Thames Water and the High Street/London Road
Message:
On behalf of the Leader of the Council and local Councillors, I met with Thames Water yesterday morning to let them explain the background to the two bursts on the London Road/Brentford High Street (and one in July which forced the Council to close the Civc Centre for and afternoon), their response, and the likelihood of it happening again.
TW head of external relations, Richard Aylard, and their local government link person, Hilary Murgatroyd were there plus 3 senior Council officers.
1 I expressed how serious the impact of the 2 bursts had been on people living and running businesses in the area. That those who have suffered go far beyond those whose homes or businesses were flooded - these include: residents of Danehurst sheltered unit having to walk a mile to get a bus or pay for taxis, and of course businesses losing trade.
2 TW explained the teckie stuff (but full details at Housing and Environment Scrutiny Panel on 30th.) The pipe is one of 4 old mains (1890s) running the length of the High St/London Road. The main mains (lets call them the arteries) are more robust, and have been better maintained over the years, than the “capillary” mains going down side roads that were replaced as part of the recent Victorian water main replacement scheme. That is why this main was not replaced then. TW’s risk assessment did not put it high on the risk register, yet it burst twice in less than 4 weeks. Now this has happened, they are investigating it for leaks - hence the plant remaining at the scene with nothing apparently happening. They are putting a probe along and listening for minute leaks, and installing a real-time surge monitor.
3 From now on TW will monitor for leaks and manage the pressure in the pipe so it does not build up as it did before the burst. It’s now on the risk register. The implication being that it’s likely that we’ll have the hassle of its replacement before long . . .
4 On compensation, they are leaving it all to their loss adjusters Douglas Jackson, but implied it’s an insurance issue ie they’re not going to be dishing out stuff/funds unless there is a viable insurance claim. Distress, inconvenience etc are not issues they show any interest in.
5 I asked if they would compensate businesses for lost trade and reputation – their response was - if you can prove loss of takings connected to the flooding etc you may be able to claim on our Insurance. On my suggestion, they said they would organise a meeting of local businesses to discuss this issue.
Watch this space
Ruth Cadbury
Brentford Ward Councillor
Deputy Leader - LB Hounslow
