B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements€¦ · B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements Content:

Southern WaterFinal Business Plan 2009B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements

B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements

Content:

B.6.1 Overall Strategy..................................................................................5

B.6.2 Proposed changes in service – customer service...............................5

B.6.2.1 DG6 Billing contacts ............................................................6B.6.2.2 DG7 Written complaints ......................................................6B.6.2.3 DG8 Meter reading..............................................................6B.6.2.4 DG9 Telephone calls abandoned ........................................6B.6.2.5 Debt recovery ......................................................................7

B.6.3 Proposed Changes in Service – Water Service..................................8

B.6.3.1 DG2 Pressure......................................................................8B.6.3.2 DG3 Interruptions to water supply .......................................8B.6.3.3 Reduced Leakage ...............................................................8B.6.3.4 Scheme SRN 237 – Mains Rehabilitation in Woolmans

Wood...................................................................................8

B.6.4 Proposed Changes in Service – Sewerage Service .........................12

B.6.4.1 DG5 Internal ‘At Risk’ Register..........................................14B.6.4.2 DG5 External ‘At Risk’ Register.........................................15

B.6.5 Eastney pumping station ..................................................................15

B.6.6 Odour Nuisance Alleviation ..............................................................17

B.6.7 Flood Resilience ...............................................................................19

B.6.7.1 Risk Screening ..................................................................19B.6.7.2 Risk Analysis .....................................................................20B.6.7.3 Risk Management .............................................................21

Appendix B6.1 Letter from EA re Eastney………………………………...24Appendix B6.2 Letter from Portsmouth City Council re Eastney……….26Appendix B6.3 Further letter from Portsmouth City Council re Eastney.27


- 1 -

Executive Summary

• The AMP4 period represented a period of significant change in the core customer services operation, including the development and implementation of a new Billing system. We are currently achieving good performance against DG6, DG7, DG8 and DG9.

• We have shown a continued improvement in DG2 performance, reducing the number of properties at risk of poor pressure by one third in the last five years. DG3 performance is good.

• We are currently ahead of target in AMP4 to achieve 259 removals from the 2-in-10 and 1-in-10 DG5 internal flooding registers, and on target to alleviate 402 external flooding problems.

• Table B.6.1 shows the current forecast Output Performance Assessment for 2008/09 which demonstrates a material improvement in performance since JR08.

Proposals in AMP5

• We propose the following level of service expenditure in AMP5:

Total£M

ESL£M

Water main rehabilitation to reduce complaints

Odour mitigation at wastewater treatment works

Flooding

Flood mitigation (hydraulic)

Flood mitigation (other causes)

Strategic CSO to reduce flooding risk at Eastney

Flood resilience modelling for key assets

Total

• We plan to improve and sustain our performance against customer service indicators DG6, DG7, DG8 and DG9 through base maintenance. We will maintain current levels of service through base maintenance for DG2 and DG3.

• We plan to undertake rehabilitation of water mains in the Kent Medway, Woolmans Wood water supply zone (K514) to address failures of the standard for iron which has led to it being one of highest ranking for customer complaintsabout dirty water.

• The programme of works identified in Table B.6.4 is estimated to cost , excluding works at Eastney and allocations for maintenance of static internal DG5 registers. Our proposed programme will give a net reduction of 80 properties from the internal DG5 register (all categories, and including two arising from the Eastney scheme), and 169 properties at risk of external flooding (all categories) split approximately 66 linked and 103 non-linked to internal flooding.


- 2 -

• The package of schemes covers the wider aspects of flooding and is not solely restricted to removing properties from the internal 2:10/1:10 DG5 ‘at risk’ register.This approach reflects our customers’ wishes and the overall programme cost is within the increase in water charges that our customers are prepared to support.

• We consider there is sufficient customer support both from the national research and from our own Focus Groups to justify the proposed programme of works. Our scheme prioritisation system has the support of CCWater and our proposed programme is cost beneficial

• We will complete the second phase of the Eastney scheme with separation of asurface water from the combined sewer from parts of the catchment and construction of a new strategic CSO.

significant customer service improvements• We will provide odour mitigation at four wastewater treatment works where it is

cost beneficial.

• We will undertake detailed flood modelling to determine the optimum solutions for flood resilience for vulnerable assets.


- 3 -

Table B.6.1 - Output Performance Assessment (unaudited) - year to date at end February 2009

Measure Score

Key = Data based on Calendar Year 2008

2007/082008-09

YTD2008-09 Forecast

2007-082008-09

YTD2008-09 Forecast

WATER LEVELS OF SERVICE

DG2 - Risk of low pressure (no. of properties) 386 317 299 35.0 35.5 35.6

DG3 - Interruptions >6 hrs (no. of properties) 1765 2682 3050

>12 hrs (no. of properties) 142 25 50

>24 hrs (no. of properties) 18 0 0

DG3 Overall - (Measure = 1 * 6hrs + 1* 12hrs + 2* 24hrs) 1,943 2,707 3,100 36.8 36.0 35.5

Water quality -OPI DWI index 99.91 99.86 99.86 47.5 46.1 46.1

SEWERAGE LEVELS OF SERVICE

Sewer flooding - overloaded - not due to severe weather (no. of incidents) 41 54 70 24.5 24.1 23.5

Sewer flooding - Equipment failures (no. of incidents) 29 58 60

Sewer flooding - Blockages (no. of incidents) 215 214 250

Sewer flooding - Collapses (no. of incidents) 9 7 10

Sewer flooding - other causes (no. of incidents) 253 279 320 25.1 23.1 20.0

DG5 register - 2 in 10 risk (no. of properties) 77 78 73

1 in 10 risk (no. of properties) 174 147 143

Number funded for removal 80 84 84

DG5 register Overall - (Measure = 1* 2:10 + 1* funded + 0.5 * 1:10) 244 236 229 12.4 12.4 12.5

SECURITY OF SUPPLY

Leakage (% target not met) -5.81% -9.00% -9.05% 12.5 12.5 12.5

DG 4 Hosepipe Restrictions n/a n/a n/a 12.5 12.5 12.5

SoSI - Absolute performance 96.1 100.0 100.0 11.3 12.5 12.5

SoSI - Performance against Target (%age of MP target not met) -37.23% 0.00% 0.00% 12.5 12.5 12.5

Security of Supply Overall ----- ----- ----- 36.3 37.5 37.5


- 4 -

Table B.6.1 - Output Performance Assessment (unaudited)- year to date at end February 2009 (continued)

Measure Score

Key = Data based on Calendar Year 20082007/08

2008-09 YTD

2008-09 Forecast

2007-082008-09

YTD2008-09 Forecast

CUSTOMER SERVICE

DG6 - Billing Contacts (% in 5 days) 97.2 99.2 99.1 37.2 46.2 46.1

DG7 - Response to Written Complaints (% in 10 days) 64.8 99.9 99.8 5.0 48.9 48.6

DG8 - Bills for Metered Customers (% with Co or Cust Read) 99.5 98.2 99.9 38.8 8.8 46.7

DG9 Telephone Contact - % Not Abandoned 80.1 94.1 93.5 5.0 22.3 19.1

DG9 Telephone Contact - All Line Busy - % not engaged 78.6 98.5 98.6 5.0 43.3 43.7

DG9 - Customer satisfaction 4.31 4.33 4.33 38.7 39.3 39.3

DG9 - Combined ----- ----- ----- 21.8 36.0 35.3

Customer contact Overall - (OPA Score is factored from above lines)

102.9 139.9 176.7 11.2 23.8 36.4

Revenue & Debt collection 1 1 1

Complaint Handling 2 2 2

Information to Customers 1 1 2

Telephone Contact Hours 1 1 1

Compensation Policy 1 1 1

Supply Pipe Repair Policy 2 2 2

Services for Disabled and Elderly Customers 3 3 1

Customer service assessment - (annual WaterVoice assessment based on the 7 categories above)

11 11 10 33.3 33.3 37.5

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

Category 1 & 2 pollution incidents - (Cat 1 & 2 have equal weighting) 7 5

5 22.3 24.4 24.4

Category 3 pollution incidents (excludes sites compliant with consents) 208 193

193 9.2 9.5 9.5

Unsatisfactory sludge disposal (%) 0% 0% 0% 12.5 12.5 12.5

pe served by STWs in breach of their consent (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.0 50.0 50.0

Category 1 & 2 pollution incidents - water 0 0 0 12.5 12.5 12.5

TOTAL COMPANY OPA SCORE ----- ----- ----- 381.0 393.1 405.9


- 5 -

B.6.1 Overall Strategy

AMP4 was characterised by a renewed focus on customer needs and our commitment to delivering to those needs. As we move towards the end of the current regulatory period we have achieved good performance standards across all of the Ofwat performance measuresas demonstrated by table B.6.1 above. Our recent performance represents a significant improvement and demonstrates we now have a sound foundation on which to build during AMP5.

Our Strategic Direction Statement (SDS) demonstrates how we have maintained our close relationship with our customers and other stakeholders to ensure that their views are communicated and taken into account in our Final Business Plan.

Extensive research was undertaken to inform this Business Plan which has involved:

• analysis of verbal and written complaints

• continuous customer research

• key opinion former surveys and,

• willingness to pay research,

This has fed into the Cost Benefit Analysis in determining the investment programme (see Part C.8). This information also provides key evidence about customers’ attitudes, priorities and willingness to pay for changes in service, which was used to identify key areas for improvement (see Part C.1).

B.6.2 Proposed changes in service – customer service

The AMP4 period represented a period of significant change and transformation in the core customer services operation. The development and implementation of a new billing system, a key element of the PR04 Final Business Plan, led the business to identify a number of irregularities in performance data previously reported to Ofwat. This discovery resulted in a complete review of original plans and the establishment of a programme to transform existing customer service operations, making them more responsive to customer needs and providing more robust regulatory reporting protocols.

In addition to developing and implementing a new billing system, we have introduced a new telephony system, new web site, improved and enhanced processes and procedures, and recruited and trained a significant number of people. We have also undertaken comprehensive training and development of new and existing staff and enhanced data and reporting systems. These improvements will continue to enhance customer service through a reduction in the need for customers to contact us, increased first time resolution, improved service in terms of both wait times and customer experience and a significantly increased choice of service channels and the convenience of 24 hour “self-service” options.

Table B.6.1 shows that we are currently achieving good Ofwat performance standards across all the key customer service metrics. This is a firm foundation on which we propose to deliver the objectives of AMP5. Our intention is to continue to consolidate and improve our performance against the four customer service DG indicators through the base maintenance programme, as indicated below.

As explained in Parts B.5.3 and C.4(A), a key component of our Water Resources Management Plan is the delivery of universal metering for all SWS water customers by 2015. We plan to implement our proposed universal metering programme effectively to handle the increased customer contact that will arise as a result of the programme. We will also manage the increased contact that will result from metering programmes in the neighbouring Water Only Companies, as this will have an impact on the way in which we serve our sewerage only customers. The additional staffing resource required to handle the increased contact has


- 6 -

been built into our plan and is offset against the reductions resulting from other initiatives, particularly self-service and first contact resolution.

We also plan to increase our debt recovery activities whilst ensuring that vulnerable customers continue to be protected through tariff options and the WaterSure scheme.

We look to Ofwat to make its price determination on the basis of current customer service performance and that it is not influenced by poor historic performance for which the company has already been fined by Ofwat. To do otherwise would be inappropriate and demonstrate double jeopardy.

We note Ofwat’s intention to change and broaden the customer experience measures and believe that given our recent investment, we are well placed to deliver the high levels of first contact response and reduced unwanted contact.

B.6.2.1 DG6 Billing contacts

The 2008 June Return reported 96.7% of billing queries answered within five days in 2007/08. The process for dealing with DG6 enquiries has improved significantly as our billing system has stabilised and both internal processes and staff experience have developed. In the 2008/09 year to date to the end of February, 99.2.% of billing contacts were dealt with within five working days. Through improvements in experience, knowledge and resultant efficiency, we plan to improve performance to 100% by 2011/12 and maintain this level of service through base maintenance for the remainder of the AMP5 period. Feedback from customers and the Consumer Council for Water (CCW) has made it clear that 100% is the expected standard and we will also focus on improving the customer experience to raise levels of customer satisfaction in line with the aims of Ofwat’s consumer experience measures.

B.6.2.2 DG7 Written complaints

We continue to improve performance with respect to dealing with written complaints. The 2008 June Return reported that 64.8% of written complaints were dealt with within ten working days in 2007/08 compared to an Ofwat target of 98%. In the 2008/09 year to date to the end of February, performance had improved to 99.9% and we plan to continue to improveperformance to 100% by 2011/12. This will be achieved by focussing on quality of response to reduce repeat contact and increase first time resolution. This approach is supported by the CCW principle of “Right first time”. We will maintain this level of service throughout the remainder of the AMP5 period through base maintenance.

B.6.2.3 DG8 Meter reading

The 2008 June Return reported that 99.5% of measured bills were based on a meter reading, which is directly in line with the Ofwat target for good performance. We plan to improve performance to 99.75% by 2010/11 and maintain this level of service thereafter through base maintenance.

The universal metering programme described in B.6.2 above will make use of automatic meter reading technology, enabling meters to be read remotely. This allows the introduction of tariff options and flexibility to offer revised read frequencies for certain customer groups, whilst controlling the operational costs of increased read frequencies across a significantly increased meter base. The projected volumes and costs of additional meter reading and billing has been incorporated into our projections and discussed with our service providers to ensure the additional work loads can be met in conjunction with the improved performance target.

B.6.2.4 DG9 Telephone calls abandoned

We have recovered from the difficulties in AMP4 and in the 2008/09 year to date to the end of February, performance had improved to reduce the rate of abandoned calls to 6.5% and calls receiving all line busy to 1.4%. We continue to work to further improve performance and plan


- 7 -

to achieve an average abandonment rate of 6% by the end of AMP4 and further improve this level of service to 5% by the end of AMP5 through base maintenance.

Improved Customer Service will result from enhanced self-service facilities via the Company’s website and telephony. This will improve customer’s contact experience by enabling them tomanage their own transactions and account activity, providing greater convenience and speed. The services will include electronic, paperless billing; account management including the ability to input meter readings; applications for service and a ‘contact us’ facility, thus reducing the number of incoming telephone calls. Through our plan to increase the ratio of permanent to agency staff in our Contact Centre from the current 60:40 to 80:20, we expect to achieve improved customer service by greater retention of staff and their associated greater level of knowledge and experience.

The following table shows our performance targets against each of the customer service DG measures.

Table B.6.2 – Customer Service DG indicators – forecast performance

Forecast performance against each measureRegulatory Measure

2008/09 2009/10 2014/15

DG6 <5 days 99% 99% 100%

DG7 <10 days 99% 99% 100%

DG8 99.70% 99.75% 99.75%

DG9 abandoned 7% 6% 5%

DG9 % calls receiving the engaged tone

1% 1% 1%

DG9 Call handling satisfaction score

4.57 4.65 4.75

B.6.2.5 Debt recovery

During AMP4, we have seen a steady increase in the level of monies owed by our customers. Current debt stands at . In recognition of the need to address this issue, particularly in view of the current economic climate, we have established the Revenue Directorate in the current period. Revenue Directorate staff work closely with the established Customer Services team and have responsibility for accurate and timely billing and all activities associated with the collection of monies due.

In the AMP5 period, we anticipate increased contact with certain sectors of our customer base to ensure that the debt position is managed and improved. We will invest in updating and managing our customer data and introduce operational practices to effectively manage customer payment on overdue accounts. Through an improved understanding of our customers we will continue to process debt through the optimum route and seek continually to improve our working practices. For example, in accordance with our General Charges Scheme we will seek security deposits from commercial customer, where appropriate We will be proactive to become the industry-leading performer which is sympathetic to customers with real hardship issues, whilst at the same time ensuring that the majority of customers who pay for our services on a regular basis are not disadvantaged.

This will be funded through base maintenance.


- 8 -

B.6.3 Proposed Changes in Service – Water Service

B.6.3.1 DG2 Pressure

DG2 performance has shown a continued improvement over the last five years, reducing the number of properties at risk of poor pressure by one third. In the 2008 June Return, 386 properties were reported at risk, against the Monitoring Plan target of 500. This represents fewer than four properties per 10,000 served.

In order to maintain DG2 levels of service we plan to ensure that an equivalent number of properties that are added to the DG2 register are removed through investment. Customer research showed that 82% of domestic and 89% of business respondents were happy with our service in terms of water pressure and we believe maintaining the status quo is the appropriate strategy for AMP5.

Our strategy for AMP5 is therefore to maintain the current good level of service through base maintenance, with a target of less than 400 properties throughout the AMP5 period.

B.6.3.2 DG3 Interruptions to water supply

DG3 performance is good and in 2007/08 we achieved an Ofwat performance score of 0.186 against our target of 0.3 in the Monitoring Plan.

Customer research did not confirm support for an improvement to the existing level of service on interruptions to supply. Only 2.1% of domestic respondents and 1.6% of business respondents prioritised supply interruptions for improvements in the willingness to pay research. Our strategy for AMP5 is therefore to maintain current levels of service through base maintenance with a DG3 Ofwat performance score of less than 0.2 throughout the period.

B.6.3.3 Reduced leakage

We anticipate that the proposed universal metering programme described in B.5.3 will assist in identifying leaking supply pipes. These pipes will be repaired or replaced in line with our code of practice and we anticipate that this will result in leakage reduction in the AMP5 period.

B.6.3.4 Scheme SRN 237 – Mains Rehabilitation in Woolmans Wood1

Woolmans Wood (Zone ref K514) is a water supply zone in the Kent Medway resource area normally supplied by a blend of treated water from the Burham WSW and the Snodhurst WSW. The Burham WSW is a surface water abstraction from the River Medway whereas the Snodhurst works provides a chalk groundwater supply. Within this zone there have been fivefailures of the standard for iron in the period January 2006 to the end of 2008 which has led it to be one of highest ranking within SWS for customer complaints about dirty water.

We therefore plan to undertake rehabilitation of water mains in the Kent Medway, Woolmans Wood water supply zone (K514) to address failures of the standard for iron. Our proposal is to rehabilitate the system with a combination of renewal of some 47.6km of main and 6841 services in five selected DMAs and systematic flushing of some 73km of mains throughout the supply zone. With this programme of works we will reduce customer contacts from the current average of 5.29 per 1000 properties/annum to 1.0 per 1000 properties, a reduction of some 80 complaints per annum.

The costs associated with this scheme have been reallocated from Quality Enhancements in the Draft Business Plan to Enhanced service levels as required by Ofwat. The scheme has the support of the DWI and we will be discussing with them the formal programme for completion of this work together with any requisite formal monitoring.

1

Note – This scheme has been transferred from Quality enhancement to Enhanced service levels in accordance with the Ofwat CIS draft baseline Table 4, page 7


- 9 -

A significant factor in the deterioration in water quality is the change of circumstance of supply in the zone. Supplies to the zone have historically been a blend of surface and groundwater and customer experience of treated water quality is closely related to the stability of the blend ratio. This is illustrated in Figure B.6.1below. The graph over the period 2005 to 2008 shows the proportion of complaints for that period by month (times 10 for visualisation) with the corresponding proportion of Burham water in the blend supplied to the zone. The Company wide numbers of complaints is shown for comparison to identify if other trends were coincident with the effect in zone K514.

Normalised Dirty Water Complaints and Proportion of Burham Water in Zone K514

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1/20

05

3/20

05

5/20

05

7/20

05

9/20

05

11/2

005

1/20

06

3/20

06

5/20

06

7/20

06

9/20

06

11/2

006

1/20

07

3/20

07

5/20

07

7/20

07

9/20

07

11/2

007

1/20

08

3/20

08

5/20

08

7/20

08

9/20

08

11/2

008

Month

No

rma

lis

ed

pro

po

rtio

n

Burham Proportion

K514 Complaints

All Company Complaints

Figure B.6.1 - Normalised Dirty Water Complaints and Proportion of Burham Water in Zone K514

During the drought of 2005/2006 it was necessary to reduce the supply from Snodhurst WSW resulting in areas of the zone receiving a supply of water wholly supplied from Burham. The consequence was a significant increase in the number of customer contacts for dirty water. It should be noted there was no corresponding increase in the number of contacts for other aesthetic parameters such as taste and odour.

There is clear evidence that the Burham supply leads to increased corrosion within the iron water mains to cause elevated iron concentration considerably in excess of the iron concentration ex works. A summary of iron concentration data is set out in table B.6.3 below.

Table B.6.3 - Summary of iron concentration

Year Nr of Compliance

Failures

Percentage Burham supply to

zone

Average Iron exBurham WSW

(•g/l)

Average K514 IronCustomer samples

(•g/l)

2005 0 65% 0.0108 0.017

2006 1 94% 0.0142 0.054

2007 2 80% 0.0240 0.065

2008 2 71% 0.0104 0.048

To maintain acceptable security of supply and quality of supplies it is necessary to renovate the distribution system to improve the unlined iron mains that are causing the deterioration in quality. We note that the DWI has issued the final assessment letter in support of the scheme


- 10 -

to reduce consumer complaints of unacceptable water quality for water quality reasons and we have examined how best to satisfy our customer’s expectations of highest water quality in the most cost effective manner.

Due to the relatively low (compared to other water companies) customer contact rate for dirty water incidents, generally associated with our high proportion of hard groundwater supplies, we have not hitherto found it necessary to practice systematic flushing of our distribution mains. As our customers are now clearly telling us that they wish to avoid any departure fromhighest aesthetic quality we have investigated proactive systematic flushing in a number of our water supply zones to fully understand the costs and benefits of such work.

This has demonstrated that we can improve the distribution system in the Woolmans Wood zone by a combination of mains renewal and proactive flushing. Our mains renewal work is focussed on those DMAs that have been shown to be most sensitive to the increase in the proportion of surface water during any drought event, also taking note of the general increase in mains corrosion in the DMA generally supplied by a higher proportion of the surface water. A further consideration is that as a period of drought is approached it is not acceptable from a public relations and public communication perspective to embark on an extensive pre-emptive mains flushing programme with (apparent) high waste of water.

Our proposal is to rehabilitate the system with a combination of renewal of some 47.6km of main and 6841 services in five selected DMAs and systematic flushing of some 73km of mains throughout the supply zone. Techniques of more aggressive cleaning such as air scouring are not appropriate for iron mains as these methods lead to a substantial increase in iron concentration and discoloured water. Within our mains deterioration model we have examined the predicted programme for structural renewal of mains (to maintain stable serviceability for bursts and interruptions) in the affected zone and note that only a few kilometres of main would require renewal within a 30 year period. Accordingly, we have considered in-situ polymeric lining of the mains. However this has been discounted as a viable solution in this area because the historic ‘local’ method of service connection to directly tap a galvanised iron elbow into the main leaving a substantial protrusion will severely inhibit re-lining operations. Further, the related practice of laying galvanised iron “rider mains” for long side services requires that significant service pipe renewal is required if we are to deliver best improvement to our customers. The rider mains are typically 2” and 11/2” diameter galvanised iron that cannot be relined.

Our proposal, as a mixture of renewal of a proportion of mains and services in the DMAs of poorest quality and management of dirty water by proactive flushing in other DMAs, gives best value to our customers as we recognise that in the longer term a programme of renewal for further mains and services will be necessary. We expect to defer this intervention until renewal becomes necessary against serviceability for bursts and interruptions, or at least makes a larger contribution to maintaining performance against those indicators. Performance in the zone for dirty water will be kept under review and assessed against our discolouration deterioration model which is described in Part C4 against DWI scheme SRN261.

The Woolmans Wood Zone Ref K514 has some 18,000 premises and 142km of main of which some 10,900 premises and 75km of these mains are in the five priority DMAs. We have set out a programme of renewal for 47.6km of mains and a flushing programme for some 73km of distribution mains, but we do not have any evidence to suggest that trunk main rehabilitation is necessary. With this programme of works we will reduce customer contacts from the current average of 5.29 per 1000 properties/annum to 1 per 1000 properties a reduction of some 80 complaints per annum.

We anticipate completing the renewals and subsequent flushing in years 1 to 3 of the AMP5 period, but pending formal agreement have allocated expenditure with an even profile over the period. The estimate of renewal cost for mains and services is consistent with the cost curves derived for use with the Tynemarch deterioration modelling as fully described in Part


- 11 -

B3. In addition, we have taken an aggressive stance on the proportion of the renewal work that can be executed using no dig techniques in order to minimise costs and impact on the environment. The unit costs for mains flushing are based on detailed analysis of mains flushing work carried out within Southern Water during the 2008/09 financial year, in conjunction with our service partners WS Atkins.


- 12 -

B.6.4 Proposed Changes in Service – Sewerage Service

In recent years there has been a significant increase in society’s awareness of the impact of sewer flooding. The severe weather of 2000/1 prompted concern, and since then there have been several major incidents nationally, culminating in the severe flooding events during the summer of 2007. Although these events had less impact in the south-east than elsewhere, it is clear from our customer research that sewer flooding is seen as a high priority area for investment.

We are currently ahead of our AMP4 target to achieve 259 removals from the 2:10 and 1:10 internal registers, and on target to alleviate 402 external flooding problems. Current forecasts envisage an out-turn figure of 213 properties on the 2:10 and 1:10 internal registers and 224 properties on the 1:20 internal register. We plan to maintain our AMP4 outturn level of service position in AMP5 via the supply-demand programme.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1992

/93

1994

/95

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

2014

/15

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

pe

rtie

s o

n D

G5

re

gis

ter

Projection

Figure B.6.2 – Number of properties on the DG5 Register (2 in 10 and 1 in 10 years)

Our long term aim, as set out in our Strategic Direction Statement, is to ensure that no properties remain at risk of internal sewer flooding for more than one year. Our Final Business Plan is consistent with this aim. However, the application of cost-benefit analysis to all flooding schemes means that this aim is unlikely to be achieved, since there are properties where a cost-beneficial scheme cannot be delivered unless or until flooding becomes more widespread and frequent, generating increased ‘benefits’.

During AMP4 we successfully used a prioritisation methodology developed with CCWater. As part of our preparations for AMP5 we have reviewed the method and made improvements, and agreed these with CCWater. In developing our programme of flood alleviation schemes we have used both cost-benefit analysis and the CCWater prioritisation process to ensure that we have their full support for the flooding programme.

The programme of works identified in Table B.6.4 below is estimated to cost £55.6m, excluding works at Eastney and allocations for maintenance of internal flooding DG5 registersat current levels. Our proposed programme will give a net reduction of 80 properties from the internal DG5 register (all categories, including two arising from the Eastney scheme), and 169properties at risk of external flooding (all categories) split approximately 66 linked and 103non-linked to internal flooding. Our proposed costs are all based upon engineered solutions and do not include solutions such as the purchasing of the affected properties or filling-in of cellars.


- 13 -

The package of schemes covers the wider aspects of flooding and is not solely restricted to removing properties from the internal 2:10/1:10 DG5 ‘at risk’ Register. This approach reflects our customers’ wishes, and that the overall programme cost is within the increase in charges that our customers are prepared to support.

There is sufficient customer support both from the national research and from our own Focus Groups to justify the proposed programme of works. Our scheme prioritisation system has the support of CCWater and our proposed programme is cost beneficial.

Table B.6.4 – Programme of works

At risk

measure

Forecast at

31/3/10

No. of these to be removed by company

action –Service

enhancement

Estimated first time

flood additions

Maintain DG5 reductions –

Supply/demand

Forecast at 31/3/15

Internal 2 in 10

70 23 50 50 46

Internal 1 in 10

143 33 50 50 108

Internal 1 in 20

224 24 115 115 203

External 2 in 10

649 71 828

External 1 in 10

224 5 469

External 1 in 20

2766 93 3673

Internal flooding has a significant impact on customers in terms of loss of property and is also a major source of stress, particularly when flooding occurs more than once. However, it is clear from our experience that, for a significant number of customers, frequent external flooding can also cause severe distress. We believe a balance must be struck between addressing infrequent internal flooding and frequent external flooding, of gardens in particular. Our Business Plan seeks to deliver this balance. Our current external flood register shows a total of 3239 areas at risk of external flooding in the three risk categories (2:10, 1:10, 1:20) of which 2243 affect properties – curtilage, detached garage or out-buildings. The available data from the external register (from JR 2004 onwards) indicates that the register is currently growing at approximately 400 areas per year. Our forecast is that the reference start point for AMP5, i.e. 31/3/10 figure, will show a total of 3639 areas at risk of external flooding in the three risk categories (2:10, 1:10, 1:20). It may be expected that this steep rise will lessen as the register matures over the next five to ten years, but this may to a certain extent be offset by the effects of climate change.

A significant amount of customer consultation has been carried out to establish the ‘willingness to pay’ for flood alleviation, and hence to establish the size of the flood programme. In response to our customer’s wishes, we are proposing an increase in expenditure on flood alleviation schemes for AMP5, firstly to reduce still further the internal DG5 register, and secondly to address sources of frequent external flooding, particularly gardens and public open space. The proposed level of service improvement schemes will address flooding problems in all six categories, 2:10, 1:10 and 1:20, internal and external.


- 14 -

The principal tool for selection of schemes for AMP5 has been cost-benefit analysis. Detailed customer research has been carried out to determine customers’ willingness to pay for flood alleviation schemes as summarised in Part C.6.10. The values obtained from the research were applied to the screened list of schemes both at programme level and individual scheme level.

Flooding due to other causes will be mitigated primarily through operational activity, mechanical/electrical improvements and sewer rehabilitation measures. However, there are small numbers of properties which will remain at risk of chronic, repeated ‘other causes’ flooding, notwithstanding these measures. In such cases it is proposed that mitigation measures will be offered as a means of preventing frequent repeat flooding.

Schemes for both internal and external flood alleviation will aim at a minimum design target of once in 30 year flood frequency. In a small number of cases it may be uneconomic, or impractical to provide a solution to this standard. It seems unreasonable to deny a customer an improvement in flood risk where the full 30 year design standard cannot be met. A small number of schemes may therefore be implemented to a lower standard, to reduce flood frequency to less than once in ten years although not meeting the standard of less than once in thirty years.

Where we cannot deliver flood alleviation schemes within AMP5 because of issues of either funding or practicality, we will consider mitigation measures, so that the impact of flooding can be reduced. In these circumstances properties/ areas will remain on the at-risk register. We envisage that mitigation will be offered to customers with properties on the at-risk register (all categories) and also to customers flooded internally more than once as a result of severe weather.

In addition to resolving flooding caused by hydraulic overload, we will also be seeking to reduce flooding due to chronic other causes. This will be tackled primarily through operational activity, mechanical/electrical improvements and sewer rehabilitation measures. However, a small number of properties will remain at risk of chronic, repeated ‘other causes’ flooding regardless of the level of operational effort applied. In such cases where increased maintenance is uneconomic or unachievable we propose to offer mitigation measures as a means of preventing otherwise unavoidable repeat flooding.

B.6.4.1 DG5 Internal ‘At Risk’ Register

We stated in our Strategic Direction Statement that ‘Our long-term aim is to ensure that no properties remain at risk of internal sewer flooding for more than one year’. We plan to eliminate the majority of the properties on the internal DG5 ‘at risk’ register (2-in-10 and 1-in-10 years) over the next two price setting periods (i.e. over 10 years).

The number of properties on the DG5 register (2-in-10 and 1-in-10 years) has progressively fallen over the last fifteen years, but some persistent problems remain, which will be costly to resolve. If Ofwat’s requirements for cost-benefit for flooding schemes remains in place, these problems may not be resolved until such time as the frequency of flooding or numbers of properties increases significantly to enable cost-benefit to be demonstrated.

Our Final Business Plan identifies the cost of maintaining the current base level of performance with respect to properties at risk of internal flooding (total number of ‘at risk’ properties) through supply/demand funding. Additional service level enhancement funding will reduce the number of properties on the internal risk register, all categories, by 80 (23 no. 2:10; 33 no. 1:10 and 24 no. 1:20, including outputs from the Eastney scheme) by 2014/15, managed through a uniform profile of improvements. The removal of 23 properties in the most severe risk category would cut the residual properties on the 2-in-10 register to around 46properties, many of which have mitigation measures applied, and which have not flooded for several years.

Our proposed programme of work will deal with properties where the cost is estimated to be up to per property (excluding schemes driven solely by pollution). The average cost per property for the proposed programme is (again excluding pollution schemes), compared with an average cost of approximately per problem for AMP4 schemes. The


- 15 -

increase in average cost/problem between AMP4 and AMP5 is to be expected, given that the most economic solutions have been completed during AMP4.

For those properties that will remain on the list we will continue with our customer care package, offering assistance should flooding occur. We will also continue with our policy of utilising interim solutions such as the installation of non-return valves where the hydraulics of the sewerage system allow.

Properties once on the ‘at risk’ registers are only removed if:

• They are proved not to be at risk by the collation of better information; or

• There has been investment in a permanent solution.

We do not remove properties from the DG5 register following the installation of mitigation measures, neither will we completely remove properties from the register that have not flooded for a number of years (timed out). However, we will move properties from the 2:10 to the 1:10 register after 10 years, or from the 1:10 to the 1:20 register after 15 years, in line with our current policy.

B.6.4.2 DG5 External ‘At Risk’ Register

We believe that internal DG5 improvements, although valuable, do not cover a wide enough spectrum of persistent customer flooding problems. Very significant customer service improvement will be achieved by addressing garden, garage and curtilage flooding, restricted toilet use and other more widespread flooding impacts. Customers are often faced with these repeated problems and an investment programme that only tackles internal DG5 flooding at risk properties leads to considerable customer dissatisfaction.

We started to address this issue in AMP3 with a pro-active stance which has continued through AMP4 with a target to resolve 402 external flooding problems. We plan to continue this enhanced service level programme in the AMP5 period with external DG5 schemes that will alleviate flooding in 169 external areas across the three risk categories (curtilage, public open space, highways). Approximately 66 areas are linked to internal flooding schemes.

More detailed analysis of the sewer flooding programme is given in Part C.6. Cost Benefit Analysis is presented in Part C.8.

B.6.5 Eastney pumping station

Portsea Island (Portsmouth) is acknowledged as a very high-risk flood area, and we plan to continue with our investment programme of major works in the Eastney catchment to reduce the risk of flooding to less than 1:200 year frequency. The total cost of these works in AMP5 is estimated at of which of this cost has been allocated to level of service improvement.

Eastney Pumping Station is the sewerage pumping station that drains the whole of the Portsmouth peninsula, which contains a population of approximately 200,000. The sewerage network is almost wholly combined, and virtually all flows gravitate towards the pumping station and are either pumped to Budds Farm for treatment, or under storm conditions to sea. There is no gravity outlet, due to the low lying nature of the catchment. If, for any reason, these storm flows cannot be pumped to sea the resultant flooding impact back in the catchment is inevitable. If the pumping station is beaten (because of either severe weather, or mechanical/electrical breakdown) the flooding is likely to be significant (potentially several hundred houses), and for this reason the pumping station needs to be designed for a lower probability of failure than usual. This applies both to available standby facilities and capability for dealing with less frequent rainfall events (up to at least 1:200 year level of service).

The southern part of the city of Portsmouth represents our largest resilience risk by far from sewer flooding. Our proposed solution is a holistic package of measures to deliver the


- 16 -

necessary protection for the City. The proposed schemes for Eastney are split to the three elements below, each providing individual benefit and taken as a whole achieving the stated 1:200 year level of service with the added benefit of providing capacity for population growth at both a local and strategic level:

• Provision of a Strategic CSO to reduce peak flows arriving at the terminal pumping station and providing significant reduction in flood risk -

• Enhancement of screen handling at Fort Cumberland storage facility plus an early severe weather warning system -

• Surface water separation schemes to reduce peak flows arriving at the terminal pumping station and to make capacity available within the catchment for planned new development. -

The AMP4 Final Determination included an expenditure allowance for the first element, to provide a sister pumping station sized for the capability of approximately 50% of the existing output. Construction has now started on site and will be functionally complete before March 2010. This new sister station will be equipped with electrically driven pumps (as opposed to diesel driven pumps in the existing station) such that in addition to providing the required standby capacity, the new station will also be operable as ‘first duty’, thus improving the operational reliability of the system.

The AMP4 Final Determination required SWS to undertake work to justify the second and third elements. We have completed significant investigations and analysis to develop a robust and economic solution to provide additional security for the Eastney network. A series of studies was undertaken by some of the leading consultants and experts in the industry, summarised in the report ‘Protecting Portsmouth from Flooding’ (ref: RT-HW-854).

More detailed reports are available covering each of the individual studies in depth and further detail is provided Part C.6.9. The full suite of reports compiled by our consultant is availableon request and has been seen by the Reporter.

The split expenditure by driver for the above investment programme is shown in the following table:

Capital expenditure allocation £m

Component of Eastney scheme

Enhanced

LoS

IRE MNI Supply Demand

Total

Provision of strategic CSO

Enhanced screen handling

Surface water separation

Total


- 17 -

B.6.6 Odour Nuisance Alleviation

We plan to provide odour mitigation measures at four wastewater treatment works where it has been demonstrated to be cost effective, at a total cost of . The programme will remove 1013 properties from within the existing nuisance boundaries, as shown in table B.6.5 below. In the Willingness to Pay research customers ranked odour from treatment works in the upper half of their priorities on services needing improvement.

There are a number of operational sites that, due to the nature of the activity, give rise to odour complaints. A review of complaints indicates that around 20% of our wastewater treatment works have a history of complaints; however, we consider that only a relatively small number of sites can justify capital expenditure as a means of addressing the problem.

The operation of the SWS sites is in line with the Defra ‘Code of Practice on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Works’ covering:

• The management and operation of the works; and

• Design of new installations to recognise the potential for odour nuisance.

The level of odour nuisance at sites selected for intervention can only be reduced by capital expenditure. All management and operational actions such as adhering to all the requirements within the site specific odour management plan are currently undertaken and whilst they have initially reduced the odour level and continually minimise the risk of nuisance,adherence to the management plans can provide no further benefits.

The interventions identified for the relevant sites follow best practice in addressing the problems in a step wise fashion, dealing with the worst odour sources sequentially until a material benefit is achieved. Each scheme will provide sufficient improvement such that the investment is considered worthwhile.

We have utilised odour dispersion modelling to determine the benefits (properties affected) of delivering odour intervention schemes. Odour contours of 0.6 ppb have been used as nuisance level and plotted pre and post intervention. Examples of such plots are shownbelow.

Figure B.6.3 – Odour contours pre-intervention


- 18 -

Figure B.6.4 – Odour contours post-intervention

The initial assessment of over 70 sites for odour alleviation identified the following treatment works with the potential to benefit from capital investment in odour alleviation:

Table B.6.5 – List of sites where odour control is warranted

Site Properties Within Nuisance Boundary

Properties Within Nuisance Boundary -Post

Completion

Ave Number of Complaints/year(based on last 5

years data)

Capex £(000’s)

Aylesford 331 4 27

Canterbury 17 0 4

Goddards Green 1120 280 18

Gravesend 22 2 5

Herne Bay 21 0 10

Horsham 7688 337 19

Paddock Wood 299 19 17

Peel Common 678 289 28

Portswood 3006 0 12

Slowhill Copse 175 0 4

Thornham 12 0 10

For the above sites we have applied a cost benefit approach to identify sites where the benefits exceed the costs and hence the expenditure is justified.


- 19 -

For AMP5 four works are cost beneficial at:

Site Capex

(£m)

Operating Costs £000

NPC NPB Cost Benefit Ratio

Aylesford 2.84

Goddards Green

5.26

Paddock Wood

4.40

Peel Common

1.88

In the Draft Business Plan we had also included an odour abatement scheme at Portswood WTW, in reviewing the application of CBA we have concluded that this scheme has a cost benefit ratio of less than 1, hence we have not included it in the Final Business Plan.

Further details on the application of CBA can be found in Part C8.

B.6.7 Flood Resilience

The problems experienced in 2008, with widespread flooding in Yorkshire and the Home Counties, demonstrated the potential vulnerability of some key utility assets/sites. In recognition of this we have reviewed both water and wastewater sites to determine the sites that are at greatest risk of flooding and having a significant customer impact.

In undertaking the review we have followed the Ofwat guidance document ‘Asset Resilienceto Flood Hazards: Development of an analytical framework’.

We have concluded that whilst the approach is a fair means of assessing the risk, several assumptions have had to be made. The use of these assumptions raises the possibility that the solutions developed may not be considered to be optimum and therefore may not be the most cost effective. Concern over the extent of these assumptions has been raised both by the Auditor, Halcrow and Ofwat (SWS/Ofwat Meeting 3/2/09).

As a result of these concerns we have decided that the most appropriate resolution is to put a temporary halt on the progression of the current schemes until full flood modelling and topographical surveys of the relevant sites are undertaken.

We estimate that the capital investment for flood resilience at the high priority sites will be and we believe that it will require 2% of this sum to undertake the necessary modelling

and survey work. The Final Business Plan therefore includes a sum of to allow for detailed flood modelling and the determination of optimum solutions that will be progressed during AMP5 with a view to the delivery of the solutions in AMP6.

Detailed below is the process that has been followed.

B.6.7.1 Risk Screening

In the absence of better accurate data, the following process has been used to determine the

flood depth in mOD:

• The Environment Agency (EA) website flood extents map (scale 1:20,000) wasextracted in digital format.


- 20 -

• The flood map data were imported into MapInfo as a raster image and geographically referenced based on at least three clearly identifiable points located in the vicinity of the site in question. It should be noted that there is a degree of inaccuracy that isinherent in this process e.g. where the background maps do not follow precisely the same lines, also at high resolution the flood map becomes very pixelated.

• Contour levels (0.1 m) were derived for the local area using height grid data, using the Vertical Mapper tool within MapInfo GIS.

• The contours have then been placed over the flood extents maps and a judgement made as to the flood top water level (in mOD) in the immediate vicinity of the site, and hence the extent of flood depth determined.

As an example, the flood map for , below, clearly shows the significant risk of

flooding at the site, which could potentially result in a loss of water supply to over

properties.

B.6.7.2 Risk Analysis

The list of sites was further refined using a course consequence determination. It was assumed that the larger the capacity of the site the greater the consequences that would arise from its loss. Cut off points were used, these were water sites with a capacity of 5 Ml/day and for wastewater sites, those serving populations of 50,000 or above. This assessment provided a list of 28 sites (both water and wastewater) to be considered further; once sites were identified as at significant risk of flooding, the effect of the potential loss of output from that site was assessed. The assessment covered the following,

• For WSWs can we still provide a service using flexibility within the existing supply and

distribution system?

• If a single source works, can it be linked to an adjacent source?

• Will protecting wastewater treatment works by bunding cause flooding within the bund

due the lack of free discharge of effluent


- 21 -

B.6.7.3 Risk Management

Risk of failure is dependent on flood depth and asset location. Flood depth data has been derived for the 1-in-1000 year event based on the EA website data. However, as water depths for lesser events are not available for each site a generic relationship has been assumed,based on the average of real data obtained as part of other studies for other sites. It is acknowledged that this an idealised situation and that local topographical characteristics will significantly influence site specific relationships. The assumed relationship between storm return period and flood depth is shown below.

Derived relationship - Flood Depth v Return Period

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Flood return period (1 in X years)

% F

loo

d D

ep

th

Figure B.6.5 Derived Relationship – Flood Depth v Return Period

It has been assumed that no flooding or consequence arises in 1-in-1 and 1-in-5 year events. The uplift factor for climate change has then been applied to the derived levels for future years.

As no FMEA (Failure Mode Effect Cause Analysis) studies have been undertaken it has not been possible to compare the threshold levels of the critical assets to the flood depths and hence quantify the extent of damage caused. Consequently assumed relationships have been developed to assess the asset repair/replacement cost, percentage service loss and duration of service loss as shown in the figures below.


- 22 -

Assumed Relationship between Repair Cost and Flood Depth

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4Flood Depth (m)

Rep

air

Co

st

(% M

EA

V)

Figure B.6.6 - Assumed Relationship between Repair Cost and Flood Depth

Assumed Relationship between % Loss of Service and Flood Depth

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4Flood Depth (m)

% L

oss o

f S

erv

ice

Figure B.6.7 - Assumed Relationship between % Loss of Service and Flood Depth


- 23 -

Assumed Relationship between Duration of Service Loss and Flood Depth

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4Flood Depth (m)

Du

rati

on

of

Se

rvic

e L

os

s (

da

ys

)

Figure B.6.8 - Assumed Relationship between Duration of Service Loss and Flood Depth

The maximum repair cost has been capped at 0.25 x MEAV (Modern Equivalent Asset Value). This figure has been derived by SWS based on approximately 50% of the MEAV relating to MEICA plant and equipment, and 50% of all such assets being damageable by flood water (the remainder being support steelwork, etc). Generally the data is based on experience of similar schemes, with the maximum duration of service loss relating to flood water affecting critical assets such as MCCs (Motor Control Cabinets). Where such critical, long-lead items of plant are likely to be affected it is assumed that temporary facilities shall be brought to site within a seven day period.

It should be noted that the proposed relationships are treated as bandwidths i.e. the % MEAV for flood depth of 0.1 m applies in the range 0.1m - 0.19m.

From these relationships graphs the damage costs can be estimated for each flood event and service loss against the annual probability of an event. The service days lost for any particular event comprises the expected duration of the loss, the number of people affected and the percentage service loss multiplied together. The annual damage is then estimated in terms of service losses and repair costs, which is given by the area under the damage – flood probability curves. By calculating the integrals for each subsequent pair of probability points and then summing, the total average annual damage costs and service days lost are determined.


- 24 -

Appendix B6.1 – Letter from EA re Eastney

24 March 2009

John SpenceHead of Wastewater & Environmental StrategySouthern Water Southern HouseYeoman RoadWorthingWest SussexBN13 3NX

Dear John

Eastney Pumping Station

Further to our discussion of 19 March 2009 with reference to the capital works at Eastney Pumping Station I can confirm that we support the outcome of reduced surface water flooding on Portsea Island. There are several reasons why we would wish to see the works associated with Eastney Pumping station retained in your final business plan:

The Pitt Review

The Government has accepted all 92 recommendations in Sir Michael Pitt’s report as confirmed by Hilary Benn on 17 December 2008 in the House of Commons.

The report recommendations called for water companies (and all utility providers) to have a duty to share and co-operate with both Local Authorities and us to facilitate the management of flood risk (Recommendation 17). It also instructed, through the current price review process, priority be given to proposals for investment in the existing sewerage network to deal with increased risk of flooding (Recommendation 22).

We have identified Portsmouth as being one of our highest priority locations across the south east where the risk of flooding needs to be reduced. Portsmouth is at risk of surface water flooding, which is exacerbated by the combined sewer. Eastney pumping station plays a key role in mitigating the risk of surface water flooding, particularly as the topography of the area does not allow for gravity to drain excess surface water when the tide is high. With development pressures and rising sea levels the pumps at Eastney will become increasingly less resilient.

The recommendations of our Catchment Flood Management Plan for the Portsmouth area supports improvements to the pumping station in line with Recommendation 22 of the Pitt Review. We are pleased that the standby pumping station has been completed but recognise that the additional works proposed involving surface water separation, CSO improvements, reducing tidal inflow and an advanced flood warning system are essential to reducing flood risk.


- 25 -

It is widely acknowledged that within the forthcoming Floods and Water Bill Defra will grant us a strategic overview of all types of inland flooding. The method by which we will support the mitigation of surface water flooding is through the development and implementation of Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs). These will be developed by upper tier Local Authorities with us providing surface water flooding risk data and technical support where appropriate. Defra commenced a pilot to develop SWMPs for priority areas at risk of surface water flooding last year. Portsmouth was not included in this initial pilot, but we have advised Defra that we would wish to see it included in the second series of SWMPs. Our rationale is based on the fact that Portsmouth shares many similarities of the risk of surface water flooding as Hull (which was one of the six pilot SWMP approved by DEFRA).

As you are aware flooding occurred in Eastney in September 2000 when over 100 properties were flooded internally from surface water flooding. We estimate that over 2000 people were affected by the flooding of 20 residential streets in the area. The Pitt Review calls for the Environment Agency to urgently take forward work to develop tools and techniques to model surface water flooding (Recommendation 5).

Portsmouth City Council have expressed their wish to support the development and implementation of a SWMP in the second series funded by Defra. The need to mitigate the risks associated with the existing Eastney pumping station will be included in the SWMP.

Water Quality

I am aware that the scheme involves the reconfiguration of existing storm and emergency overflows from the pumping station and sewerage system. Obviously comments made above regarding flood alleviation are without prejudice to the Water Resources Act discharge consent determination process which will progress when you have finalised your application.

In summary we support the proposals for Eastney as originally set out in your draft Business Plan and wish to see them retained in your Final Business Plan.

If there are any points which require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

David HowarthStrategic Environmental Planning Manager (Water)Southern RegionEnvironment Agency


- 26 -

Appendix B6.2 – Letter from Portsmouth City Council re Eastney


- 27 -

Appendix B6.3 – Letter from Portsmouth City Council re Eastney


- 28 -

Documents

B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements€¦ · B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements B.6 Customer Service Strategy and Service Enhancements Content: