Agenda item

To receive and consider the Interim Section 19 Flooding Report produced in line with the Council’s statutory role as the Lead Local Flood Authority for the City of Westminster (Flood and Water Management Act 2010).

4.1.      Before inviting Westminster City Council to present its interim report, the Chairman, Cllr Gotz Mohindra, had explained that this was an extraordinary scrutiny meeting and outlined the format for the meeting. The Chairman had also explained that, in a scrutiny meeting, questions would not be taken from the Public Gallery during the meeting but that one ward councillor from each of the affected wards had been invited to make a short deputation during the meeting, in addition to written deputations in advance of the meeting. Cllr Mohindra also explained that the purpose of scrutiny was to ensure transparency, accountability, better decision-making, improved services for residents and learning. Cllr Mohindra also referred to figures published by the London mayor’s office showing that 200,000 homes and workplaces, as well as 25% of rail stations in the capital and 10% of the network, a fifth of London schools, were all at high risk of flooding if extreme temperatures and flooding deteriorated and observed that there were lessons to be taken from the flooding events in Westminster in July.

4.2.      The Chairman also outlined the format for the meeting, stating that the Committee would receive presentations on the response to the July flooding incidents from Westminster City Council officers, Thames Water officers and the London Fire Brigade. The Chairman explained that all questions would be asked following the presentations by Westminster City Council officers, Thames Water and the London Fire Brigade.

4.3.      The Committee welcomed Councillor Geoff Barraclough to speak on behalf of the residents of Maida Vale Ward. The Committee noted Cllr Barraclough’s deputation, which focused on the trauma, loss of property, and peril that residents had experienced. Cllr Barraclough suggested lines of enquiry for the meeting, including: the slow response of relevant authorities, including Thames Water, Westminster City Council, and housing associations, primarily Notting Hill Genesis; the lack of meaningful support offered to victims; the failure of the Maida Vale Flood Alleviation Scheme; and floodproofing of residents’ homes.

4.4.      The Committee welcomed Councillor Ruth Bush, who spoke on behalf of the residents of Harrow Road Ward. The Committee heard Councillor Bush’s experience on the evening of the floods and was also informed that Harrow Road Ward was not as badly affected as Maida Vale Ward. Cllr Bush highlighted that this could have been due to the reservoir under Tamplin Mews Gardens, which was built by Thames Water specifically to contain the risk of sewer flooding. The Committee noted that the Leader of the Council, Rachael Robathan, had not visited the areas affected until Saturday, 17 July, and it was not known whether Thames Water personnel had done so at all.

4.5.      The Committee welcomed Councillor Matthew Green, who spoke on behalf of the residents of Little Venice Ward. The Committee was informed of the devastation that the Councillors of Little Venice Ward had witnessed first-hand, and the anguish of residents, some of whom had been flooded for the third time on 12 July. The Committee was called upon to seek out answers to questions including: Why was it that Thames Water’s Maida Vale Flood Alleviation Scheme, installed in 2015 at the cost of £16m, failed? The Scheme had been advertised as preventing flooding for the next century, but had not prevented the flooding on July 12; Why could residents not get in touch with Thames Water on the night of July 12, and why were the Councillors of Little Venice Ward still receiving reports that residents could not get in touch with Thames Water; Whether or not Thames Water representatives were present on the night of July 12, and the following day; Why was it that Thames Water seemed to have underestimated the amount of affected properties and the scale of damages;  and why did the Interim Report from Thames Water claim that it could be estimated that damages resulting from the floods were in excess of £1m?

The Committee heard Cllr Green’s list of demands on behalf of the residents of Little Venice Ward that Thames Water:  take urgent action to provide greater capacity in their sewer systems; act before another severe weather event happened, which could be at any time; and investigate the properties affected on 12 July and pay for the provision and installation of Non-Return Valves, which may have helped to prevent flooding. 

The Committee welcomed Councillor Adam Hug, who spoke on behalf of the 

residents of Westbourne Ward. The Committee was advised that Westminster City Council’s response had been slow, and that a review of the Council’s internal communications should be undertaken. Cllr Hug highlighted that a street presence from the Council had not been evident on July 12 until very late at night, and Porchester Hall had not been confirmed as a respite centre for affected residents until late in the night, leaving residents unsure where they could go for aid. The Committee was informed that Westbourne Grove Councillors were disappointed with the lack of information provided in Thames Water’s report, particularly its failure to address the Flood Alleviation Schemes and clarify why they had not stopped the flooding. The Committee noted that many residents had reported a sudden and dramatic draining away of water within a matter of minutes, with some believing that this was due to the lifting of manhole covers in affected areas. The Committee was notified that it was the view of Westbourne Councillors that Thames Water, as a profitable enterprise, should provide compensation to the victims of the floods on July 12. 

4.6.      The Committee welcomed Councillor Adam Hug, who spoke on behalf of the residents of Westbourne Ward. The Committee was advised that Westminster City Council’s response had been slow, and that a review of the Council’s internal communications should be undertaken. Cllr Hug highlighted that a street presence from the Council had not been evident on July 12 until very late at night, and Porchester Hall had not been confirmed as a respite centre for affected residents until late in the night, leaving residents unsure where they could go for aid. The Committee was informed that Westbourne Grove Councillors were disappointed with the lack of information provided in Thames Water’s report, particularly its failure to address the Flood Alleviation Schemes and clarify why they had not stopped the flooding. The Committee noted that many residents had reported a sudden and dramatic draining away of water within a matter of minutes, with some believing that this was due to the lifting of manhole covers in affected areas. The Committee was notified that it was the view of Westbourne Councillors that Thames Water, as a profitable enterprise, should provide compensation to the victims of the floods on July 12. 

4.7.      The Committee welcomed Councillor Emily Payne, who spoke on behalf of the residents of Bayswater Ward. The Committee was informed that in Bayswater homeowners had been forced to evacuate, and landlords had lost tenants, causing huge financial implications. Cllr Payne also highlighted any shops and businesses in Bayswater had been decimated, and the Committee appreciated that these events were crippling in the context of the recent re-opening of the City’s high streets. The Committee was made aware that Housing Associations had been failing to adequately maintain properties in the affected areas, contributing to the severity of home flooding. The Committee noted that immense work had been undertaken to construct a pumped storage shaft on the Hallfield Estate and queried whether this storage shaft was fully operational on July 12.

4.8.      The Committee welcomed Councillor Robert Rigby, who spoke on behalf of the residents of Regent’s Park Ward. The Committee was notified that several mansion blocks in Regent’s Park Ward had been badly affected, with some residents forced to vacate their properties as they were flooded with contaminated water, because local drainage infrastructure was unable to cope with the level of rainfall on July 12. The Committee noted the concern that this would not be a one-off occurrence, and stated it was imperative that the relevant authorities act quickly to protect Westminster residents from future flooding.

4.9.      The Committee noted written submissions from Councillors Susie Burbridge on behalf of Lancaster Gate ward, Selina Short, representing Vincent Square Ward, Christabel Flight on behalf of Warwick Ward, Tim Mitchell on behalf of St. James’ Ward, and Elizabeth Hitchcock on behalf of Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward. It was noted that Tony Devenish, also a Councillor representing Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward, had chaired a meeting regarding the flooding events of July at the Greater London Authority (GLA).

4.10.    The Committee welcomed Councillor James Spencer, Cabinet Member for City Management to introduce the Interim Report from Westminster City Council. The Committee was assured that flooding was a huge concern for Westminster City Council, that residents’ concerns had been heard and that with the onset of climate change, the Council was keenly aware that flooding events such as the July incidents were likely to become increasingly common. Cllr Spencer stated that, in the context of climate change, it was no longer possible to hide behind the argument that flooding events such as these would occur once in 30 years. Cllr Spencer acknowledged that the response of Westminster City Council could have been better but highlighted the vital role of City Inspectors in keeping the City safe as well as the work of Westminster Connects.

4.11.    The Committee welcomed Phil Robson (Head of Operations for City Highways, Environment & City Management) to introduce the Interim Report. The Committee was made aware that a survey designed to gather information about affected residents was being kept open until December 17, 2021, in order to gain as many reports as possible. The Committee was provided with information on the details of the flooding events in July and how ‘super-cell rainfall’ in extreme volume had overwhelmed the sewer system. The Committee also heard that, whilst Westminster gullies were cleared regularly, there would be a review of the frequency of gully clearings, to ensure that blockages in gullies would not contribute to pressure on drainage systems.