LIVE & ONLINE CONFERENCE - 19 & 20 October 2027, London
Plus, Operationalising Smart Water Data To Help Target Demand Reduction
19 & 20 October 2027, London
Plus, Operationalising Smart Water Data To Help Target Demand Reduction
19 & 20 October 2027, London
The timing of our October 2026 conference could hardly have been more relevant. Following an exceptionally challenging drought, with prolonged periods of high consumption and increasing pressure on available water resources, the business water sector faces some important decisions about how it accommodates future industrial growth while delivering meaningful reductions in existing demand.
Across two days, the speaker panel examined everything from future industrial water requirements and drought resilience to smart metering, customer-side leakage, reuse, market reform and the practical business of achieving water savings.
What made the discussions particularly valuable was the evidence behind the presentations, together with some remarkably candid questions from delegates. Several established assumptions were challenged, and we heard encouraging examples of solutions already delivering results.
The 2026 drought provided an important backdrop. Aiken Besley of the Environment Agency described how traditional forecasting approaches are being challenged by emerging industries whose future water requirements remain uncertain. But his Q&A raised an equally interesting issue: how do we distinguish essential industrial water use from unnecessary consumption within an essential process? An abattoir, for example, may need water for cleaning, but does that mean it needs to flow continuously? Sector-specific operating knowledge, rather than generic consumption benchmarks, could unlock considerable savings.
Andrew Tucker of Thames Water brought the discussion firmly into the realities of drought. The problem is not necessarily a few exceptionally hot afternoons, but sustained periods of high consumption that can stretch over weeks. His contribution to the data-centre panel highlighted how some facilities could place substantial demands on infrastructure during just 72–90 days of the year, even where annual consumption appears comparatively modest.
Becky Pointer of Affinity Water explored how these uncertainties affect future water-resource planning. Environmental abstraction reductions, climate variability and industrial growth all have to be considered together. The aim is not to arrive at one supposedly accurate forecast, but to understand the range of possible outcomes and what they mean for available supply headroom.
Simon Powell of MOSL supplied some striking market-wide evidence. Just 1% of businesses account for approximately half of business water consumption, while 88% of business supply points are located in resource zones projected to experience some future deficit. Equally revealing was the extent of inadequate industry classification within market data, raising questions about how accurately we can target demand-reduction programmes in the first place.
The data-centre discussions were particularly interesting.
MOSL's analysis showed that five identifiable facilities accounted for 54% of recorded on-site sector consumption. Meanwhile, Jade van Zuydam of techUK presented research showing that 51% of 73 surveyed facilities used cooling systems that consumed no cooling water.
However, the panel involving Chris Talago of Pure Data Centres, David Kerr of Enra Partners and Andrew Tucker exposed some important complications.
How much of the demand requested by developers reflects actual future operations, how much represents worst-case engineering requirements, and how many proposed developments will ever be built?
There was a genuine difference in perspective. Water companies need credible forecasts before reserving capacity, while developers must protect the resilience of critical facilities whose cooling and computing requirements may change considerably.
The discussion also explored whether major connection requests should trigger additional scrutiny, rather than simply be subject to rigid limits.
And what about reclaimed water? Technically attractive, certainly, but who builds the necessary infrastructure, how is it financed, what quality is required, and can a reliable commercial supply be guaranteed? The discussion made clear that reuse needs to move beyond a promising concept to become a deliverable infrastructure and investment proposition.
Frank Pascoe of South Staffs Water illustrated why these questions already matter in Cambridge, where businesses account for approximately 40% of water demand and additional supply infrastructure is still several years away. His most important distinction was between savings assumed in a demand-management plan and reductions actually delivered. The Q&A explored how smart-meter and logger evidence can help refine investment decisions, while recognising how difficult it becomes to attribute savings as business operations change over time.
We also heard encouraging practical evidence from Megan Williams of South West Water, whose business audit programme reported 846 completed leak repairs, with leaking toilets accounting for 54% of identified defects. But her Q&A revealed a different challenge: why had a business innovation fund offering up to £15,000 attracted so little interest? Delegates questioned whether the funding, project costs and application arrangements had been sufficiently tested with the businesses expected to use them.
The customer perspective was equally revealing. Louise Mills of CCW presented research showing that 72% of surveyed customers had not been proactively offered water-efficiency services during contract renegotiation. Dr Michael Bold of United Utilities explained why simply providing more information is unlikely to change behaviour unless the next action is relevant, straightforward and commercially worthwhile.
Finally, Neil Pendle's drought presentation and the ensuing industry panel exposed some uncomfortable gaps between identifying a problem and getting it resolved. We heard examples of businesses reportedly remaining in leakage for more than 400 days, as well as disagreements over whether wholesalers should contact customers directly when retailers object.
One particularly telling example involved a brewery reportedly needing three days to achieve a 40% reduction requested within 24 hours. It illustrated why effective drought preparedness must reflect actual industrial operations rather than simply issuing restrictions and expecting immediate compliance.
Day Two moved from the strategic questions to the practical mechanics of delivery.
Rosie Rand and Sally Bremner of Thames Water presented encouraging evidence of smart-meter-enabled interventions. Visits targeted through continuous-flow intelligence produced average reported savings of 5,400 litres per day, compared with 4,100 litres for other visits. Yet only around 10–15% of notified continuous-flow cases were fully resolved, and customer feedback remained difficult to obtain. The figures illustrated both the potential of better targeting and the difficulty of securing lasting results.
Scott King of Anglian Water described systems processing approximately 1.8 million non-household readings daily and identifying more than 57,000 continuous-flow events. But how many represented genuine, repairable leakage? And how many eventually resulted in verified reductions? His evidence highlighted the importance of following each case beyond initial detection.
Laura Maxwell of Northumbrian Water Group offered a particularly useful reality check on rollout programmes. Successful first-time installations ranged from 60–75% for accessible external exchanges to below 1% for some of the most difficult previously unmetered premises. Interestingly, customer refusal was not the principal obstacle. Access arrangements, meter location and the availability of suitable contacts mattered much more.
This connected neatly with Jamie Tabord's presentation on retrofitting existing meters. Rather than replacing every serviceable but difficult-to-access industrial meter, could photographic register verification and 15-minute monitoring provide a faster, less disruptive route to usable data?
Harry Cowan of Indigo Water approached the problem from a new water company's perspective, showing why smart-meter communications, commissioning and retailer integration need to be designed into new developments from the outset rather than addressed after occupation.
Neil Pendle returned on Day Two with an important challenge about data reliability. A reading can arrive on time, look perfectly plausible and still be wrong. His distinction between data suitable for billing, leakage alerts and independently verifiable savings raised questions about how the industry should validate information against physical meter registers.
Finally, Miles Robinson of MOSL explained how the Smart Meter Read Hub had already received more than 200 million readings, although only 52% of the smart-meter population was reporting into it. His discussion of settlement reform pointed towards a potentially important next step: using more reliable granular data to support new tariffs, customer incentives and more flexible demand management.
What connected these discussions was the question of how much water we can realistically expect to save, and how confidently those savings can be incorporated into future water-resource plans.
We heard encouraging evidence of smart metering and targeted interventions already delivering results.
But the presentations and Q&A also exposed the practical difficulties of getting data to the right people, arranging interventions, aligning commercial incentives and proving that reductions have been sustained.
Several questions deserve further attention. How do we prioritise interventions where savings will have the greatest value during drought? Who takes responsibility when persistent leakage is identified but remains unresolved? Can customer-side repairs and alternative water supplies be financed on a more dependable basis? And how should water companies balance uncertain industrial growth against savings that have not yet been fully demonstrated?
These are not simply questions about technology or regulation. They affect how water companies, retailers, businesses, developers and market bodies make investment and operational decisions.
The challenge now is to establish which savings we can genuinely count on, where existing programmes need to work differently, and where additional water supplies and infrastructure will still be needed.
Our post-conference report and intelligence package is now available through the conference website, including the detailed Chair's Report, presentations and transcribed Q&A discussions.
Our sincere thanks to all our speakers, delegates and contributors for making the discussions so informative, practical and open.
Discover what UK water companies are actually learning about smart-meter deployment, business demand reduction, leakage intervention, industrial water forecasting and drought resilience.
The Chair's Report & Post-Conference Intelligence Package brings together real operating figures, detailed case studies, implementation lessons and unusually candid Q&A from utilities, market bodies, technology providers and industrial stakeholders.
Find out what's working, where programmes are falling short, what others are doing differently, and which approaches could improve your own organisation's performance.
Different regulatory systems. Many of the same operational challenges. And some remarkably transferable lessons.
How do you achieve higher smart-meter installation rates when the remaining properties are increasingly difficult to access? Which interventions genuinely reduce water consumption? How do you turn millions of meter readings into useful customer action? And how do you prepare for new industrial demand when future requirements remain uncertain?
How many water industry conferences have you attended recently where half—or even the majority—of the presentations came from technology vendors?
Our October 2026 Business Water Resilience & Non-Household Smart Metering Conference was refreshingly different.
Around 95% of the presentations came from water utilities, regulators, retailers, market operators and water customers. There was just one technology supplier presentation, focused on smart-meter retrofitting, which was particularly well received for its practical relevance.
The result? Two days of unusually candid discussion about the challenges water companies are actually facing, the approaches they're testing, what's working, what isn't, and where significant opportunities remain.
Understand what utilities are really struggling with.
Discover where the demand for better solutions is emerging.
Hear the questions that don't always get asked during supplier presentations.
The extended Q&A brought out disagreements about responsibilities, commercial incentives, the credibility of reported savings and whether existing operating arrangements are fit for purpose. Understanding these concerns could fundamentally change how you position your own solutions.
An edited extract from the Business Water Resilience & Non-Household Smart Metering Conference, London, 13–14 October 2026
The following is just one conversation from our extended Q&A on data centres and their future water requirements.
The discussion brought together several different perspectives:
Andrew Tucker, Water Demand Reduction Manager at Thames Water, the regional water and wastewater company responsible for serving London and the Thames Valley.
Chris Talago, Head of Corporate Affairs and Communications at Pure Data Centres, an international developer and operator of large-scale data centres serving major cloud computing and technology companies.
.
David Kerr, Technical Director at Enra Partners, an investment, development and strategic advisory business specialising in sustainable digital infrastructure.
Simon Powell, Chief Information Officer at MOSL, the market operator responsible for central systems and data services supporting England's competitive non-household water market.
Jade van Zuydam, Junior Programme Manager – Energy and Utilities at techUK, the trade association representing the UK technology industry, including data-centre operators and suppliers.
The conversation was chaired by Steve D. Thomas of Strategy Engineering Research Group, the independent research and conference organisation responsible for the event.
Jade's presentation raised some interesting differences between data-centre water consumption in the UK and the United States, particularly in regions such as Texas where water availability is becoming an increasingly important issue.
Why does the UK appear to have a different water-consumption profile, and are some of the comparisons being made internationally misleading?
Chris Talago – Pure Data Centres
Chris explained that the American market developed earlier and has a much larger installed base of data centres, including many operating with older cooling technologies.
The regulatory environment also differs considerably between American states and European countries. Many early facilities were developed before the eventual scale of data-centre growth, and its implications for water and energy infrastructure, were fully appreciated.
Consequently, comparisons between existing American facilities and newer British or European developments can produce a misleading impression of future UK water requirements.
David Kerr – Enra Partners
David added that the UK's climate and environmental requirements have encouraged different approaches to cooling.
The important distinction is between the different cooling technologies, the conditions in which they operate and the amount of water they need at particular times. Some systems can operate for much of the year with little or no cooling-water consumption.
Simply comparing annual water-use figures without understanding the technology or local climate can therefore lead to incorrect conclusions.
Simon Powell – MOSL
Simon introduced another important distinction: are we measuring water consumed directly at the data centre, or the wider water footprint associated with electricity generation and equipment manufacture?
The two measures are not interchangeable.
MOSL's figures primarily described consumption at identifiable data-centre premises. They did not capture the full water footprint of the electricity supplying those facilities.
This matters particularly when comparing countries with different energy-generation mixes.
Steve D. Thomas – Conference Chair, Strategy Engineering Research Group
Do we actually have sufficient information in the UK to understand the water and electricity requirements of data centres? And what would need to change to make that information more useful?
Simon Powell – MOSL
Simon explained that much of the information already exists, but there are significant restrictions on how it can be shared.
Individual consumption records can be commercially sensitive, while certain infrastructure information may also have security implications.
He suggested that the industry needs a more carefully defined approach to data access: making useful aggregated information available for planning and public understanding without disclosing sensitive site-level details.
Andrew Tucker – Thames Water
Andrew brought the discussion back to the immediate problems facing water companies.
Thames Water was already attempting to obtain better consumption information from approximately 145 established data centres within its region. However, these could be particularly difficult premises to access for smart-meter installation.
He explained that future developments are often being proposed in precisely the areas where water-resource headroom is already most constrained.
A further difficulty is that new connection applications are frequently prepared by consultants who request the maximum conceivable volume of water to protect their client's future requirements.
From the water company's perspective, this can create a distorted picture of likely demand.
Andrew also emphasised that annual averages can be particularly misleading. A facility might use much of its annual water requirement during only 72–90 days, potentially coinciding with the hottest and most water-stressed periods of the year.
What matters to the water company is therefore not simply annual consumption, but the peak volume it might need to supply, how long that demand persists and whether the infrastructure can reliably accommodate it.
David Kerr – Enra Partners
David agreed that forecasting was difficult, but challenged the assumption that a large peak-water request necessarily represented unreasonable engineering practice.
Data centres support critical digital services, including financial transactions, healthcare systems and other applications where interruptions can have serious consequences.
Their cooling systems must be designed to withstand unusual operating circumstances, not simply average conditions.
A facility may never normally need its maximum requested volume, but its designers must still account for exceptional conditions and equipment failures.
He also emphasised how quickly computing technology changes. The equipment, workloads and cooling requirements within a facility could be substantially different in ten years, making conventional long-range forecasts particularly uncertain.
Chris Talago – Pure Data Centres
Chris introduced another complication: not every proposed data centre is a credible future development.
He referred to the government's proposed AI Growth Zones, where approximately 214 applications had reportedly been submitted for around 12 anticipated zones.
Those applications did not represent 214 developments that would necessarily be constructed. Yet prospective projects could already have entered requests for electricity and water connections.
Chris cautioned against treating such applications as firm future demand.
He also explained that data-centre locations are primarily determined by access to electricity, suitable land, fibre connectivity and customer requirements. Water availability is important, but it is rarely the primary consideration determining where a development will be located.
For water companies, the difficulty is distinguishing committed projects, credible development prospects and speculative applications before making major infrastructure commitments.
Andrew Tucker – Thames Water
Andrew described work being considered through the Retailer Wholesaler Group to develop a more consistent approach to major new water users.
One possibility involved a threshold of approximately 20 cubic metres per day, above which applications could trigger additional examination of water efficiency, resilience and alternative supply arrangements.
The intention was not to single out data centres. Similar questions arise for other substantial industrial developments.
He argued that the current planning process does not always bring water companies into discussions sufficiently early, even where a proposed development could create significant new demand.
David Kerr – Enra Partners
David cautioned against applying a rigid limit without considering the engineering solution.
A large industrial facility might be able to reduce demand on the public network through storage, rainwater harvesting, reuse or other arrangements, while still needing considerable internal cooling capacity.
His preference was for earlier engagement between developers and water companies, allowing practical options to be explored before connection requirements became fixed.
Andrew Tucker – Thames Water
Andrew clarified that the proposed threshold was intended to initiate that engagement, rather than operate as an automatic prohibition.
The objective was to bring developers and water companies together early enough to establish an appropriate site-specific solution.
Jade van Zuydam – techUK
Jade raised the potential for data centres to use treated wastewater rather than relying exclusively on potable supplies.
She described an example of a techUK member exploring a treated-effluent connection within the Thames region but encountering considerable difficulty identifying the appropriate contacts and arrangements.
Even where a wastewater treatment works might offer a potential source, there was no established commercial model that a developer could readily follow.
Questions remained about pricing, infrastructure connections, contractual arrangements and the reliability of supply.
Andrew Tucker – Thames Water
Andrew expressed support for exploring these opportunities but emphasised the importance of geography.
There is no general-purpose reclaimed-water distribution network capable of serving prospective industrial customers wherever they choose to locate.
Proximity to wastewater treatment infrastructure, the cost of new connections and the availability of suitable supplies would therefore be decisive.
Chris Talago – Pure Data Centres
Chris welcomed closer engagement between data-centre developers and water companies, particularly where practical alternative supply arrangements might be developed.
For developers, however, any proposed solution must also meet demanding requirements for operational continuity, reliability and commercial viability.
David Kerr – Enra Partners
David reinforced the need to consider the complete engineering and commercial arrangement rather than treating water reuse as a simple substitution.
He also returned to the importance of early engagement, arguing that technical alternatives need to be explored while projects can still accommodate changes in their infrastructure design.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the discussion was that the participants were approaching the same problem from different, entirely understandable positions.
Water companies must protect increasingly constrained supplies and plan infrastructure that could remain in service for many decades.
Data-centre developers must accommodate rapidly changing technology, demanding customer contracts and exceptional operating conditions that may never occur in normal operation.
Meanwhile, development applications may overstate the demand that will actually materialise, while annual consumption figures can understate the capacity needed during critical summer periods.
The conversation highlighted several practical directions for future work: distinguishing credible projects from speculative demand, collecting better peak-consumption evidence, engaging developers earlier, testing flexible connection arrangements and creating workable commercial models for alternative water supplies.
The unresolved question is how to bring these requirements together early enough to support genuine industrial growth without committing scarce water resources to demand
that may never materialise—or underestimating the requirements of developments that do proceed.
Editorial note: This is an edited and condensed account of the recorded discussion, rather than a word-for-word transcript. Repetition and transcription errors have been removed, and contributions have been shortened for readability while retaining the principal arguments and differences in perspective. The full conference intelligence package contains the more detailed Q&A material
Explore the Full October 2026 Conference Intelligence Package
The complete Chair's Report provides detailed analysis of the presentations, supporting evidence, technical examples, outstanding questions and 20 recommended priorities, together with the accompanying presentation materials and transcribed Q&A.
