigned as what we call ‘bioretention basins’, which is a fancy term for a sink, really. It is an area for the water to store but there will be some greening in there as well. That will start to use an existing area that would have been concreted up and filled in to manage our surface water better and will also improve the amenity of the area.
We are starting to see how we can get the best bang for our buck and deliver multiple benefits and manage this risk that we have of surface water because we are getting more intense storms and this is set to increase, but also because we must recognise that we have more impermeable surfacing than we had before. We need to have that shift change. Those are two practical strategic examples of how we are working in partnership on our integrated water management.
Page 29
Andrew Dismore AM: Just before I go on to the point I wanted to make, you just mentioned the Edgware Road underpasses. Presumably they are pedestrian underpasses, and I would like to know where they are, but can you write --
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): We can send you some details on the project.
Andrew Dismore AM: The real question I was going to ask you is about when we were talking about front gardens and so forth. The Government has relaxed permitted development rights in relation to those sorts of developments so that removes a lot of the controls you might have to insist on some of the permeable suggestions that you have been putting forward.
To what extent do you think the relaxation of permitted development rights enabling this sort of development to happen without planning permission is going to impact on what you are trying to achieve?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): I am not an expert on permitted development rights and so, from my point of view, I would have to come back to you on that. In terms of the different approaches we are trying to take, some of it is about giving people the knowledge about the options that are available to them rather than just going to one area, rather than looking at the hub --
Andrew Dismore AM: You have talked about that already.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Those are some of the ways we are looking at it, but I can provide a view on permitted development rights once I have talked to some planners.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): I have one thing on permitted development. If there is an area that is at high risk of surface water flooding, it is possible for that area to be designated as a critical drainage area. That is a recognised status that gives it additional scrutiny. It would then make the permitted development that would normally go ahead subject to the plan. Where you have those really high-risk areas, that is a designation that can be agreed between the local authority and the Environment Agency to designate those areas. There is a provision. It is not one that is widely taken up, but there is a provision there in legislation to do so. It is something that can be done.
Andrew Dismore AM: Are you encouraging local authorities to do that? They may not even know about that, I guess.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Yes. There were discussions when it first came into place. The Surface Water Management Plans that were produced across London when surface water became the big thing in 2009 did set out some areas of hydrological connectivity where the water would pond, and I understood those areas and there were some areas identified, but in terms of designating there are very few areas that have specifically been designated at this stage. Yes, it is something that we could continue to explore with boroughs if there are areas particularly that would benefit from that.
Andrew Dismore AM: Do you know where those areas are?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): I certainly know where the hotspots are in terms of flood risk and the boroughs then have that in their plans.
Page 30
Andrew Dismore AM: You know where the hotspots are, or ‘cold spots’ because it is English cold water. Have you brought those to the attention of the local authorities and this point about - whatever the word is - discarding permitted development?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): The local authorities have a local Flood Risk Management Strategy that they are responsible for producing and they know where they are because that Strategy identifies it.
Andrew Dismore AM: They know where these places are. Do they know that they have the power to designate them in the way you are saying?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Yes.
Andrew Dismore AM: How many of them have actually done it?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): Very few.
Andrew Dismore AM: All right. Perhaps you could let us have a chart of where these are, which they have done and which they have not.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): And clarity about exactly what the local authorities are able to do in those situations so that we are clear that we have understood it correctly.
Shaun Bailey AM: Just a quick question, Steve [Iles MBE]. You are a local authority guy. Have you designated any areas that you would --
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): I expected that question quite quickly and I actually made a note to double check. We are aware of that ability to do that. What I do not know is whether we have at this stage. As others are, I will take that back and check to see whether we have designated any of those areas.
Shaun Bailey AM: Thank you. Slightly moving on, what are the prospects of charging premises for the amount of run-off they discharge? Has anybody looked at that? You are chuckling there, Alex [Nickson].
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Let me take that one. Certainly, it is something we have looked at and it is our long-term ambition to get to that point. We think, just as if you have a water meter you pay for what you use, perhaps you should pay for what you discharge from your property, particularly when you have large industrial complexes with very large impermeable carparks and roofs. Their drainage fee can often be based on the diameter of the water pipe supplying the building and so they pay a very disproportionate charge for their drainage.
We think that we need to move to a point where, basically, you pay for what you use. However, we need to make sure that that is set out in a comprehensive long-term strategy that enables people to move towards that. It is something we are developing at the moment.
Other water companies, I believe, do charge for that. There was a bit of a furore in 2016 when someone brought it in and there were big impacts on voluntary-sector buildings - like Cub Scout dens - having to suddenly pay large bills for drainage. We want to avoid that kind of unintended consequence, but certainly it
Page 31 seems logical in the longer term that we move towards a position where you pay for what you discharge. We would see that as being combined with a process of being able to reduce the impact of that through encouraging and supporting sustainable drainage and rainwater harvesting.
Shaun Bailey AM: You are doing the work? You are looking at that?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): We are doing the work at the moment. I am certainly not going to make a commitment to you today --
Shaun Bailey AM: I understand that.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): -- that we intend to bring it in, but it is something we are very aware of and keen on. We believe it has to be phased in gradually so that people have time to adapt, time to get used to it and time to build in those measures in an affordable way.
Shaun Bailey AM: Just to slightly change tack here, what impact do the LSDAP and Drain London have?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): The Drain London programme and the LSDAP, which is a spinoff from Drain London, have had a huge impact. We have talked about a lot of those impacts already this morning.
Drain London came in in 2010 and delivered the surface water flood risk mapping and Surface Water Management Plans for all of the 33 local authorities in London. Some of the things that exactly Sarah [Smith] and Steve [Iles MBE] were talking about before that identified these critical drainage areas were delivered by Drain London. That was the programme that made it happen. It also then rolled out a series of pilot projects to really make the case and showcase sustainable drainage in those areas that were highlighted as highest risk from the Surface Water Management Plans.
It also has led to a lot of great partnership working, bringing together the 33 local authorities. Drain London made a big case to keep the London Drainage Engineers Group going. That is a group that is really bringing together those flood risk managers in the lead local flood authorities to then say, “OK, we have all these surface water risks. How can we share our modelling and share our projects?”
Then, as I said, the spinoff was the LSDAP, which looks at a sector-based approach for managing surface water flood risk. A few things have happened as direct impacts from that project. The training I just talked about is a direct impact and deliverable from the LSDAP. We have delivered some community de-paving projects. There is one in Waterloo that you can go and have a look at. That is taking hard surfacing and turning it into a community garden as well as managing the surface water risk.
We are developing some sector-specific guidance working with the sectors at the moment. We will be launching guidance on surface water management in the education sector shortly. We have had a steering group with headteachers and facilities managers from schools who are actually going to be using this information to install sustainable drainage. There are great benefits for schools in that it prevents the playgrounds from flooding and all of these issues that can cause inconvenience and also sometimes schools to close. Also, through these measures, you can have outdoor classrooms developed and it is great for teaching kids about the water cycle and can enhance the biodiversity. There are lots of multiple benefits.
Page 32
We are doing some other collaboration with the Environment Agency and Thames Water with these pilot schemes for sustainable drainage, some of which we have mentioned like the Twenty 4 Twenty that Alex [Nickson] talked about. The project manager for the LSDAP has been heavily involved in working out the locations and the design of those projects and delivery on the ground.
In terms of planning, we have now issued a standard pro forma for all of the lead local flood authorities so that they can record the ways in which they are changing planning applications to include sustainable drainage and to reduce that impact of surface water on the sewers.
We have also prepared what is called the SuDS Opportunity Model, which is a model at street level across London that identifies not only the best locations for where you should put sustainable drainage but what types of sustainable drainage you can put in those areas. It is a very detailed hydraulic model and so it looks at the depth of the expected water and which way it will flow, and so whether you should have a system that maybe has a large tank if needed somewhere, if it is going to expect large flows, or whether you could manage the water through a rain garden or a smaller series of measures.
That, again, was in response to the local authorities saying, “OK, we are limited on resource and time here and we understand we want to be pushing SuDS, but we do not know exactly what type. That is a barrier and so there is a very long lead time to getting the projects implemented”. Drain London responded to that and produced this model that is now being widely used across London.
Shaun Bailey AM: My final question talks about how we are using SuDS and hard engineering solutions to control run-off. It sounds like you have partially answered that, but can you give me a very short example of a project or an idea that marries these two elements together?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes. The drainage hierarchy that Sarah [Smith] mentioned before is quite a good example. We are asking for surface water to be managed onsite where possible through green solutions, really, and so with softer engineering but sometimes with rainwater harvesting so that you can use it for watering a garden or watering communal gardens.
Then there is a recognition that that will not deal with all surface water in some cases and, therefore, you may need a mix of that green and grey infrastructure. That could be large attenuation tanks that sit maybe underneath a green infrastructure top so that it looks nice from the top but then that water is infiltrating into a more hard engineering solution, a tank, which then slows the flow down into the sewers to prevent those from getting overwhelmed and therefore flooding.
Also, we promote water reuse systems onsite where the water is being captured from the roofs or the surrounding area and then being treated and used, for example, to flush the toilets within a building. That is also a mix of that green and grey. There is quite a lot of water to deal with and, obviously, we want to try to move to as many green solutions as possible to deliver those multiple benefits, but that may not always be possible. We might also need some harder engineering.
Shaun Bailey AM: Are we having conversations with individual householders? You made a comment before about concreting over a driveway and another solution. Are there things that individuals can do to reduce the amount of run-off they have or the water they are using in the first place? You talked about greywater to flush the toilets. Can people retrofit that stuff and, if so, are we letting them know that that can be done?
Page 33
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Yes. Cassie [Sutherland] referred to the Greening the Grey manual. That is helpful, public, accessible stuff. We have developed what is basically a box that contains water from your run-off pipe. It has a green top on it so that you can have drought-resilient plant species that sit on the top. You have a tap on it so that you can use it for garden uses and it has an overflow siphon that goes back into the drain when that tank is full. We have those designed and ready to roll out if Ofwat gives us the funding we anticipate.
We see that as something we would like to roll out in areas where we know our drainage system is challenged by wet weather. We have the map to know where that is. We see that as the sort of thing we would like to see rolling out on quite a large scale. We estimate that every hectare of land that you can disconnect from the sewer is equivalent to 500 homes’ capacity of drainage that you are freeing up. We can start to look at whether we can neutralise some of the new development by offsetting some of the water that goes into our system. It is about finding handy figures like that to start to inspire people to recognise that they can do stuff in their own home that has a small but, in cumulation, very important impact.
Shaun Bailey AM: Thank you.
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): If I may, some boroughs are taking different approaches to communicating with their residents. I am aware of a campaign that Richmond is running linked to the increasing narrative around the climate emergency. They are using the opportunity, using social media, to have short snippets from experts in the field around different things that residents and householders can do. I recently took part in one talking about tidal flood risk, but we talked a little about surface water in that as well, and so I know they are trying to promote self-help for residents as part of that. It would be great. It would be fantastic to see that more widely rolled out across other boroughs or co-ordinated through the GLA.
It is really important that people think about their water consumption, their water use and their water disposal and about how they use these planters. It is effectively a nicer looking water butt that also has a value in terms of managing drainage. That simple action of disconnecting a drainpipe from going into the drain straight away can have an enormous difference if, cumulatively, it is retrofitted across a number of properties. That is expensive to do on a property-by-property basis across the whole of London, but we want to ensure that all new proposals take account of those things in the first place and then we would have a phased programme, I guess, of implementing that for buildings already.
We are seeing it particularly for schools. The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee has provided some funding towards one in Sutton. There is a Sutton SuDS in schools proposal where some of those measures have been put in. As Cassie [Sutherland] mentioned, there are the wider educational benefits of that. The context of our national Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy is talking about having a nation of climate champions and using education as a way of having schoolchildren bring those conversations home to their parents and using educational resources to educate parents about how they use water. That has been successful in some of the materials that the Environment Agency and others have produced as part of the National Curriculum.
Shaun Bailey AM: Thank you.
David Kurten AM: Good morning. I will start off with you, Cassie [Sutherland], for the GLA because you are representing them. How are the GLA’s Integrated Water Management Strategy proposals being implemented in new developments?
Page 34
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes, we have Integrated Water Management Strategies. They are being developed and are mentioned within the Environment Strategy and the London Plan for key growth areas.
They are not done for every single development. We take an approach where we look across maybe at an Opportunity Area scale or even wider than that. It could be to include a couple of Opportunity Areas. It is about areas where high growth is expected but also where there are - normally both - water capacity issues and flood risk and dealing with those things. At some points in those areas you expect to have too much water and also you might have too little. How can you look holistically around that area? If we do have the opportunity of growth happening, for example, it is about working with utility providers such as Thames Water and also other utilities to put in some different innovative approaches rather than just sticking with the norm, “OK, we might have to upgrade the water capacity in this area and get more flow there”.
We have developed these Strategies for the Vauxhall Nine Elms, Old Oak and Park Royal, Charlton to Bexley and Old Kent Road Opportunity Areas, and we are about to start one in the Isle of Dogs as well. That is just a starting point.
Some things have resulted from those Strategies. At Vauxhall Nine Elms it led to major surface water disconnection from the system, avoiding much of the surface water going into the sewers, because it was an area where there was constraint on the capacity within the sewers, and discharging some of that surface water directly into the Thames. It is very closely located and so allowing some of that to happen is bypassing some of that sewer system.
For example, on the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area, some of the recommendations from that Strategy have gone into an Area Action Plan. That is around some surface water-offsetting policies. It is looking at trying to manage that surface water across the whole of that area so that it does not have a large impact on the drainage system, as we have been talking about. At a development scale, it is asking developers, if they are unable to manage 100%, to manage 70% of their water onsite and pay an offset fee for the 30%. That will go into some surface water measures across the rest of that Opportunity Area. It may be in a park or in another larger area of green space. We are starting to ensure that the total volume of surface water across an area is being dealt with but recognising that not every development has the same capacity to take it on.
In the Isle of Dogs, the plan is around - you can tell me if I am wrong - to my understanding some constraints on the water supply in that region and, also, it is an area of flood risk as you can imagine. It is about managing how we can use some storage of water and look at potentially - the work is just starting - some larger-scale water reuse systems so that we can capture the rainwater and then be using that to offset some need for mains water supply when it is not needed as drinking water. We can look at that at a development scale.
We think the Strategies themselves have been very effective in coming up with a series of recommendations that are applicable to that particular area of growth. They are always in partnership with Thames Water, often the Environment Agency and the local authority, so that we have a true understanding of the current issues, expected growth, flood risk and the constraints on the systems. We are working with local, bespoke data and coming up with a series of recommendations that in the majority of cases have gone then into local plans and therefore will be followed by each of the developers. The point of the Strategies themselves is to try to then influence that next level of planning documents that apply to those large-scale developments.
Page 35
Yes, we are trying to make sure that we are agile about them. We do not just want to follow the same model and come up with the same recommendations. We are developing our approach as we go on. We are pretty excited about the one in the Isle of Dogs, which will happen over the next six months or so.
David Kurten AM: It is different things for different areas and different developments.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes.
David Kurten AM: The Isle of Dogs sounds interesting. I lived in a different country once where they had that kind of system. You capture rainwater when there is a lot of rainwater and then you use that when there is less rainwater. Is that the idea?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes. We do not know if that will definitely be the outcome because we need to do all of the modelling and the work needs to happen, but it is about how you do things at scale that are going to maximise when you have too much water and use it when you have too little water. It is about starting to look at the water cycle, really, across those developments rather than just looking at these things - flood water and drainage and water supply - all very separately.
David Kurten AM: Is there funding available for all of this or is there an issue with funding?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): In terms of funding the actual Strategies, they are partnership funded through, normally, the GLA, Thames Water and the local authority. That is some small money, normally, and then we go out for procurement for a consultancy.
In terms of then delivering the measures on the ground, that is why it is important that the Strategies are converted or adopted into local plans or opportunity area planning frameworks so that then they become a condition of planning within that area and then the delivery is done through the development of infrastructure and new developments. That is the delivery model.
David Kurten AM: For these ones you have mentioned, is it actually a requirement in the local plan?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes. The one I mentioned about Old Kent Road is in the local plan about the offsetting. For the one at Vauxhall Nine Elms, the project was already in. That surface work was already in and so, yes, we are seeing some direct impacts.
David Kurten AM: Are there some of these developments that are not in the local plans and there would not therefore be a requirement?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): It is a series of recommendations through the Strategies and some of those are then adopted more than others. It is supposed to be looking for a suite of recommendations rather than saying, “This is the one thing”, because of course these are areas where growth is expected but things can change as you are going through that process. It is recognising that and so we have come up with a suite of recommendations.
In terms of the one for Old Oak and Park Royal, we are still at the point where we are looking. That is about to become incorporated into the next level of local plan. The main aim of these Strategies is to get them in quite early so that then those recommendations can be embedded right from the start within planning policy because, if you are trying to suggest something strategic about managing water in an integrated way and
Page 36 joining up supply, flood risk and wastewater, there is no point being halfway through the process. Those big changes need to come in right at the start. Therefore, there can be a bit of a tail in terms of the adoption of them within planning.
David Kurten AM: Yes. Specifically with the SuDS, that is mostly about permeable areas of the land, I imagine. That is mostly that side of things. Are they incorporated into housing developments away from areas at risk and away from rivers but still at risk of surface flooding?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes. The drainage hierarchy we have talked about before is applicable. It is not just limited to a river or tidal flood zone. There are also surface water flooding maps available and so you can look at the hotspots - or ‘cold spots’ as they were referred to before - for your flood areas. There are different processes for assessing the risk for the different types of flood risk, as we have talked about before. Sarah [Smith] talked about the assessments that are done and there are different requirements for each bit. You do not just look at one map and say, “OK, I am done now”. You need to look at the tidal risk, the fluvial risk, the surface risk and the groundwater risk that we have talked about.
David Kurten AM: Do you have any examples of housing developments that are away from rivers but are still at risk of surface flooding where you are putting into effect these --
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): The Integrated Water Management Plans?
David Kurten AM: Yes, as well as the SuDS.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): OK. The one that is probably furthest away from the river is the Old Kent Road. I am thinking as I am going through my list in my head. When we have looked at the integrated water management in that area, the surface water risk is the key flood risk we have been looking at. Each of these Strategies is designed with that local context in mind, whatever the biggest risk is and also whatever the biggest opportunities are. It may be that in one of these Strategies the biggest concern could be around water supply to the area rather than flood risk. We would also be assessing the flood risk but it would be the water supply that the recommendations would be targeted towards.
It is trying to get away from looking at all these different types of flood risk here and issues with a sewer system that is now dealing with more people and more impermeable surfacing than it used to and water supply and issues around that as well and expected levels of water scarcity in the future, and starting to say that there must be some solutions that work across all of these things. It is not limited to only riverside. It is not limited to only surface water. It is looking across the piece.
David Kurten AM: Yes. I am just trying to get an idea so that I can visualise it. If you say Old Kent Road, that is an area that is a little bit away from the river but has a risk of surface flooding. In that area, there would be some kind of SuDS and permeable surfaces?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Definitely. Surface water particularly is not limited to beside the river. There is a map that we have on our website - I can send you the link to it - that shows you the key areas at highest risk from surface water. You will see that they are not always located right beside the river.
David Kurten AM: Thank you.
Page 37
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): David, before you move on to the next batch of questions, can I just come in with one thing to check? I am just wondering. You have described all these different kinds of measures, but are there actual standards that people have to comply with?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): There are different ones. We have our Integrated Water Management Strategies, which are for high-growth areas. They are looking at recommendations that would then be adopted as requirements within local plans. That is one area.
If we are talking about planning policy for new developments, then, yes, there are standards within the London Plan around various areas of flood risk, some of which we talked about, and around surface water management. The Integrated Water Management Strategies are trying to look at --
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): The bigger picture.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): -- in these large areas the big picture. What is the stuff we should be getting in now and what should we be thinking about now and working in partnership now? Of course, we want our flood risk management schemes to be talking to our water management schemes as well and, therefore, for people to be going in together and doing that work rather than going in separately. There are two slightly different things.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. Sorry, David, continue.
David Kurten AM: Thanks. If I can move on to you, Alex [Nickson], for Thames Water, I would like to ask you about the Thames Tideway Tunnel. That is a big project going on at the moment. Will that reduce the flood risk and, if so, how will it reduce the flood risk?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): It certainly is not designed to reduce flood risk because it is designed to make sure that we do not put dilute pollution into the Thames every time we have heavy rainfall. The safety valve that Bazalgette [Joseph Bazalgette, 19th-century civil engineer] built into the network was that it would discharge into the Thames rather than back up and discharge into people’s homes. The Tideway Tunnel’s principal aim is to do that.
However, it will take some pressure off the main system. When we have very intense rainfall, that rainfall, rather than filling the tunnels though the interceptor connections, will discharge into the Thames Tideway Tunnel. It will have an unintended benefit of that. It will take what we call the ‘first flush’ of heavy rainfall. If you imagine you have had a long period of no rain when pollution has built up on the streets and built up in the drains and then you have the rain fall, the rain absorbs it all and then pushes it into the river. The number one aim of the tunnel is to try to avoid that, but the benefit is that it will absorb some of that water and reduce the levels in the drainage system so you end up with less backing up and less risk of pollution.
David Kurten AM: That is great. What other localised strategies do you have or are implementing to try to reduce flood risk and particularly from surface water?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): We talked briefly about Twenty 4 Twenty. That is the current five-year period’s projects and they are all being completed now.
I introduced briefly the Sixty 4 Sixty-Five, a tripling of our ambition. That lies with our regulator now to determine whether it wants to fund it, but we are very excited about that. What that model does is it seeks
Page 38 different ways to build capacity of different players in order to deliver SuDS. Some of it would be giving large chunks of money to local authorities that have low capacity in their drainage networks to look at big consolidated projects. Our aim would be to give three local authorities a total of £6 million each to do that so that they get to have some serious scale work on that. We were then planning to give £150,000 to each of our 96 local authorities to try to build their capacity to look at surface water, flood risk and sustainable drainage. There was another set of money set aside for big projects that we would deliver where we are doing other stuff to bring sustainable drainage in. Then the last bit was going to be some money for third parties, NGOs, environmental groups, etc, to deliver.
The indication from Ofwat is that we are not going to get all of that money and so we are currently reviewing, with the likely amount of money that Ofwat may give us, where that money is best spent and where we are going to get most bang for our buck. Our plan is to then move to 150 hectares in the 2025 to 2030 period and to 200 in the following period. We are trying to escalate this programme as a way of building capacity.
We also believe that taking this strain out of the drains, as we call it, means that we can have growth in London and that means that we do not have to upgrade the size of our sewage treatment works as quickly because we are removing rainwater that would still end up at sewage treatment works where you have a combined sewer. There are definite strategic benefits as well as local benefits to these works.
David Kurten AM: Thanks. You mentioned working with lots of the other agencies around, but how are you working with other water providers to co-ordinate flood risk and to what extent are you doing that?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): If I understand your question, in some developments - for example, King’s Cross and London Riverside in Havering - developers have brought in someone else or have themselves developed the drainage system. We call them inset companies because they are effectively taking on what would have been our responsibility but have decided to do it themselves. They then discharge to our network. We think this is a very interesting way of working because King’s Cross is probably one of the best examples in the United Kingdom where developers have put in rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling and sustainable drainage features within a development and have created the management capacity within the development to ensure that those systems work well. We think that is a really good approach. We do not always think that the water company has to provide the solution to the drainage and we would want to encourage further opportunities like that. We hope that London Riverside will do the same so that it does not always have to fall to us.
David Kurten AM: I am thinking also that you provide the water for most of London but not the whole of London.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): That is correct. Yes, 76% of London.
David Kurten AM: There are other companies. Do you work with those?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Absolutely. We are working very closely with the other water companies: Affinity, Essex & Suffolk, and Sutton & East Surrey. We work closely with them. We provide water to them. They sometimes provide water to us. There is an arrangement to make sure that we provide water security to London.
Page 39
We are working closely with Affinity Water to look at building a new reservoir outside London to support London in times of drought and to support our growth. We think that looking at how we can capture this rainwater that otherwise runs into the drains and out to sea and use that will help to close the gap we have between supply and demand, which is effectively 34 million litres per day by 2045. That is a gap of four and a half Albert Halls every day that we need to fill.
David Kurten AM: Thank you.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. I like the Albert Hall scale.
Joanne McCartney AM: I want to ask about co-ordination between the different agencies and I want to start with Steve [Iles MBE] but then open it up to the rest.
You have talked about how you can build up resilience before flooding takes place with flood management plans and you have a South West London Flood Group. What about when flooding does occur? You have given us some of the issues and some of the strategies you developed when you had serious flooding in 2014, but perhaps you could tell us how you think the agencies do co-ordinate. What would you like to see improved? What could help?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): Good question. I can say from experience of the 2013-14 flood event, it took some time for all of the agencies not necessarily to get on board but to understand the gravitas of the situation there. It was moving quite quickly as well. At that time, whilst it felt it was a long time, things were moving very quickly. Initially, it was quite challenging to get everybody together, but not necessarily between Croydon, the emergency services, Environment Agency, Thames Water, and Sutton & East Surrey Water. It was probably more that when you go out of London to the Surrey County Council and Tandridge, the emergency services are different outside of the London area. Getting them all together did prove quite challenging to start with. However, as I said, once we instigated a major incident, that in itself brought everybody together. It was a very steep learning curve for all parties.
For the record, although I have said this in the past, the residents of Croydon are immensely thankful for all of the agencies that participated in that really difficult situation and time in Croydon.
To start with it was a bit strained, but it came together very well. Actually, off the back of that event, what I can say is that the relationships have formed for the better and we have a very proactive arrangement in place where we are all interacting with the groups that are set up and even when we are working locally. As some of the local residents know, we encouraged them to set up flood forums and we are working with those and breaking them down into smaller areas where there are particular issues. It has moved on significantly.
There is always room for improvement. I would not be complacent and none of the agencies would be complacent. There is always room for improvement, but what I can say is that over the past five or six years things have progressed significantly. The relationships have been formed and they work very well. The intelligence and the data that comes out of each of the areas helps inform and provides all of us with the ability to mitigate and reduce the likelihood of events, such as what we experienced. As I said, it was difficult to start with, but now it is very solid. It is good to see the nodding from the right. It is very solid and long may that continue.
Page 40
Joanne McCartney AM: You said that you declared a major incident. That was you and the London Fire Brigade (LFB). Who has the power to declare a major incident? You said that as soon as that declaration was made, then people swung into action.
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): From memory, it was the authority that declared it, but then, as a result of that, those agencies came together to then manage and deal with the issue at hand. As I said, that makes it very full formal. Those groups meet with a hierarchy in terms of gold, silver and bronze, and so there is an element of control about how we manage the event itself. The objective was to move away from a major incident as quickly as possible now. As a local authority, we were heavily reliant on the Environment Agency and equally the LFB for pumping equipment and, for the three months that we had to manage that incident, we recognised the challenges that as a local authority we had but equally as the partnership.
Off the back of that, what it did do is highlight a need for boroughs to look with the agencies at mutual aid and how we get mutual aid agreements in place in advance of incidents happening. It was very difficult at the time to get mutual aid, not necessarily that it was not forthcoming, but asking for it in the midst of an emergency. We have those mutual aid plans and agreements in place. Setting that in place that the outset gives us the ability to focus on dealing with the issue at hand.
Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you. I am going to come on to others in a second, but can I just ask you? I know that the London Resilience Forum has been looking at this and has developed frameworks for responding to water emergencies, which includes flooding as well as drought and whatever. Have those frameworks been helpful and helped to co-ordinate?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): In short, yes. For the authority, for Croydon, it is helpful. Again, as things are developing, we as a borough and equally the agencies are learning more and being able to put measures in place and start to get some standardisation, co-ordination and consistency across the boroughs. Again, that is one of the things that we struggled with in dealing with the event. The approach that we as a London authority take versus what the counties do is slightly different and the emergency services operate differently. That has helped bring that consistency in place. As I said, it has helped. We have matured and continue to mature in terms of the way that we tackle events when they happen, but actually we want to try to avoid those and so there is a lot of emphasis about the proactive part of what we do.
Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you. Can I ask my original question again to the others about whether you think the co-ordination is good enough and how could it be improved?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): It has improved. The experience and the scars that we still feel from the winter of 2013/14 has helped with that understanding.
One of the things that is really important is the planning process, that preparation and that understanding. In an emergency, rather than get to the emergency and then say, “Oh, what should we do”, we have those plans in place and we exercise those plans routinely as well. We would look to work with partners sometimes in desktop exercises but sometimes also getting the kit out and putting those temporary defences up. We had the big inflatable thing that ponded the water and all sorts of different things. We provided pumps and other equipment and worked with the LFB. We now have a provision in place for how the pumps connect together and the sizes of the pumps that the LFB has versus the ones that the Environment Agency holds. We understand better now how the equipment fits together.
Page 41
For me, for further improvement, it would be the continued commitment and resources available to exercise in peacetime rather than find ourselves in panic during those difficult times. We do very well during an incident. Everyone goes into that command-and-control structure when we have to sort this out, but actually the important bit is the upfront part for me. If we continue to put resources into that, that would be the area that I would like to see a continuation of funding and support for.
Joanne McCartney AM: Alex?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Yes, I would agree. You have the adrenaline of the incident and then the hangover afterwards and it is always difficult to make sure those lessons learned are costed and applied. It is about what you do the day after.
Also, it is about constantly maintaining the relationships to build the trust amongst all the key players so that we know who to pick up the phone to when something goes the way we do not want it to and we have confidence that that message will be taken up and acted upon. There is a lot more we could be doing to constantly maintain these networks because people move on. That is an area for improvement.
Joanne McCartney AM: Cassie [Sutherland], do you have anything to add?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): The London Resilience Forum works very closely with all of these agencies and the category one and two responders. We were involved in the updating of their frameworks. I would echo Sarah’s [Smith] point, really. From our perspective, it seems so important to have the practice and the desktop exercises or tabletop exercises to ensure that these processes are all in place and able to be managed.
Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Can I just ask Sarah [Smith] a question in terms of forecasting? We heard earlier that during December 2013 to January 2014 there was this unprecedented situation of the wettest two months. Given that we have the ability to do long-range forecasting and given the current situation with the known floodplains and the developments, are you able to forecast the possibility of another major crisis like that in London and, if you are, when and where will that be?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): As Steve just said, I would be a very rich person. In terms of forecasting, the Environment Agency has a partnership with the Met Office and we have the Flood Forecasting Centre. It has been around for about ten years now and they work closely together in a centre down in Exeter. They look at the weather forecast and then the likely impact on the flood risk and they produce a flood guidance statement. That is done weekly.
In terms of that long-range forecasting, yes, we do have assessments of how the groundwater is performing. We also understand our river levels. We have a network of gauges that allow us to monitor river levels across the country.
The more challenging forecasting where we do not have the big lead-in time is around surface water. We cannot always predict where the really heavy, intense rain is going to fall. That is still proving a challenge. We can have some idea from looking at thunderstorms. What we would do now is we would gear up, escalate and
Page 42 put the procedures in place where our incident rosters are populated and our incident rooms are open ready, should that occur, and we are looking at the warning and the informing that comes after the forecasting.
In terms of the tidal flood risk, we have a much longer lead-in time. We can look at the tidal predictions. We can look at whether there is a surge coming and whether the wind is also coming with that and we can prepare in advance for those sorts of circumstances. The fluvial rivers in London react very quickly to heavy rainfall. They can come up a metre in a matter of an hour or two. They respond quickly because they are what is known as conveyance systems. The idea when they were built in concrete in the 1960s was to get the water to the Thames as quickly as they could. What we are trying to do now is to manage that and create spaces for water to slow down that flow so that we do not see these huge increases and spilling out everywhere.
We can forecast for those rivers, and we do, and we put flood warnings out on the basis of those forecasts and flood guidance statements that come from the Flood Forecasting Centre. We have people who are on duty 24/7 looking at those risks, but we scale up if we think there are predicted impacts.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Did you have anything to say, Alex [Nickson]?
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): Yes. We have something called ICMLive - or ‘storm chasing’ as it is known to its friends and admirers - which is where we look at the incoming weather reports, look at the intensity of these storms, look at the level of depth of drainage in our sewers and then try to identify where there might be hotspots and then go and either proactively clear those hotspots or, where we know we might have work undergoing in the sewer that may mean we lose some of our capacity, we would quickly remove that work. If we are working on penstocks, for example, in the sewer that would mean that we have had to shut our sewer off, when we see heavy rain coming in, we will quickly take down those works to make sure that the water is able to pass through that sewer. It is something we have started and we have seen good success from it.
We are currently working with the sector to try to identify how we can create a low-cost sensor that we can put in our sewers so that we know how full they are all the way across the network. We want to move to a smart system where we can understand in much more granularity how full a sewer is, where the rain is falling, how the sewer is responding and whether we need to do some pre-emptive work before that water moves further through the system.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: That is good to hear. Steve [Iles MBE], to focus on residents now, there may be a couple of questions about the most vulnerable and your planning. We have heard about your mutual aid, but what key learnings did you take out of your experience about the assistance to the most vulnerable residents in circumstances like those you experienced around 2013/14?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): What did come to light very quickly was that we as an authority do not hold a single source of data, not just about vulnerable residents but around critical infrastructure, substations and those types of equipment, and the treatment works, although we knew about the treatment works that were there.
On the vulnerable people, we struggled to get the information together. What we have done since then is to now have an updated vulnerable list in those flood areas. We do keep that regularly updated, quarterly if not six-monthly, just to double-check that those vulnerable people are still there. There are provisions in place in the plans that we have, should we need to activate those plans. We know that they are there and we have put
Page 43 provisions in place to either support them and/or, if necessary, relocate them, whether that is temporary or for a longer period of time.
We did have to evacuate a number of properties during that period and that was part of the learning curve of understanding. We did not actually know for sure who those vulnerable people were. We did for our own housing stock but we did not for the private sector. It is that split that we struggled to get the information for.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Given all that we know, that flooding is taking place somewhere in some place or is due to or will do, we were informed that 25% of Londoners do not have flood insurance. Do you think that the GLA has a role in raising awareness about the reality of the circumstance and using the GLA’s huge communication and advertising resources to make that a little bit more prominent?
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Last year, actually, we ran at London’s first London Flood Awareness Week. I am pretty sure it was in November [2018]. That was all about engaging Londoners and raising awareness of the impacts of flooding and also the flood risk that people were living within and so on. It was in partnership with the London Resilience Forum and the Environment Agency.
Firstly, we got out and distributed some leaflets with information and also flood packs so that people, if they were living in areas of high flood risk, could, for example, put their valuables and small things into waterproof bags so that they had those available. We promoted it across the GLA’s and the Mayor’s social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. We had a letter sent out to 100,000 London households that were priority service registered and in areas of flood risk. It was really trying to target those who are most vulnerable. We had a web app and a quiz that reached over 22,000 Londoners. We pointed people signing up for further information to the Environment Agency’s flood forecasting service because you can sign up for text message and email updates on there. That was about driving traffic.
We are planning on holding another similar event this year [2019], again tying in with the Environment Agency’s National Flood Awareness Week. We think it is a good idea to have a London aspect as part of that week. We are really trying to engage with Londoners as well using some of those messages.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: There is another old myth that flooding is an act of God, but of course it is not.
Tony Arbour AM: Not if the water main goes.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Not if developers have built over the natural resources and caused human problems. There is a need for greater awareness.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): We can try to manage the risk but we are recognising that we cannot eliminate it. It is about how can we raise awareness of how to minimise the impact those events might have on Londoners by raising that awareness. Yes, we think it is very important as well.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: It is also an opportunity for more cross-funnel working within the GLA in terms of the messages that are sent out and working with insurance companies.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes. Through the London Climate Change Partnership we have some links to the insurance sector there and flood risk insurance is an area we have been talking about with them. There is the Flood Reinsurance Programme. That is a national programme. There is some talk of that coming to an end and so what would come next? We are trying to look at the state of play in
Page 44
London around insurance in parallel to giving information to Londoners, raising awareness and giving them key information, but also then bringing in the insurance sector and understanding that. Do they have data gaps? What are some of the issues they are facing? How can we promote that need across London?
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: It is not undermining what is being done at boroughs. This is just a strategic piece, bringing in these insurance companies and stuff. It is good to hear that something is going on. Maybe we just need to make it more current and keep it higher up the agenda at all times.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, GLA): Yes. London Flood Awareness Week is also about building a bit as well. It was successful last year [2018]. We were really pleased. We have learned a lot from that as well about the materials that worked and got good engagement and we will build on that this year [2019]. We had great links out to community groups to try to get reach. It was not all about the biggest number we could reach. It was also about who we were reaching through that. For example, those members of the community who may have less ability to adapt or capacity to adapt, whether that is people with disabilities or low incomes, maybe are going to be less likely to have insurance. We are trying to target those messages as well. There were some great learnings from the first year. Now we can take that and say, “OK, this is how we target the messages and this is how we get a broader reach”. That was the approach we have taken.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Thank you.
Shaun Bailey AM: To Thames Water, why is it not on the bill? If my bill said, “Do you have flood insurance”, I would definitely consider it.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I am not sure that flood risk is really something we want to communicate. We have done a lot of studies to see how we impact people through what we put on the bill. Unfortunately, there are a phenomenal number of people who do not even read their bills and so we need to make sure that every bit that is on the bill is as impactful as possible. Therefore, we would be promoting measures first about water efficiency and leakage within their homes and then it would be about ‘bin it, do not block it’ messages about people not flushing things down the loo that then block sewers and cause flooding elsewhere. Flood insurance is not really part of our remit --
Shaun Bailey AM: I accept what you are saying about the bill. When you are in politics, the notion of a leaflet is not lost on you. The point I am making is that you have flood maps, you are the organisation that speaks most directly to the people involved in this, and you could on the back of the bill periodically - and I get that you have to have other things on that bill but you would not have to do it all the time - just put, “You are in a high flood risk area. Do you have flood insurance?” That would be impactful. Even if 5%, 10% or 15% of the people who received that bill read the bill, we would be ahead of where we are now. I would argue, in this arena, your business, Thames Water, carries weight. If I picked up my bill and it said, “You are in a flood risk area”, because it came from you, I would pay attention.
Joanne McCartney AM: I would wonder whether they are selling insurance as well.
Shaun Bailey AM: No, we do not want to see you selling insurance but the point is that --
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Shaun, the local authority could also be giving those messages.
Page 45
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): They have the formal responsibility --
Shaun Bailey AM: Of course, they could, but this is the water authority and it is just about a teachable moment. If you talk to me about water and it is Thames Water that does that, I will listen more. If my local garage talks to me about flowers, I am not interested.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I will certainly take that away, but we would be worried that there would be an implicit understanding that therefore somehow we are responsible for flooding and therefore --
Tony Arbour AM: That is exactly the point.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): -- that would send the wrong message. We would rather get across the messages of water efficiency and sewer blockages.
Shaun Bailey AM: I get that, but the flooding bit you are not responsible for. People are not silly. You do not control how much it rains. We understand that. The flooding you are responsible for, from burst pipes, you are responsible for. I do not see that as a problem. It is about a point of information and helping your customers. You could make a significant difference to the outcomes for people who are flooded out.
Alex Nickson (Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water): I will certainly take that away. I wish it was that easy and that our bills had that effect. Something like less than 1% of people actually react to any kind of messaging we put in, but I can take that away.
Shaun Bailey AM: I accept the fact that people at home are not poring over your bills, but it is an important intervention that you could make for very low cost and a very high impact.
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): All I was going to say from a local authority perspective was that I am more than happy for Thames Water to take that away but in reality, it is probably one for the local authorities. What I can say from Croydon’s perspective is that we communicate with our residents on a regular basis via Your Croydon magazines and/or through any communication with the council tax bill, albeit not on the bill but in the literature that goes with the bill. We could periodically consider that and signpost people about insurance so that they can at least check.
Shaun Bailey AM: Absolutely. I do not say that Thames Water should do it on their own. Both of you would be really important because, when you get flooded out and all of your stuff is gone, if you cannot replace that stuff, that has a material effect on your life. If someone had let you know you were in a flood area and you could have pursued some insurance, it could make a real difference to people. Any way we can get that message across should be pursued.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Shaun, thank you. That brings us to the end of our meeting. Thank you all very --
Tony Arbour AM: One moment. There is one thing that we could perhaps have as a recommendation. Nearly all of you have mentioned riparian owners. When we were doing the Blue Ribbon Network here, we found that even on the Thames there was not a register of riparian owners. Can I ask? I guess it is the Environment Agency. Do you know who the riparian owners are?
Page 46
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): For the tidal frontages, yes, we do have that understanding and we work with those owners when we need to do maintenance work on the tidal walls. There is a responsibility for those riparian owners to part-fund some of that maintenance --
Tony Arbour AM: Yes, I understand that point. We had it from Steve [Iles MBE], who said that you took it on yourselves to do the work because, as I understood it, there was difficulty in dealing with the owners. Is that right?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): That is correct, although I will say that in Croydon, we know who the riparian owners are.
Tony Arbour AM: All of them?
Steve Iles MBE (Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council): The reason we know is because they are the properties that the asset runs through and so we do know. The issue for us will be keeping that information updated and whether we should keep it updated because we have other information around council tax bills, etc. We know the properties that are responsible for that.
The decision we took not to charge was purely around the fact that we were dealing with a major incident and we had to deal with it. That does not mean that we will continue doing that. We do and have informed all riparian owners of their duty.
Tony Arbour AM: The reason I asked is that I go back to the Blue Ribbon Network more than a dozen years ago when we did not have that. What about your little rivers like Beverley Brook and the Hogsmill River? We have already had mention of the Wandle. What about the owners there?
Sarah Smith (Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency): We work with our partner organisations to understand the ownership of that. We have estates teams. We have people who could search the Land Registry for us. What we try to do is a broader campaign around people understanding the risk and their riparian responsibilities. The Agency does produce document called Living on the Edge, which we used to circulate hard copies of but there is now, unfortunately, only an online copy. That tries to inform people of their duties and responsibilities and that of the organisations. It can be very confusing in a flood incident where the water has come from and who it is that then should look after that. There are resources out there to do that. There are limited people to promote that and engage, obviously.
Tony Arbour AM: Thank you. To cut it short, the reason I raised it was because I was going to suggest that maybe a recommendation that we could make was there be a register of the riparian owners, but since it appears that you actually do know them, there is no point.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Indeed. Thank you for clearing that up, Tony [Arbour AM]. That was very helpful.
That does bring us to the end of today’s discussion. I would like to thank all of our guests very much for your contributions, particularly as we have had the event in Finsbury Park that has brought to the front and centre the harm of flooding and the impact on Londoners’ everyday lives. All of the work that you are all doing together is hugely important for the wellbeing of Londoners. Thank you to our guests.
Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 Agenda Item 4
Subject: Summary List of Actions
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 15 January 2020
This report will be considered in public.
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of ongoing and completed actions arising from previous meetings of the Environment Committee.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the closed, completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 10 October 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. Flooding in London During the course of the discussion, the Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: Completed. Wastewater The timescales for and details of the forensic See Systems Strategy analysis of what caused the flood in Finsbury Park, Appendix 1. Manager, Thames and how that information would be used for future Water. learnings; Whether Thames Water committed to compensating all consequential loses following the flood; and A copy of Thames Water’s performance report, detailing the profit made by the organisation over a three-year period.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 49
During the course of the discussion, the Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: The list of 88 projects to reduce the risk of fluvial Completed. Area Flood Risk flooding included in the Environment Agency’s See Manager, six-year programme; Appendix 1. Environment Agency. An update on the Silk Stream project; and A chart that contains the areas of flood risk across London, whether local authorities have designated them, and clarity on what local authorities have the power to do. During the course of the discussion the Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: The extent to which advice on flooding is taken Completed. into account by developers and borough planning See authorities when determining planning Appendix 1. applications; and Whether Croydon had used their powers to designate flood risk areas. During the course of the discussion, the Policy and Programme Manager, GLA, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: Copies of any tools or guides that are used to help Completed. educate Londoners on permeable alternatives; See Appendix 2. Further information on where the Edgware Road
underpasses are; The extent to which the relaxation of permitted development rights impacted the work of the GLA; and
The link to the map that identifies key areas at the highest risk of surface water flooding.
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Closed – this with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output delegation from the discussion. was not used.
Page 50
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 18 September 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. Question and Answer with Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy During the course of the discussion Members requested Completed. the following information: See Appendix Details of the total amount of environmental funding that the Mayor had requested from the 3. Government for London; The number of people, or what percentage of homes, are required to make London Power feasible; Details of the measurable criteria that the Committee could use to check on the progress of London Power; A progress report on the Warmer Homes programme, aimed at those who were ‘able to pay’; The timescale for Transport for London’s (TfL) energy procurement power and power purchase agreements to assist with increasing renewable use by TfL; Figures outlining the percentage of London’s waste that was recycled in the UK and the percentage of London’s waste that was dealt with off-shore; Figures outlining the impact that the energy from waste and incinerators had on the air quality in London; Best-practice examples from London boroughs that were demonstrating good recycling and reduction plans; A list of London boroughs that had circular economy champions; Details of whether the Environment Team has disseminated information about the Mayor’s scrappage scheme to black, Asian and minority ethnic owned businesses; and whether identified community papers or other local minority press are being used to get the information out to communities;
Page 51
Information on the types of control groups used
in wearables monitoring air pollution (i.e. rucksacks on children going to school);
An update report on the targets and progress of the TRiFOCAL programme;
Details of the projects and potential projects aimed to help reduce waste in the fashion industry;
A response to the effect that the closure of
Hammersmith Bridge had had to the levels of pollution in the area, as mentioned in TfL’s report
to Assembly Members on Hammersmith Bridge on 3 September 2019; and
A list of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPGs) that had been pledged, and which of those are priorities.
The Deputy Mayor and Deputy Air Quality Manager, GLA, In progress. Deputy Mayor for also agreed to arrange a briefing for Assembly Members Date TBC. Environment and on the monitoring sensors used in air quality studies. Energy; and Deputy Air Quality Manager. That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Closed – this with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output delegation from the discussion. was not used.
Page 52
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 27 June 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. Tube Dust During the course of the discussion Members requested the following information: Completed. A list of the 42 dirtiest Tube stations; See The report and results commissioned by TfL with Appendix 4. King’s College and Imperial College which look at sickness of TfL employees;
Details of how frequently TfL measure and monitor
Tube dust levels and their composition and
concentration; and Details of the correspondence between RMT and In progress. RMT Stations TfL between 2003 to 2016 regarding health and Followed up Health and Safety safety concerns relating to air quality. on 24 Council Member October 2019.
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Completed. with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output See Agenda from the discussion. Item 5.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 22 May 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 10. Green Spaces in London That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Completed. with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output See Agenda from the discussion. Item 5.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 28 February 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 7. Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Closed – this with party Group Lead Members, to agree an output from delegation the discussion. was not used.
Page 53
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 6 December 2018 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 5. Cold and Damp Homes in London During the course of the discussion, Members requested In progress. Programme Followed up Manager, Energy, an explanation for why the amount of money allocated for energy and carbon reduction programmes in 2020/21, on 24 RE:NEW, GLA 2021/22 and 2022/23 is reducing. October 2019.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 8 November 2018 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. Carbon Emissions from Aviation During the course of the discussion, Members requested Completed. the targets for the number of people cycling regularly to See Heathrow Airport. Appendix 1.
3. Legal Implications
3.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.
4. Financial Implications
4.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Follow up information from Head of Emissions Strategy, Heathrow Airport, 1 September 2019; Environment Agency, 8 November 2019; Thames Water, 13 December 2019; and Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council, 3 January 2020; Appendix 2 – Correspondence from Policy and Programme Manager, GLA, 8 November 2019; Appendix 3 – Correspondence from Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, 11 November 2019; and Appendix 4 – Correspondence from Transport for London to the Chair, 18 October 2019.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4383 Email: [email protected]
Page 54 Appendix 1
Outstanding actions from previous Environment Committee meetings
Action Arising from the Meeting on 8 November 2018 Request for Information: During the course of the discussion, Members requested the targets for the number of people cycling regularly to Heathrow Airport. Response: In response to Heathrow’s most travel recent survey, around 2% of colleagues (around 1,800 people) indicated that they walked or cycled to the airport and we are aiming to increase this proportion – targets will be set out in our final Surface Access Strategy.
Over 19,000 of our colleagues live within 5km of the airport which is the equivalent of a 20- minute cycle ride for most people. Our planned hub and spoke network of cycle routes, improving access to the airport perimeter and routes into local boroughs will ensure that the local communities where colleagues live are better connected to the airport by bicycle. Cycle infrastructure proposals will also tie into the wider Green Infrastructure Loop as part of the Expansion Programme masterplan, providing further cycling and walking accessibility.
Colleagues already have access to a Cycle to Work scheme which offers significant discounts for bike and equipment purchases, and if their bike is registered at the Heathrow Cycle Hub, free bike servicing and repairs. Free bike fitting, cycle training, route assistance and loan bikes are available to new/less experienced cyclists who work at Heathrow.
Using TfL’s Cynemon model and considering the location and demographics of colleagues in areas with a higher propensity to cycle, we have taken best practice from the models followed by outer London boroughs and we will be aiming to significantly increase the number of commuter cyclists across the airport on this basis.
Sent via email on 1 September 2019
Page 55
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 10 October 2019 Request for Information: During the course of the discussion, the Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: • The list of 88 projects to reduce the risk of fluvial flooding included in the Environment Agency’s six-year programme; • An update on the Silk Stream project; and • A chart that contains the areas of flood risk across London, whether local authorities have designated them, and clarity on what local authorities have the power to do. Response: Please find attached: • A list of the 88 fluvial projects mentioned during our discussion (Annex 1) • A briefing on the silk stream in Barnet, as requested by AM Dismore (Annex 2)
I have investigated whether any London Boroughs have designated Critical Drainage Areas (which removes some of the permitted development rights), and it seems that none have been formally designated so far.
In discussion with Caroline Russell at the end of the Environment Committee meeting, I asked if I could proactively share a briefing on the review of the Thames Estuary 2100 plan (Annex 3). I mentioned the TE2100 plan fairly briefly during the session, but as our discussion focused a little more on surface water, I didn’t find the opportunity to talk about the review of this plan and the potential partnership role for the GLA. Caroline was happy with this proposal, so could I ask that the attached briefing on the 10 year review is also distributed to Assembly Members? I am happy to respond to any follow up questions that this may generate.
Sent via email on 8 November 2019
Request for Information: During the course of the discussion, the Wastewater Systems Strategy Manager, Thames Water, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: • The timescales for and details of the forensic analysis of what caused the flood in Finsbury Park, and how that information would be used for future learnings; • Whether Thames Water committed to compensating all consequential loses following the flood; and • A copy of Thames Water’s performance report, detailing the profit made by the organisation over a three-year period. Response: The timescales for and details of the forensic analysis of what caused the flood in Finsbury Park, and how that information would be used for future learnings:
Page 56
We have now received the initial forensic report for the burst pipe from Queen’s Drive. It has been produced by our specialist service providers Hydrosave, who routinely inspect the assets in our trunk main network and analyse burst pipes. The forensic analysis included a visual inspection of the burst pipe and its surroundings, metallurgic testing to determine the composition and strength of the cast iron, non-destructive testing of the pipe to characterise deterioration, analysis of the soil in which the pipe was sitting, and a review of records and sensor data from the trunk mains in the locality.
The findings and recommendations are now being reviewed to understand whether any more information is needed. We will determine what learning we can apply for the operation and management of the main that burst, and for our trunk main network more widely. The data in the report will also feed into future trunk main risk modelling to inform asset management decisions, as is the case for all pipe inspections that take place. Once the report has been finalised, which is due to be in the coming weeks, it will be made available to the Committee.
Whether Thames Water committed to compensating all consequential loses following the flood: We understand how upsetting and disruptive the flooding that resulted from burst pipe is for our customers. It is our responsibility to put things right, and we continue to do everything we can to care for our customers who have been affected so that no one is left out of pocket from this incident, we are happy to discuss with customers any financial losses they have incurred.
The actions we are taking to support our customers includes:
Helping residents with their own insurance claims and, if they choose to claim on our insurance, replacing new for old household items that were damaged by the flooding. We are also paying travel, subsistence and other related expenses. Linked to this, we are helping residents who fear that their insurers may increase their premiums as a result of the flooding. Our insurance team are drafting a letter for residents to use to explain that the flooding was caused by a burst watermain and that we have accepted full liability and are covering all associated costs. Making discretionary payments to affected residents that are over and above insurance claims and our statutory duties. £300 payments have been made to those residents affected by the flooding, and £5,000 payments have been made to residents who had to move out of their homes for repair work to take place. In total, 158 cheques have been issued, with 122 for £5,000 and 35 for £300. Where businesses were affected by the flooding we are working to help them get back up and running as soon as possible. We have committed to cover the costs of repair, stock and loss of profits while they are not able to trade. Rehousing residents in alternative accommodation while repair and remediation work takes place on their property. We have suspended billing to these properties while this work takes place. We are now looking after 70 families (162 people) in either short term or long-term let accommodation.
Page 57
We are communicating proactively with residents through regular customer updates issued using a variety of methods - email, post, hand delivery and via text message. We have set up a bespoke Queen’s Drive webpage, which includes information like our newsletter for residents. We have also looked to circulate information on local residents’ group networks and social media. We are also using the Community Page to share information and attended a residents’ meeting on 27 November to answer questions from the community.
Our team of customer service representatives and loss adjustors were present on site from the first morning of the incident. We have a customer service hub at Azalea Court Community Hall, which remains open on weekdays from 9am until 5pm.
A copy of Thames Water’s performance report, detailing the profit made by the organisation over a three-year period: Our Annual Report and Annual Performance Report 2018/19, which was published in June 2019, can be seen here – you can find our financial performance table on page 23.
Please see below a table of our after-tax profits for financial years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19. We announced our interim results in November 2019, which showed an underlying loss before tax of £54.3 million for the six months ended 30 September 2019.
Our bills for wastewater customers include amounts relating to the costs of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. As we collect cash, some of it is passed over to Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (BTL), the independent company appointed to construct the tunnel. We therefore exclude this money from our underlying results. BTL is known to the public as Tideway.
Year 2016/17 2017/18* 2018/19 Underlying* Profit after tax 108.4 193.9 45.5 (£m)
*The 2017/18 figure includes the one-off £89.7m profit relating to sale of our non- household retail business to Castle Water. The figures for 2017/18 were restated in 2018/19 due to changes in accounting standards which required a retrospective restatement.
Sent via email on 13 December 2019
Page 58
Request for Information: During the course of the discussion the Director of Public Realm, Croydon Council, agreed to provide the Committee with the following information: • The extent to which advice on flooding is taken into account by developers and borough planning authorities when determining planning applications; and • Whether Croydon had used their powers to designate flood risk areas. Response: The extent to which advice on flooding is taken into account by developers and borough planning authorities when determining planning applications: Croydon Council as the LLFA has a very good relationship with the LPA and as such have worked closely to develop Standard Advice for developers and a Sustainable Drainage – design & evaluation guide. LLFA as a statutory consultee for major developments does provide a formal response with recommendations which is published and forms part of the LPAs decision making. The LLFA also offers Pre-Application advice for major developments which can prove invaluable in ensuring developers provide quality information as part of their application.
Whether Croydon had used their powers to designate flood risk areas: Croydon has no designated CDAs at present but are currently considering locations, Croydon are also working closely with a neighbouring borough on a possible CDA designation adjoining our borough.
Sent via email on 3 January 2020
Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60 Annex 1
Regional Other funding, OM2 Gateway 4 Flood and Total Project including Homes (Readiness Project Name Lead Risk Management Authority - Name Grant in Aid (£) Local Levy (£) Coastal Expenditure (£) Public/Private better for Service) Committee contributions (£) protected Lower Mole FAS Major Refurbishment Works Thames Environment Agency 7,827,138 7,061,800 765,338 0 2,181 31/03/21 Graveney FAS Thames Environment Agency 3,806,571 1,887,571 1,919,000 0 123 01/12/21 Graveney Siphon De-Silting Thames Environment Agency 1,350,000 700,000 650,000 0 280 01/02/22 Lower Pinn Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames Environment Agency 1,952,542 165,747 67,795 0 34 01/04/22 The Beck (East Branch) at Langley Park flood Thames Environment Agency 740,786 439,017 301,768 0 31 30/10/21 alleviation study Ravensbourne (East Branch) at Southborough Thames Environment Agency 904,717 495,271 409,446 0 40 14/02/21 flood alleviation study Temple Pond Flood Defence Improvements Thames London Borough of Harrow 350,000 125,000 150,000 75,000 147 01/04/21 Page 61 Page Assessing Risk from Bridges and Culverts Thames Environment Agency 1,100,801 1,100,801 0 0 480 29/03/24 Salmons Brook Natural Flood Management Thames London Borough of Enfield 347,000 0 241,000 106,000 20 01/03/21 Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames Environment Agency 18,427,260 14,301,260 4,126,000 0 1,387 01/03/15 Mereway Sluice, Twickenham - Gate Replacement Thames Environment Agency 1,770,019 1,770,019 0 0 545 01/03/20 East Ruislip Flood Allevation Scheme Thames Environment Agency 1,426,199 1,221,252 204,947 0 169 01/08/21 Seven Kings Water Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames London Borough of Redbridge 3,028,932 1,176,705 0 25,000 153 01/12/22 River Rom Flood Alleviation scheme Thames Environment Agency 1,011,532 254,607 18,187 0 80 01/04/27 Rise Park and North Romford Flood Alleviation Thames London Borough of Havering 435,000 300,015 134,985 0 64 01/09/22 Scheme Pymmes Brook Constructed Wetlands Project Thames London Borough of Enfield 845,000 446,687 383,313 15,000 303 01/03/22 The River Lee Programme - Elmfield, Dagenham, Thames Environment Agency 976,000 976,000 0 0 518 01/03/26 Low Hall, Higham Works Silk Stream, Colindale Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames Environment Agency 6,289,015 286,057 0 0 67 01/03/25 Marley Castle and Oval Road Pumping Station Thames Environment Agency 522,500 164,036 0 0 100 01/09/24 Refurbishment Critical Drainage Area 018 - Decoy Brook Thames London Borough of Barnet 395,000 235,622 20,000 0 188 01/03/24 Catchment Flood Alleviation Scheme. Moselle Brook Culvert Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 5,093,895 1,523,929 1,985,770 0 336 01/03/23 Cranford Park Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames London Borough of Hillingdon 1,250,000 127,155 243,845 195,000 47 01/12/22 Tokyngton Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames PSO London West 2,510,013 65,587 58,262 0 152 01/08/22 The Common West Drayton Middlesex UB7 7HQ Thames London Borough of Hillingdon 120,000 31,237 52,713 0 11 01/03/22 IA - Wallington Investigation Thames Environment Agency 10,000 1,748 0 0 0 BLANK IA - Wandle - Purley - Croydon Investigation Thames Environment Agency 10,000 0 0 0 0 BLANK IA - Wandle - Summerstown Investigation Thames Environment Agency 10,000 10,000 0 0 1 BLANK Quaggy - Weigall Road FSA - Mid-Life Thames Environment Agency 10,000 10,000 0 0 256 BLANK Refurbishment Ravensbourne - Hayes Lane trash screen Thames Environment Agency 345,767 6,026 0 0 4 BLANK refubishment Pyl Brook - Anton Crescent - Conveyance Thames Environment Agency 455,325 256,586 0 0 119 BLANK Improvements Pyl Brook - Anton Crescent - M&E works and Thames Environment Agency 479,055 130,131 0 0 59 BLANK Penstocks Quaggy - Sutcliffe Park FSA - Mid-Life Thames Environment Agency 696,706 696,706 0 0 384 BLANK Refurbishment Marsh Dykes - Great Breach Pumping - Station building refurbishment and access improvements Thames Environment Agency 802,920 73,520 0 0 20 BLANK . Marsh Dykes - Crayford Marsh - Sliuce and culvert Thames Environment Agency 1,134,334 18,380 0 0 5 BLANK replacment. Marsh Dykes - Lake 4 gravity outfall - Mid-Life Thames Environment Agency 1,137,142 123,024 0 0 251 BLANK Refurbishment The Beck - Walls Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 1,177,340 979,782 0 0 679 BLANK Graveney Railings - Replacement Thames Environment Agency 1,214,526 0 0 0 0 BLANK Hogsmill - Kingston Town Walls - Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 1,894,096 1,653,075 0 0 524 BLANK Worcester Park - Mid-Life Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 2,625,987 192,623 0 0 109 BLANK Pyl Brook - Anton Crescent - Mid-Life Thames Environment Agency 2,774,285 130,131 0 0 59 BLANK Refurbishment Lower Quaggy - Raised Defences - Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 3,099,458 3,099,458 0 0 2,673 BLANK Marsh Dykes - Lake 4 Pumping Station - Thames Environment Agency 3,482,452 919,005 0 0 250 BLANK Refurbishment / Replacement Pyl Brook Walls Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 3,984,998 919,740 0 0 579 BLANK Ravensbourne channel from Ladywell Road to Lewisham College weir. Mid-Life refurbishment / Thames Environment Agency 5,227,186 5,227,186 0 0 5,599 BLANK replacement Graveney Walls - Refurbishmant Thames Environment Agency 5,401,708 3,759,343 0 0 2,162 BLANK Graveney Syphon Replacement Thames Environment Agency 9,525,590 984,193 0 0 612 BLANK Lower Ravensbourne - Raised Defences - Thames Environment Agency 10,131,367 4,675,774 0 0 2,988 BLANK Refurbishment Ravensbourne Catchment Strategy Thames Environment Agency 665,723 277,882 0 0 0 BLANK IA - Wandle - East Merton Investigation Thames Environment Agency 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 31/03/26 Marsh Dykes - Great Breach Phase 2 Conveyance
Page 62 Page Thames Environment Agency 10,000 10,000 0 0 3,199 31/03/26 Improvements Quaggy at Hither Green - Flood Relief Thames Environment Agency 235,935 235,935 0 0 451 31/03/26 Improvements Marsh Dykes - Green Level - Conveyance Thames Environment Agency 1,095,308 172,773 0 0 235 31/03/26 Improvements Graveney Syphon Refurbishment Thames Environment Agency 1,457,432 984,193 0 0 612 31/03/26 Marsh Dykes - Lake 4 System - Butts Canal Thames Environment Agency 1,483,614 1,483,614 0 0 500 31/03/26 Conveyance Improvements Marsh Dykes - Lake 5 Pumping Station - Building Thames Environment Agency 1,706,757 183,801 0 0 50 31/03/26 Refurbishment Marsh Dykes - Corinthian Dyke - Conveyance Thames Environment Agency 1,929,602 1,240,289 0 0 1,687 31/03/26 Improvements Marsh Dykes - Lake 4 Pumping Station - Building Thames Environment Agency 2,079,065 738,512 0 0 837 31/03/26 Refurbishment Cray - Foots Cray High Street Wall Improvements Southern Environment Agency 6,799,173 376,971 0 0 31 31/03/26 Lower Road Belvedere - Conveyance Thames Environment Agency 10,000 10,000 0 0 560 31/03/25 Improvements Marsh - Dykes - Crayford Marsh - Conveyance Thames Environment Agency 806,010 806,010 0 0 1,380 31/03/25 Improvements Quaggy - Sutcliffe Park - Embankment Repairs Thames Environment Agency 1,010,482 6,617 0 0 2 31/03/25 River Darent - flood plain habitat creation Southern Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 0 01/03/25 Shuttle and Wyncham Stream structures Southern Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 0 01/03/25 Lamorbey Park Flood Storage Reservoir Southern Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 0 01/03/25 Improvement works Marsh Dykes - Catchment conveyance Thames Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 0 01/03/25 improvements Cray Initial Assessment Southern Environment Agency 500,000 100,000 0 0 0 01/08/22 Surbiton Stream Flood Alleviation Scheme Thames Environment Agency 4,725,712 2,437,668 2,288,045 0 84 26/03/22 Middle Mole Model Study Thames Environment Agency 210,963 97,649 113,314 0 0 01/02/21 Beckenham Place Park Flood Storage Area Thames Environment Agency 1,500,000 125,837 0 0 20 01/02/21
Page 63 Page Old Bexley Defences Refurbishment/Replacement Southern Environment Agency 447,540 447,540 0 0 15 07/12/20 Vitbe Sluice Southern Environment Agency 700,000 700,000 0 0 0 01/10/20 RBG Ordinary Watercourses Thames London Borough of Greenwich 85,000 85,000 0 0 30 17/09/19 Great Breach Dyke culvert clearance Thames Environment Agency 206,623 206,623 0 0 0 01/02/19 NFM - Oxleas Wood Thames London Borough of Greenwich 44,020 34,020 0 10,000 0 18/09/18 Sutcliffe Park Trash Screen Thames Environment Agency 1,541,541 1,541,541 0 0 0 01/07/18 Lewisham and Catford FAS Thames Environment Agency 2,966,005 2,184,008 781,997 0 0 01/06/18 Kyd Brook FAS Thames Environment Agency 93,075 15,140 77,935 0 0 01/05/18 Lake 4 PS priority works Thames Environment Agency 2,985,846 2,985,846 0 0 1,863 26/03/18 Lower Mole Safety Booms Thames Environment Agency 1,606,222 1,606,222 0 0 0 28/09/17 Darent Industrial Estate Fluvial Flood Alleviation Southern Environment Agency 47,398 0 47,398 0 0 31/03/17 Scheme Works Anton Crescent FSA Thames Environment Agency 402,698 241,711 160,987 0 149 23/03/17 SoN Beckenham Hill Trash Screen Thames Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 218 14/07/16 TBAG2 TB Bearings Procurement Thames Environment Agency 9,154 9,154 0 0 27 31/03/16 TBAG2 Thames Barrier MEICA Works Thames Environment Agency 0 0 0 0 66 31/03/16 Robinhood Way Replacement Trash screen Thames London Borough of Kingston upon Thames 45,000 0 45,000 0 13 28/02/16 TBAG BMS and PA System Upgrade Thames Environment Agency 1,654,079 1,654,079 0 0 152 02/11/15 RB Kingston-Upon-Thames Surbiton Stream Thames London Borough of Kingston upon Thames 91,000 55,000 36,000 0 42 01/08/15 refurbishment Thames Tidal Frontages Programme 1 Thames Environment Agency 7,892,033 7,892,033 0 0 0 19/12/14 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 64 Annex 2
Flood risk on the Silk Stream - 8th November 2019 The Environment Agency and our consultants have been undertaking a review of options to reduce flood risk within the Silkstream catchment. This assessment is now complete and has made recommendations of what steps should be taken to reduce flood risk in Colindale and the catchment as a whole. History Following flooding in 2015, we undertook a preliminary study of the catchment to look for options to reduce flood risk. This study concluded that new flood modelling would be required to fully understand flood risk in the catchment and therefore make meaningful recommendations about what can be done to reduce this risk. This modelling study was completed in spring 2019. It gives us updated information about how the river network responds to flood events and a better understanding of what can be done to reduce flood risk in the future. Ongoing investigation We have now completed a catchment wide review of flood risk in the Silkstream catchment. Working with partners, including London Borough of Barnet and London Borough of Harrow it makes use of the best available information to make recommendations about the potential for flood alleviation schemes and other measures to reduce flood risk in the catchment. Next steps The report has recommended that a number of flood risk measures are taken forward for further assessment. This will include more detailed economic assessment that will determine the viability of any potential flood defence schemes. A key focus area for further work will be Colindale and the surrounding area where a number of measures for reducing flood risk have been highlighted. We will continue to discuss the findings of the report with our partners to ensure future work continues to consider all forms of flood risk and involves a coordinated response. If you require any further information please contact Joe Barton ([email protected]) in the Hertfordshire and North London Partnerships and Strategic Overview Team.
Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 66 Annex 3
Thames Estuary 2100 – 2020 Review September 2019
This information sheet provides an introduction to the 2020 Review of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, which sets out how the Environment Agency and our partners can work together to manage tidal flood risk until the end of the century and beyond. Introduction to the project Climate change, an ageing asset base and population growth mean that tidal flood risk is increasing, and the Plan aims to protect 1.3 million people and £275 billion worth of property and infrastructure from this increasing risk. The Plan's aims are wider than purely managing flood risk, and include:
Protect social, Enhance and Manage the risk Adapt to the Ensure cultural & restore of flooding to challenges of sustainable and commercial value ecosystems, people, property climate change resilient of tidal Thames, maximise and the development in tributaries & benefits of the floodplain environment floodplain natural floods
Climate adaptation is at the core of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan. It was designed to be adaptable to different rates of sea level rise, and therefore we need to monitor how the estuary is changing and review the Plan regularly to ensure the recommendations it makes are still suitable. To do this we monitor 10 indicators of change, reviewing these every 5 years, and completing a full review and update of the Plan every 10 years. The 2020 Review is our first full review and update to the Plan, 10 years after the original recommendations were developed. Why do we need to update the Plan? There are various benefits of taking an adaptive approach and regularly reviewing the Plan: • We can use the latest evidence and data to revise the recommendations made in the Plan, and ensure it continues to be internationally recognised as a leading example of climate change adaptation • We can learn from the first 10 years of implementation and make changes to ways of working, to make it easier for everyone to use the Plan • The Plan was the first strategy of its kind and we can benefit from collective knowledge and expertise that has come about since it was developed • It is an opportunity to work more collaboratively with our partners who own the recommendations in the Plan and bring them closer to the decision making •The review will inform a business case for investing in the next stage of asset management work to follow on from the current TEAM2100 programme
www.gov.uk/government/publications/thamesPage 67 -estuary-2100-te2100
The project started in early 2019 and is split into 3 overlapping phases:
Phase 1: Monitoring review
Collect data to review 10 indicators of change in the estuary and assess first 10 Jan 2019 - June 2020 years of delivery against the original recommendations
Phase 2: Economic review Use monitoring data to update costs and benefits of the Plan and review Sept 2019 - June 2021 business case for an updated Thames Estuary 2100 Plan
Phase 3: Plan update Update recommendations in the Plan based on outcomes of monitoring and June 2020 - 2022 economic reviews, and produce updated Plan Partnership working A key aim of the 2020 Review is to enable a more collaborative approach to Thames Estuary 2100 delivery and a co-owned Thames Estuary 2100 Plan. We have therefore developed a governance structure which can include external representation at all levels. A key element of the governance structure is a series of themed working groups made up of Environment Agency colleagues, partners, and project team members, to help develop different workstreams. There will also be two steering groups to provide a peer review and advisory role to the working groups. Progress and next steps The monitoring review (Phase 1) is underway, with members of the project team working with colleagues and partners to collate and analyse data to assess how the estuary has changed since the Plan was developed. Our current key areas of work on the monitoring review include: • Working with Southampton University to analyse tide gauge records to investigate sea level rise in the estuary. This project has confirmed that the rate of mean sea level rise is accelerating and that tidal range has increased over the last century. Further work is planned to better understand the reasons for tidal range increase and to determine whether it is ongoing. • Updated assessment of Natura 2000 designated sites to update our compensatory habitat planning. • Gathering data on the social, cultural and commercial value of the estuary and updating our records of how many people and how much property is being protected. • Updated modelling of future Extreme Water Levels across the estuary using new projections of sea level rise released in November 2018 (UKCP18), which is due to be complete in late 2019. This will enable us to assess if the recommendations on the timing of crest level raising made in the original 2100 Plan are still suitable. This updated dataset will also be available to developers carrying out flood risk assessments within the estuary. We have appointed a consultant, JBA, to help us develop the scope for the economic review (phase 2). They will use outputs from the monitoring review team to review the costs and benefits of the Plan. We will be contacting colleagues and external representatives over the next few months to invite them to be part of the working groups and steering groups, and to discuss expectations and ways of working.
For more information on the 2020 Review of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, please contact one of the team at [email protected] For more information about Thames Estuary 2100 please visit www.bit.ly/te2100
www.gov.uk/government/publications/thamesPage 68 -estuary-2100-te2100
Appendix 2
Caroline Russell AM Chair of the Environment Committee (via email)
Date: 8 November 2019
Dear Caroline,
Thank you for your letter of 24 October and for inviting me to the London Assembly’s Environment Committee on 10 October.
In response to the requests for further information: 1. Copies of any tools or guides that are used to help educate Londoners on permeable alternatives. The GLA Grey to Green guide is available at https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/grey_to_green_guide.pdf. Turning grey areas of impermeable surfacing to green reduces the risk of flash flooding by intercepting and slowing down the flow of rainfall to our sewers and waterways. This provides hints and tips for communities who want to run their own depaving events. Further resources for Londoners to take part in making London greener, healthier and wilder are available at https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks- green-spaces-and-biodiversity/grow
2. Further information on where the Edgware Road underpasses are. The sustainable drainage (SuDS) interventions at this location involve the repurposing of three of the four subway ramps down to the Joe Strummer Subway (outside Edgware Road Station by the A40 flyover) into bioretention basins to take surface water off the highway (footway and carriageway). The subway was closed off to pedestrians earlier this year due to safety concerns (anti-social behaviour). There are existing street level pedestrian crossings provided for this junction.
3. The extent to which the relaxation of permitted development rights impacted the work of the GLA. Some types of building work can be undertaken without needing to obtain planning permission under ‘permitted development rights’ (PDR). The planning portal sets out the kinds of work that fall under PDR https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200187/your_responsibilities/37/planning_pe rmission/2 this can include extensions to residential buildings where the development meets certain criteria set by the Government in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
Where development needs permission, it must comply with relevant policies in the Borough’s Local Plan as well as the London Plan, including policies in relation to urban greening and sustainable drainage. However, works undertaken through permitted development rights that does not need planning permission would not be required to do
Page 69 this. Where development proposals don’t go through the planning process, we have prepared guidance and materials to encourage communities and Londoners to remove impermeable surfacing (see Grey to Green guide).
4. The link to the map that identifies key areas at the highest risk of surface water flooding. This is available at https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood- risk/map
Yours sincerely,
Cassie Sutherland Policy and Programme Manager, GLA
Page 70 Appendix 3
Date: 11 November 2019 Caroline Russell AM Chair of the Environment Committee City Hall The Queen’s Walk London, SE1 2AA
(By e-mail only: [email protected])
Dear Caroline,
RE: ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE – 18 SEPTEMBER 2019
Thank you for inviting me to the Environment Committee meeting on 18 September 2019 and for the opportunity to update you on the progress the Mayor has made in relation to air pollution, green infrastructure, waste and incineration, and energy for Londoners. As highlighted during the meeting, I would like to thank the Committee again for its input and recommendations over the past few years, like those on plastics, which have helped to inform our work.
In response to your letter dated 2 October 2019, please find our response to your request for additional information in Annex 1 of this letter. Apologies for the delayed response, which required gathering additional information from other GLA teams and Functional Bodies.
If you have any additional comments please contact my assistant, Carl Ridgers on 020 7983 5897 or [email protected], who will be able to commission a response.
Yours sincerely,
Shirley Rodrigues Deputy Mayor, Environment and Energy
City Hall, London, SE1 2AA - london.gov.uk - [email protected] - 020 7983 4000 Page 71 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 72 Annex 1 - Response to Environment Committee’s request for additional information
Details of the total amount of environmental funding that the Mayor had requested from the Government for London
Response: As part of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) process the Mayor has continually called for greater national policy to drive his environmental agenda and greater funding to put London’s public services on a sustainable path for the future. The following are some examples of the most recent requests to Government as part of the CSR process covering areas like air quality, energy and waste, and do not include those requests that might have been submitted via TfL and other Functional Bodies.
To deliver the full National Air Quality Plan and achieve the industrial, climate and environmental benefits of electrification of our vehicle fleets, the Mayor has requested additional support for the capital. This includes: • A UK-wide £1.5 billion fleet renewal fund, which has been called for by UK100 and city leaders. At a minimum, the Government needs to provide £48 million to match the funding the Mayor has provided for his microbusiness and low income scrappage schemes. • Substantial Government investment to accelerate the electrification of the bus, taxi, emergency services and other fleets by supporting charging infrastructure, grid upgrades and the purchase of zero emission vehicles. • The Mayor has also requested that the Government should devolve funding for air quality and decarbonisation to London and other cities, and no longer exclude the GLA when devolving national funding pots like the Clean Air Fund.
The Mayor has developed a detailed plan of how London can get to zero carbon in response to the climate emergency. Getting to zero carbon will require a step change in the level of funding put into improving existing buildings and phasing out gas heating. The Mayor’s 1.5C Compatible Climate Action Plan includes detailed cost estimates of different ways to get to zero carbon, and estimates that it will require £10bn spent on improving building energy efficiency and up to £24bn on heat pumps. It is vital that more powers are devolved to London to ensure buildings are properly regulated on energy and carbon terms to drive this level of investment into both energy efficiency and low carbon heating. But significant further national funding will also be needed to help cover the costs, as it is likely the majority of Londoners would be unable to pay for the high upfront costs involved. For example, the Mayor has requested that London should get its fair share of the Government’s Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which is estimated to be around £80m per year excluding inflation for the 2018-2022 phase.
The Mayor plans to make London a zero-waste city, with no biodegradable or recyclable waste sent to landfill by 2026. The Mayor has set a London- wide target of recycling 65 per cent of municipal waste by 2030. The Mayor and the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB), a partnership of the Mayor of London and the London boroughs, estimate that the cost to implement collection of the six core recyclable materials and food waste will require between £100m and £300m of investment in local recycling services. The £100m minimum investment should mean London could achieve a 40% household waste recycling rate with £300m to achieve a 42% household waste recycling rate by 2022. This investment cost would be offset by reduced disposal costs over time. To aid this the Mayor is seeking London’s fair share of funding from the government’s £2.5bn Clean Growth Strategy and other national funds. The Mayor is also calling on government to devolve to London its share of landfill tax
1 Page 73 receipts (estimated at around £93m per annum). The Mayor has therefore requested an additional £100m from the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for new waste collection infrastructure to increase recycling rates.
Energy:
The number of people, or what percentage of homes, are required to make London Power feasible
Response: You asked how many customers we would need for London Power to be feasible. We have modelled various scenarios for customer numbers in preparing our Business Case. This informed the Mayor's decision to go ahead. However, these are scenarios rather than targets for customer uptake. We would clearly like as many Londoners as possible to benefit from London Power, but we have not set specific targets given the novelty of this venture for GLA. That said we would like London Power to break even as soon as possible, so that it can start generating a surplus that we can spend on environmental and social goals.
Details of the measurable criteria that the Committee could use to check on the progress of London Power
Response: Overall, the success of London Power will be measured by a mixture of direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts will be people signing up to London Power, benefiting from fairer prices and better service, and excellent performance by Octopus against the Service Level Agreements in the contract. Indirect impacts will be more people switching in London, particularly those who have never, or rarely, switched before. Of course, we want people to switch to London Power, but we would regard any switch that saves Londoners money as a success. We are developing a range of metrics and we are happy to share these when ready. A progress report on the Warmer Homes programme, aimed at those who were ‘able to pay’
Response: The first phase of Warmer Homes was open to applications from January 2018 until February 2019 with a focus on supporting vulnerable people that were in or at risk of being in fuel poverty. The scheme was open to owner occupiers and those in the privately rented sector and improved 1,159 homes through the installation of energy efficiency measures.
Phase two of the scheme allows for a broader focus beyond those who are in fuel poverty, with the potential to trial offers to those who are able to pay. This phase is currently in procurement and we will report back once we have a sufficient number of jobs completed to provide an evaluation of that element of the programme.
The timescale for Transport for London’s (TfL) energy procurement power and power purchase agreements to assist with increasing renewable use by TfL
Response: The London Environment Strategy and Mayor’s Transport Strategy set an ambition for TfL-operated rail services to be zero carbon by 2030. TfL’s Energy & Carbon Strategy sets the overall approach to meeting this ambition through improving energy efficiency, installing additional on-site renewable generation, and identifying opportunities for direct connection to renewable sources. However, meeting the ambition overall will also require procurement of grid-supplied renewable energy.
2 Page 74 The most likely route to do this is to enter into longer term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with renewable energy suppliers. TfL is currently reviewing the procurement of renewable energy from the grid, with market engagement to help understand the procurement route and value for money implications of PPAs. In addition, TfL is working with Crown Commercial Service on potential options to incorporate PPAs into its purchasing framework and will provide an update on its approach to renewable PPAs at the TfL Finance Committee in December 2019. This work aims to inform the development of an updated Procurement Strategy for energy by Spring 2020.
Waste:
Figures outlining the percentage of London’s waste that was recycled in the UK and the percentage of London’s waste that was dealt with off-shore
Response: Data from 2015, which was used to inform the draft London Plan and was the latest available at the time, indicates around 2.4 million tonnes of London’s waste was recycled in the UK, or 34% of total municipal waste produced. In addition, London managed around 1.3m tonnes of materials for recycling imported from around the UK. Around 1.2 million tonnes of London’s waste are exported outside the UK or 18% of total municipal waste produced.
Source: London Plan SLR Task 4 report https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/task_3_-_strategic_waste_data.pdf
Figures outlining the impact that the energy from waste and incinerators had on the air quality in London
Response: We know that incinerators emit a wide range of acid gases, metals and organic materials. However, Energy from Waste plant are strictly regulated by the Environment Agency who impose tight emission limits for all pollutants through the Environmental Permit.
In terms of NOx emissions from incineration are included in the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. For 2016 emissions from the three existing incinerators in London came to around 0.05 per cent of London’s total NOx emissions.
Although we don’t have definite numbers for other emissions it is clear that many of these would not arise from food waste or other biogenic materials, so removing plastics and metals would significantly reduce the impact of waste incineration.
Best-practice examples from London boroughs that were demonstrating good recycling and reduction plans
Response: Through his London Environment Strategy the Mayor has stipulated that all boroughs must submit a Reduction and Recycling Plan (RRP) by 2020. Although we have so far received RRPs from 20 boroughs, three of which have been signed-off by the Mayor, we are still working through the majority of these to review and comment. We are therefore still collating examples of best practice examples and will be able to give a better update by the end of the year when we have approved more plans.
However, specific areas where we have implemented changes in RRPs include:
3 Page 75 • Increased recycling targets for 2022 to align with projections of what is feasible from the Wrap route map modelling; • Introduction of a food waste services or trials where this was not previously planned; • Commitment to model and trial service changes (e.g. food waste collection) to explore options for improved services; • Commitment to utilise the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) support in expanding and promoting non-domestic waste collection services; and • Commitment to survey flats to explore opportunities to extend kerbside services to flats.
A list of London boroughs that had circular economy champions
Response: In 2016 LWARB established a London Borough circular economy champions scheme. Through the scheme, three officers per year work to actively lead and promote circular economy thinking and practice within their organisation. LWARB offers each champion support to delivery circular economy projects. As well as the opportunity to increase their understanding of the circular economy.
LWARB are currently supporting Champions from LB Bromley, Camden and Hackney. Historically they have supported Champions from Sutton, Merton and Islington.
An update report on the targets and progress of the TRiFOCAL programme
Response: The GLA’s successful Food Save programme has shaped the LWARB and WRAP’s joint Trifocal project, targeting food waste reduction. LWARB reports that the Trifocal project is currently on track to meet all the deliverables set out in the Grant Agreement. For example, delivering food waste reduction training to environmental health practitioners, completing waste audits and working with community groups and hospitality businesses to reduce their food waste.
The evaluation of the remaining objectives in the Trifocal project requires evidence from the final waste assessments to show how much food waste has been reduced and other surveys from people, businesses and organisations that have taken part in the project. These results are expected before the end of the year.
TRiFOCAL ends on 31 January 2020. A publicly available resource bank will be created and promoted across London, the UK and Europe. This will support organisations looking to reduce their food waste and include case studies and campaign activities. The resource bank will be available for 5 years beyond the end of the project. A no deal Brexit would not affect London and other cities accessing the resource bank.
Details of the projects and potential projects aimed to help reduce waste in the fashion industry
Response: Through LWARB the Mayor is currently undertaking the following activities to help reduce waste in the fashion industry:
Behaviour change: #LoveNotLandfill, LWARB’s sustainable fashion campaign encouraging 16-24 year olds to donate, swap and share clothes and buy more second-hand, is continuing through until end December 2019 under the banner of ECAP (European Clothing Action Plan), co-funded by
4 Page 76 EU Life. Its last activity as an EU-funded project is a charity pop-up shop on Neal Street, Seven Dials, from November 14th to 18th. The shop will feature curated collections from Oxfam, Cancer Research UK, Barnardo’s and Royal Trinity Hospice, as well as two Depop sellers and a menswear collection curated by a fashion influencer. Post-December LWARB are continuing to fund the activity on a maintenance basis, as the team seeks external funding and partnerships to grow the campaign. #LoveNotLandfill clothing banks are located around the capital in places where 16-24 year olds go, including universities and shopping locations such as Pop Brixton.
Working with corporates: The ‘Circular Fast Fashion Forward’ project, funded by the C&A Foundation, will continue until April 2020. Successes so far have included launches of new circular economy business models with Full Stack Supply Company (their new FW outdoor-wear brand, with a built-in repair service); Farfetch, who are piloting a take-back and resale scheme; and Adidas, with whom LWARB has developed take-back and resale propositions (Adidas recently launched ‘Infinite Play’ publicly). Ted Baker have also committed to launch a take-back and resale scheme in February 2020. Conversations continue with both C&A Foundation and other fashion corporates about collaborations on CE business models as interest in the industry grows.
SMEs and start-ups: Through LWARB’s Advance London programme LWARB have worked with a number of innovative businesses such as NuWardrobe (peer-to-peer clothes sharing app); Bundlee (a rental subscription service for baby clothes); and Petit Pli (expandable children’s clothing that grows as your child grows). Business support through the programme and a potential future accelerator will continue over the next three years to focus on fashion as one of five priority sectors in London’s economy.
Air Quality:
Details of whether the Environment Team [TfL / GLA] has disseminated information about the Mayor’s scrappage scheme to black, Asian and minority ethnic owned businesses; and whether identified community papers or other local minority press are being used to get the information out to communities
Response: Ensuring that all of London’s communities can benefit from the available scrappage funding is a priority for the Mayor and extensive steps have been taken to ensure this happens. At a London-wide and national level TfL engaged with and informed representative groups for businesses including the Federation of Small Businesses, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, UK Hospitality, the Association of Convenience Stores and thousands of contacts in the freight industry. These organisations include representation of black, Asian and minority ethnic owned businesses. At a local level, TfL informed boroughs, local residents’ associations and community groups. All London MPs and Assembly Members were informed, and TfL also worked to inform older and disabled people’s organisations.
ULEZ car & motorcycle scrappage scheme TfL is running a multi-media campaign targeting Londoners on certain means and non means tested disability benefits which includes a BAME audience. The strategy uses a mix of media channels to drive awareness and encourage uptake of the scheme:
5 Page 77 - Radio: Radio is the lead channel with adverts appearing on Absolute, LBC, Gold, Magic and First Radio. First radio is a radio network which targets local communities and ethnic minority groups. Posters will run in shopping malls, digital advertising on third party websites and Google search to link people to the relevant web page on the TfL website. - Press adverts: Local press ads will appear in boroughs where we know there is a high percentage of benefits recipients. In each borough we have chosen the publication with maximum reach as this is the most effective way to utilise the media spend. - Face-to-face leafleting: We are also carrying out considerable face to face leafleting activity visiting locations with naturally high footfall e.g. in supermarkets, shopping centres, convenience stores, retail parks, leisure centres, community centres, village halls, libraries, street markets, service stations and town centres as well as post offices, locations near banks, building societies where we will be engaging with local residents and providing key information and handing out leaflets explaining the details of the scheme. Translations of these leaflets are available on request. - Direct outreach: TfL will also be contacting owners of vehicles that do not meet the ULEZ emissions standards and blue badge holders using their database.
All of the media channels including the local press titles that form part of the campaign can be independently audited to confirm their claimed circulation figures.
Van scrappage A multi-channel campaign launched in February 2019 targeting van owners operating as microbusiness or sole traders: - Radio: Radio was the lead media channel to drive awareness of the scheme across London (including to BAME audiences) using Kiss, LBC, Talksport, Absolute and Radio X. - Press adverts: National Press ads ran in Daily Mail and Daily Mirror and specialist press titles Commercial Motor & What Van. - Face-to-face leafleting: We also carried out significant face to face leafleting across London boroughs engaging with communities in areas where we know van usage is high e.g. street market communities, cash and carry locations, wholesalers as well as industrial estates. The promotional staff distributed leaflets in shops and cafes where the owners felt they would be useful to their customers. Translations of the leaflets were available on request. We also have Google search to deep link to the relevant web pages, emails using the TfL database, Twitter.
All of the media channels used can be independently audited to confirm their claimed circulation figures.
Information on the types of control groups used in wearables monitoring air pollution (i.e. rucksacks on children going to school)
Response: The air pollution measurements in this study were used as an engagement tool with no intervention component, so no control was required. For the measurement statistics, comparisons were made between groups and time periods, for example, comparisons between those who walked along main roads, those who walked along back streets, those who were driven etc. This method of comparison was possible as all measurements at each school were carried out at the same time. This was a major strength of the study design made possible by the mass deployment of sensor units.
6 Page 78
A response to the effect that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge had had to the levels of pollution in the area, as mentioned in TfL’s report to Assembly Members on Hammersmith Bridge on 3 September 2019
Response: Understanding air quality impacts can be challenging. The available air quality monitoring sites are not ideally placed to fully understand the potential impacts of the traffic displaced by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. TfL will consider if additional analysis is required to improve our understanding of air quality in the affected area.
Arrange a briefing for Assembly Members on the monitoring sensors being used in your air quality studies
Response: The Air Quality Team are happy to provide briefing and have liaised with the Secretariat to arrange a briefing session before the end of this year.
A list of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPGs) that had pledged, and which of those are priorities
Response: A range of guidance, including Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), will be produced to support the implementation of the draft London Plan. Some of this will be to update existing guidance (for example the All London Green Grid SPG and Energy Planning Guidance) whereas other guidance will be new (for example in relation to Urban Greening Factor, Whole Life-cycle Carbon and Circular Economy Statements). Some guidance will be timed to be introduced when the final plan is published next year. A full schedule of guidance to support the plan will be also be published.
7 Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 80 Appendix 4
Peter McNaught Director of Asset Operations
Caroline Russell London Underground 197 Blackfriars Road By email: [email protected] London SE1 8NJ Phone: 020 3054 0020 [email protected]
18 October 2019
Dear Caroline,
RE: LET154-PAER020 EC Tube dust 27Jun19
Thank you for inviting me and Dr Rikard Moen to attend the London Assembly’s Environment Committee session on Tube dust on 27 June 2019. Please see responses to information you requested below.
I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce Dr William Ponsonby, our new Head of Occupational Health, who will be taking forward the studies into impacts of Tube dust on our employees.
Dr Ponsonby is working with colleagues at Imperial and King’s College London to commence the studies as soon as possible. We are currently negotiating contracts with Imperial and King’s, and the universities intend to begin recruitment for academic resource for the studies shortly. We are happy to keep you informed of progress on these studies and anticipated timescales for receipt of results once they have commenced.
With regard to our measurement and monitoring of Tube dust levels, since 2005 network- wide occupational exposure monitoring (of the same sample group) has been undertaken at least every 18 months. This is now becoming more frequent, approaching a yearly cycle. Ultimately this will become every 13-14 months in order to obtain measurements at different times of year, as dust levels can be affected by seasonal changes.
Additional monitoring is carried out on an ad hoc basis. This may be because we wish to proactively undertake measurements following a cleaning trial, for example, or in response to complaints about a particular area.
In terms of dust concentration and composition, in most cases we measure Tube dust in a respirable fraction (as opposed to an inhalable fraction) which has an aerodynamic median diameter of 4.3µm. We measure in this fraction so as to be able to directly compare against Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regulatory standards.
Registered office is as above. Registered in England and Wales, Company Number 1900907 VAT number 756 2770 08 London Underground Limited is a company controlled by a local Page 81 authority within the meaning of Part V Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The controlling authority is Transport for London.
TfL does not measure the full composition of Tube dust. We analyse a proportion of the samples we take (typically one sample per line) for metal content, as metals are the primary components of rail and wheel wear dust. This includes iron, chromium (all species), copper, zinc, nickel and manganese. Following the publication of the COMEAP report in January 2019, we now also analyse the dust for levels of chromium VI and arsenic. These measurements are for information only, as they are not directly comparable with HSE standards. This is because these measurements are taken from respirable samples; HSE standards are for inhalable fractions. In addition, respirable crystalline silica is measured in eight samples, one per line.
With respect to your request for the list of the 42 dirtiest Tube stations, TfL does not rank stations in this manner. The stations to which we referred during the discussion were targeted for cleaning following a monitoring exercise in summer 2017. Monitoring was carried out at these stations pre- and post- a cleaning trial on the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines. These stations and the surrounding track sections were identified as the dirtiest during in-cab photo optical monitoring of dust as trains travelled along the lines.
These stations were:
Victoria Line: Seven Sisters, Finsbury Park, Highbury & Islington, King’s Cross, Warren Street, Oxford Circus, Green Park, Victoria, Pimlico Piccadilly Line: Finsbury Park, Arsenal, Holloway, Caledonian Road, King’s Cross, Russell Square, Covent Garden, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, Green Park, Hyde Park Corner, Knightsbridge Northern Line: Bank, London Bridge, Borough, Oval, Stockwell, Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South, Balham, Tooting Bec, Tooting Broadway, Elephant & Castle Baker Street station was also included in this sample.
Thank you once again for the invitation to attend the Environment Committee session. I hope the above is helpful, and please do let me know if you have further queries.
Yours sincerely,
Peter McNaught Director of Asset Operations cc. Dr William Ponsonby, Head of Occupational Health, TfL
Page 82
Page 2 of 2 TfL RESTRICTED
Agenda Item 5
Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 15 January 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report outlines recent actions taken by the Chair under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, in accordance with the delegations granted by the Environment Committee.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the recent action taken by the Chair of the Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members, namely to agree: (i) The output for the 22 May 2019 meeting’s discussion on green spaces in London; and (ii) The output for the 27 June 2019 meeting’s discussion on Tube dust.
3. Background
3.1 At its meeting on 22 May 2019, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with Party Group Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion. [Green Spaces in London]
3.2 The Chair exercised the above standing delegation to agree an output for publication as an article on CityMetric, 25 July 20191.
3.3 At its meeting on 27 June 2019, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with Party Group Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion. [Tube dust]
1 https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/london-s-green-spaces-aren-t-reaching-their-full-potential-4714 City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 83
3.4 The Chair used the above standing delegation to write to the Mayor on behalf of the Committee with number of recommendations.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 As part of the Committee’s investigation into green spaces in London, the Chair published an article on CityMetric titled ‘London’s green spaces aren’t reaching their full potential’ on 25 July 2019. A copy of the article is attached at Appendix 1.
4.2 As part of the Committee’s investigation into Tube dust, the Chair wrote to the Mayor on 18 December 2019 with a number of recommendations. The letter is attached at Appendix 2.
4.3 The Committee is recommended to note the actions taken under delegated authority.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – ‘London’s green spaces aren’t reaching their full potential’, CityMetric, 25 July 2019 Appendix 2 – Letter from the Chair to the Mayor on Tube dust, 18 December 2019 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Member Delegated Authority Forms: 1092 [Green Spaces in London] and 1094 [Tube dust] Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4383 Email: [email protected]
Page 84 Appendix 1 www.citymetric.com /fabric/london-s-green-spaces-aren-t-reaching-their-full-potential-4714
London’s green spaces aren’t reaching their full potential
By Caroline Russell
8-10 minutes
A Green member of the London Assembly takes a walk straight through what is known as park life.
Green spaces are the heart of any city; from Central Park in New York to Villa Doria Pamphili in Rome. They are at the centre of community activity and associated with better physical and mental health, reduced stress levels and improved overall wellbeing.
London is known as a green city, with nearly half of its land being green space. But with many Londoners living in flats without access to gardens and only 18 per cent of London’s green spaces accessible to the public, what are Londoners missing out on?
There are many benefits to opening up more green spaces to Londoners. There’s increasing evidence that green spaces improve physical health; it is also associated with better mental health; reduced stress levels and improved overall wellbeing. Camden and Islington Council are two boroughs that have recognised these benefits and recently won grants that will be used to maximise the use of parks and green spaces, reimagining them as focal points for improving people’s health.
But personal health is not the only thing that benefits from accessible green space. Green spaces also provide environmental health benefits, from helping to cool cities down during heat waves and cutting flood risk, to protecting the much-needed variety of plant and animal life that we find in London.
Green spaces also play a key-role in ensuring that London has greater community cohesion and less social isolation. In a recent survey by the Association of Public Service Excellence, 76 per cent of respondents felt that green spaces helped to promote community cohesion, and 67 per cent thought green spaces reduced anti-social behaviour.
However, we know that keeping green spaces open and adequately maintained and managed does not come cheap. Over the last decade, local authorities have been under increasing financial strain which has impacted the accessibility of green spaces for Londoners.
The London Assembly Park Life report looked at different models of financing to help maintain and manage London’s green spaces. At a recent meeting of the assembly’s environment committee last May, we heard about the importance of core funding, and the case for integrating park services into local authority statutory functions to draw in resources rather than overly relying on commercialisation and major events. There are a number of risks associated with commercialisation, such as large parts of parks being closed off to local residents, people being excluded by ticket prices, nuisance from noise, anti-social behaviour, traffic congestion and repair costs.
But finance isn’t the only thing that is preventing the use of green spaces reaching full potential. One issue that was raised during our recent meeting is that London councils are struggling to find skilled, experienced workers for parks and open spaces. This combined with stretched budgets has left local authorities more and more reliant on the support of volunteers and friend groups.
However, in our report Park Life, we noted that London faces particular challenges in supporting people to volunteer. Local communities need to be enabled to play an integral role in keeping London’s green spaces open, safe and attractive for everyone. The Committee called on the Mayor to continue to explore ways of promoting and enhancing Londoners’ participation in local, site-based volunteer groups with the hope that this will help local authorities get the support and help needed to maintain green spaces across London.
We know that green spaces are highly valued by Londoners. We recommend that the mayor, during London National Park City week, looks at how he and his team can further support local authorities in finding financing methods and in encouraging Londoners to volunteer to help preserve and maintain the green spaces in London that we are so lucky to have.
Caroline Russell is chair of the environment committee at the London Assembly and a member of the Green party. Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 86 Appendix 2
City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Minicom: 020 7983 4458 Web: www.london.gov.uk
Caroline Russell AM Chair of the Environment Committee
18 December 2019
Dear Sadiq,
Tube dust
I am writing to you on behalf of the Environment Committee, to follow up on our ongoing inquiry on Tube dust. As part of this investigation, the committee has discussed Tube dust in three meetings, including one in early 2019 following the release of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) statement on particulate matter (PM) in the Underground1), and most recently in June 2019. This letter outlines the committee’s understanding of the evidence on Tube dust and makes recommendations on areas the Committee believes need urgent progress to ensure the wellbeing of Londoners who travel and work in the Tube. The Committee is aware that until more conclusive evidence is available many Londoners may remain vulnerable to exposure to Tube dust and, as such, we urge TfL and the Mayor to treat this issue with a due sense of urgency, informed by robust evidence on the level of risk. The committee awaits a timely response to the recommendations below.
Health impact of Tube dust
The level of Tube dust has been of public concern for some time. At its meeting in June 2019, the committee heard from Transport from London (TfL) that the evidence on the harmful effects of Tube dust is inconclusive. The committee understands that some studies, including the COMEAP statement, have found that the particulate matter in the underground “can induce inflammatory responses and oxidative stress” in lung cells.2 The COMEAP statement, however, recognises that “none of this evidence is directly transferrable to assessing the health risk to the travelling public from exposure to particulate matter in the London Underground.”3
1https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/769884/COME AP_TfL_Statement.pdf 2 TfL updated the committee on the results from toxicity in vitro studies conducted by Queen Mary University. The studies found that Underground particulate matter show in increase in the oxidative and inflammatory response of lung cells. This finding was also reflected in the COMEAP statement – see COMEAP statement, November 2018, p. 17. 3https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/769884/COME AP_TfL_Statement.pdf
Page 87
In light of this, the COMEAP statement has indicated that more evidence is needed to be able to determine the nature and extent of any health risk that particulate matter in the underground could pose to passengers and staff alike. We need to better understand the composition of Tube dust - which the committee heard was different to the composition of ambient outdoor pollution, with no combustion particles underground
“The makeup of the particles is completely different in the underground from the ambient. It is virtually all metals or metal oxides. You get very little of that stuff in the ambient atmosphere. In the underground, you do not get any of the diesel exhausts and the combustion emissions that we know are toxic. IARC classify diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen and so on. You do not get that in the [London] Underground. There are good reasons for needing to do more detailed toxicological work on the particles that you get from the underground. We just do not know how toxic they are or how benign they are. That is the crucial area here.” - Professor Martin Williams, Air Quality Research, King’s College London.4
This is further supported by the COMEAP statement which confirms that black carbon measured in outdoor ambient pollution contains toxic products arising from combustion sources such as diesel engines. However, in the London Underground environment it states that the sources of particles are different i.e. carbon and oxidised metallic wear products. As such the concentrations reported and the composition of those particles are not directly comparable to those in ambient outdoor air pollution. Given that it is the composition, rather than the concentration, of particulate matter that poses a greater risk to health more evidence is needed to determine the health risk.5
The committee recognises that further evidence, and consistent long-term collection of data, are required to ascertain 1) the toxicity of Tube dust, and 2) the level of exposure that is needed to observe and experience negative health impacts. We heard from TfL that two studies focusing on occupational staff were being conducted to this end: 1) a long-term study looking at employees over the last 50 years to understand impacts on cardiovascular ailments that may have caused people to die after they have left their roles; and 2) a short-term study looking at sickness data from underground staff members.
TfL has confirmed that work is underway with Kings College London and Imperial to commence these studies. In addition, TfL has indicated it is supporting a long-term study by King’s College London which will track the health status of individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease travelling on the Tube in order to assess the negative impact of Tube dust on their condition.
4 London Assembly Environment Committee of January 2019. 5 There has been interest in quantifying the health effects of ambient pollution on the basis of reported associations with black carbon (BC), a component of the PM2.5 arising from combustion sources such as diesel engines. In outdoor air, BC is likely to act both as a carrier of toxic products of combustion, and as a marker of exposure to a mixture of pollutants arising from combustion. When used in the London Underground, optical measurement techniques (eg use of Aethalometer) produce mass concentration of BC results which are not comparable with those of ambient air, due to the different optical properties of the London Underground particles. In the underground subway microenvironment, the sources of lightabsorbing particles are very different (carbon and oxidised metallic wear products) and the measurements from these techniques should therefore be interpreted with caution, as the concentrations reported and the composition of the particles measured are not comparable to those for outdoor air. In addition, because it arises from different sources underground, in subways BC does not act as a marker of the same pollutants as it does above ground. COMEAP statement, page 13, November 2018.
Page 88
The committee asks that TfL keeps us informed of the progress on the studies above, confirms the timelines for the publication of study results, and shares the results with us as soon as they are available.
Additionally, the committee would like to be informed of any other steps TfL takes with the objective of building a stronger evidence base on the toxicity and concentration levels of Tube dust.
Compliance with Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs)
TfL assured the committee that between 2003 and 2016 it did not find any change in the levels of Tube dust, and that the level and duration of exposure remained the same.6 The COMEAP statement shows that concentrations of particulate matter on underground platforms are typically much higher than in ambient outdoor air,7 however as stated above given the varying properties of ambient outdoor pollution and underground pollution, concentrations of both are not directly comparable. Despite levels remaining steady, there remains great concern around the concentration of particulate matter in the underground system.
Further to this, the committee heard from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) workers that current occupational limits set by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) were not considered adequate. Dust particulate matter is currently assessed against Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) of 4 mg/m3, averaged over an 8-hour reference period.89 Based on this evidence, TfL has suggested that their monitoring shows that the composition of dust does not contain components at levels which are likely to pose a risk to health of TfL employees.10 However, the RMT Union representative commented at the June public meeting:
“No, I do not [think HSE limits are adequate]. That is TfL’s view, too. I have been in meetings where they have said, ‘We aim to get 50% below what the legislation says and where that is not possible 25%,’ because the HSE itself admits that just because something is just below the legal limit, it does not actually mean it is safe.”- Cat Cray, Stations Health and Safety Council Member, RMT Union
The committee heard that the HSE WELs were set in 2005. This poses a serious question as to whether current WELs can be deemed fit for purpose or even applicable to assessing underground particulate matter, especially given that we cannot rule out the potential health risks of Tube dust. The Institute of Occupational Medicine has also questioned the limits put in place by the HSE, stating that “until safe limits are put in place, employers should aim to keep exposure to respirable dust below 1 mg/m3 and inhalable dust below 5 mg/m3”.11
6 London Assembly Environment Committee of June 2019. 7 3 3 A number of measurements from different studies are reported, from 250g/m to 492g/m PM2.5. Previous statements of Tube dust concentrations have revealed some levels over 1,000g/m3.7 These compare to measurements from beside busy London roads quoted in the COMEAP statement of 16g/m3 and 26g/m3. 8 Health and Safety Executive Document EH40/2005, 2nd Edition 2011. 9 The long-term 8-hour exposure limits are averages for an 8 hour shift. If during a shift the operator is only exposed to a level of dust for 6 hours, the 8-hour time weighted average is calculated to allow for comparison with HSE Workplace Exposure Limits. 10 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/air-quality-on-underground.pdf 11 https://cleanair.london/hot-topics/tube-dust-is-not-safe/
Page 89
The committee also heard that the HSE only requires measurements of PM4 and above. In turn, this means that measurements of PM2.5, which is the most dangerous particulate matter due to its size and potential effects on the body, is not required by law. TfL has assured the committee that it wishes to comply with the limits set by the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), which are much lower than the HSE WELs.12 However, clarity on when these standards will be adopted and come into effect is still required.
The committee recommends that TfL gives further attention to the limitations of HSE WELs, and takes prompt action to assess the appropriateness of these limits as applied to underground particulate matter levels. The committee also asks to be kept informed of any steps taken to adopt other occupational health standards, with updates every 6 months.
It was also brought to the attention of the committee that the exposure to Tube dust of underground cleaners is not monitored as they are not employed directly by TfL. As the RMT Union representative commented:
“We are not monitoring and measuring the effects on our station cleaners, who could possibly be spending more time in a platform area than a member of London Underground staff, except that they, on a technicality, have a different employer. Any member of staff who works on the London Underground who could be exposed needs to be considered, and we must not rule cleaners out.” - Cat Cray, Stations Health and Safety Council Member, RMT Union
Given the work performed by cleaners and their exposure to Tube dust, it seems that collecting monitoring data from them could 1) offer a more complete understanding of the health impact of Tube dust, and 2) help to inform how best to respond to Tube dust for different levels of exposure.
The committee recommends that all station staff should be monitored irrespective of their employer, to ensure that TfL provides as healthy a workplace as possible for all underground staff. The committee asks that TfL provides an update on how it is monitoring cleaners and other non-TFL staff members working in the underground.
Prevention and minimisation techniques
The committee heard that various trials forming part of TfL’s enhanced cleaning programme to prevent and minimise levels of Tube dust are ongoing. First, a dust suppressant trial is being conducted on the Waterloo & City line, for which monitoring has been ongoing since December 2018. Results from this trial showed an initial 50% reduction in particulate matter, followed by a 40% reduction at a later stage of the trial. We understand that this trial was due to come to an end in July.
On the Bakerloo line, there is an ongoing trial which started in June 2019, and which uses a trolley- based vacuum cleaner. We understand that results were intended to be available from September 2019 and that additional monitoring readings will be taken for about three months after that to
12 London Assembly Environment Committee of June 2019
Page 90 understand the longer-term impact of that cleaning. TfL informed the committee that by September 2019 it would have a decision on whether it will include the trolley-based vacuum in its enhanced cleaning program. A further trial using a light trolley vacuum method between Baron’s Court and Earl’s Court on the Piccadilly line was due to be completed in October 2019. Another trial using the dust suppression method was due to start in July 2019 at the bottom end of the Northern line. The committee heard that the findings and analysis from these trials will most likely be ready in December 2019.
The committee asks that TfL provides updates on the status of the enhanced cleaning regime, including the adoption of the trolley-based vacuum regime, the dust suppressant regime and any outstanding results from any trials being conducted.
I would like to request a formal response to our recommendations before Friday 7 February , 2020. When providing your response, please copy in Liv Verghese ([email protected]), a Policy Adviser at the London Assembly’s Scrutiny Team.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Russell AM Chair of the Environment Committee
Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 92 Agenda Item 6
Subject: Climate Change and Extreme Weather
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 15 January 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 The Committee will discuss climate change in London, in relation to the ways London can build its resilience to extreme weather events, such as extreme rainfall, heatwave and drought.
1.2 The Committee will hear from a wide range of stakeholders on these issues. The Committee has invited 15 individuals and organisations to this meeting.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the report as background to putting questions to invited guests on climate change and extreme weather and notes the subsequent discussion.
2.2 That the Committee delegates authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
3. Background
3.1 Weather and its consequences are, by their nature, dynamic and sometimes unpredictable. The Government’s latest UK Climate Change Projections suggest that by 2050, London could see an increase in mean summer temperature of 2.7 degrees, an increase in mean winter rainfall of 15% and a decrease in mean summer rainfall of 18% from 2010 to 2050. This could increase the risk of extreme weather-related events in London, such as drought, heatwaves and flooding.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 London’s local authorities, as experienced emergency planners, have long been responsible for understanding and preparing for a range of potential impacts. The Mayor of London has a responsibility in liaising with various stakeholders to implement strategic measures that increase the city’s resilience and to ensure London’s most vulnerable communities, who can be disproportionately impacted during extreme weather events, are protected.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 93
4.2 This meeting offers an opportunity for the Committee to hear from a wide range of stakeholders on the measures that can help London build its resilience to extreme weather events, the challenges with these measures, and the impact they may have on Londoners’ daily lives.
Invited guests 4.3 The Committee has invited around 15 stakeholders to this meeting, including Thames Water and the Environment Agency. The full list of guests is yet to be confirmed.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: None.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Howie Ripley, Senior Policy Advisor Telephone: 020 7084 2850 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 94 Agenda Item 7
Subject: Environment Committee Work Programme
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 15 January 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report establishes the Committee’s work programme for the 2019/20 London Assembly year.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the progress on its work programme and notes the topics agreed by the GLA Oversight Committee on 17 December 2019 for its meetings from January to March 2020.
3. Background
3.1 The business for the meetings between May and January of the 2019/20 Assembly year have been agreed by the GLA Oversight Committee. The programme is now for noting by the Committee.
3.2 A similar report will be submitted to each subsequent Committee meeting to track the Committee’s work and propose any changes, including confirming dates and adding topics as required.
4. Issues for Consideration
Environmental Quality of Life - Green Spaces 4.1 The May 2019 meeting was used for a discussion on the contribution of green spaces to Londoners’ quality of life and patterns of access to green space benefits across different areas of London and groups of Londoners. The discussion formed part of a wider piece of work on environmental factors affecting residents’ quality of life, including air quality, noise and homes.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 95
Tube dust 4.2 The Committee discussed particulate pollution in January 2019 with the Greater London Authority (GLA) but were largely referred to Transport for London (TfL) for answers to questions on particulate pollution on the Underground. Following an exchange of correspondence, the Committee invited TfL representatives, and representatives from academia and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers to discuss action on Tube dust.
4.3 The Committee attended a site visit on 12 July 2019 to the Piccadilly Circus station as part of this investigation. The site visit was led by Duncan Weir, Head of Track Assets at TfL. The site visit provided an opportunity for the Committee to see the deep cleaning process along a stretch of the Bakerloo line.
4.4 The Committee wrote to the Mayor on 18 December 2019 with a number of recommendations. The letter is attached at Agenda Item 5.
Heathrow and air pollution in London 4.5 Building on the Committee’s previous work on Heathrow and aviation more generally, this meeting was dedicated to exploring Heathrow’s recently released expansion plans. The Committee inquired about carbon emissions, air pollution and aviation noise on the proposed plans, and heard from Heathrow representatives as well as other stakeholders. Following this meeting, the Committee responded to the consultation on Heathrow’s expansion plans.
Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment 4.6 In September 2019, the Committee explored progress on a variety of commitments made by the Mayor of London, including on areas such as air pollution, green infrastructure, waste and incineration, and energy for Londoners.
Flooding 4.7 In October 2019, the Committee explored flooding in London and the ways in which London can increase its resilience in the face of more extreme weather.
Climate change 4.8 The November and December 2019 meetings were postponed as a result of the pre-election period for the General Election called for 12 December 2019. These meetings have been rearranged for January and February 2020. The Committee will explore climate change, and the ways in which London can increase its resilience to extreme weather events, and reduce its contribution to carbon emissions.
Recycling in London 4.9 As a result of the pre-election period, the Committee’s investigation into recycling in London has been postponed.
Page 96
Other work for 2019/2020 4.10 The Committee has responded to five consultation responses: • Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise Corporate Strategy; • Aviation 2050 green paper; • Heathrow Airport expansion plans; • London City Airport airspace modernisation consultation; and • London City Airport expansion plans consultation.
Work programme for the rest of 2019/20 4.11 The table below sets out the remainder of allocated dates for the Environment Committee in the 2019/20 Assembly year.
4.12 The GLA Oversight Committee agreed the topics for the Committee’s meetings from November 2019 to January 2020. The November and December meetings were postponed as a result of the pre-election period. These meetings will now take place in January and February 2020. The GLA Oversight Committee will agree additional topics for the Committee as the Assembly year progresses. Dates may be used for formal committee meetings, informal meetings, site visits or other activities for the committee. The work programme also provides for the committee to respond to any matters that arise during the year.
Date Proposed topic
15 January 2020 Climate change
13 February 2020 Climate change
12 March 2020 Meeting with Deputy Mayor
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
Page 97
List of appendices to this report: None.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Howie Ripley, Senior Policy Advisor Telephone: 020 7084 2850 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 98