Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1040
- 1059)
WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY 2008
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
MARTIN HURST
AND MR
DAVID WRIGHT
Q1040 Miss McIntosh:
If the Department does agree to that—
Mr Woolas: I do not like the implication
that it is just the Department.
Q1041 Miss McIntosh:
But the implication will be that the water will probably find
its way and may run off somewhere else, may run off into another
watercourse and cause different problems or other problems of
flooding on that watercourse, so how do you envisage a solution
to ensure that it is not having an adverse effect on flood risk
on nearby watercourses?
Mr Woolas: I have not seen a suggestion
where it is desirable that a connection to sewers should not be
there. It is a question of is it assumed, is it automatic. If
one were to take new developments, it is perfectly possible in
many cases to design a new development where water is recycled
and put to other purposes, and there is a great lesson on this
from Germany for us, but, if the non-connection were to cause,
directly or indirectly, damage to the end goals, then clearly
that would not be desirable, so the question is what is the right
thing. My general attitude is that at the moment the rain falls
onto my roof, it goes down my guttering, into my drain, into the
sewer, into a treatment plant where it is, at great expense to
the water customer, treated and then we put it into the river.
It makes more sense to put it onto my roses and that is really
what I am trying to achieve.
Q1042 Miss McIntosh:
I know that particularly you referred to the situation in Hull
and there is a bit of a ding-dong at the moment between Hull City
Council and Yorkshire Water as to the flooding in Hull. Yorkshire
Water is constrained at the moment, all the water companies are
constrained, in that they have an automatic right to connect.
Would it not seem possible that you could contact your colleagues
in your old Department and, where there is a planning application,
actually ensure that water companies are consulted if there is
a possibility that there is going to be potential flooding? The
water companies are very clear about this, but they are currently
constrained by the present law as to what they can do, so it seems
a bit rich that they are being accused in certain quarters of
contributing to flooding where they have not even been consulted
on planning.
Mr Woolas: I will be very interested
in the Committee's recommendations in this area. It is a suggestion
that has been put to us by the Flood Forum and one can entirely
see the commonsense of it. Of course the water companies, as we
all know, are in an unusual, if not unique, position as regulated
monopolies, but I can see a strong argument that says that in
the greater good the question of the automatic right to connection
should be looked at. David is just helping me out here with a
note and, yes, it is a very good point. The point that is being
made to me as an aside here is that they are, at a regional level,
statutory consultees, and I think the suggestion which has been
made is that that should be localised, so I have not come to a
conclusion on that, but, as I say, you want to see the strength
of the argument in the greater good. My caution is that there
may be indirect consequences to the negative and they would need
to be looked at and consulted upon.
Q1043 Miss McIntosh:
I would probably say that I think there would be resource implications
for the water companies in this and it is probably too late for
you to adjust your statement tomorrow in this regard, but, going
forward, we might make the recommendations, but the Department
have actually got to take this forward.
Mr Woolas: Yes.
Q1044 Miss McIntosh:
Just moving to urban drainage and the 15 pilot schemes that you
have; I notice that there is a fair geographic spread. What preliminary
findings have come out of the ongoing pilot drainage schemes?
Mr Woolas: We have not got the
findings yet.
Q1045 Miss McIntosh:
But you are actually expecting to produce a final report this
autumn when the pilots are meant to be completed by spring 2008,
so could you give us a date when you might be able to share the
results of the pilots?
Mr Woolas: I think the timetable,
if I remember correctly and I will let the Committee know if I
am wrong, is that we expect to produce the interim findings by
the summer recess, I think is the timing. I am sure that is right.
Q1046 Miss McIntosh:
Do you believe that the work on the pilots will be benefiting
from what you have learnt from the summer floods?
Mr Woolas: My attitude to that
is that we have this coming together of evidence, of recommendations
and of expertise of the pilots. The timing of our policy report
tomorrow was due to be before Christmas and we decided to put
it back to allow us to look at the interim recommendations from
Pitt, and that was a difficult decision because the water companies
are producing their 25-year plans and the earlier notice they
get of our wider policy framework, the better it is from that
point of view, so, as ever in these decisions, it was a balance
on the one hand and on the other, but we decided that what really
mattered, the most important priority, was to ensure that there
was a framework in place to implement the national flood defence
plan, to give that a statutory financial policy framework so that
the Agency and the other authorities could do that job. I would
not say this area has been bedevilled by short-termism as I think
the short term in this area is quite a long period of time, but
we need a stable, long-term framework to get this into place if
we are to do what, you could argue, we should be doing anyway,
especially if you take into account the predictions of increased
rainfall and problems of water shortage.
Q1047 Chairman:
Would I be correct in assuming that the resource implications
which will come out of the conclusions will have to be met, if
there are any, from within the existing Comprehensive Spending
Review settlement?
Mr Woolas: That is a very, very
fair and astute question.
Q1048 Chairman:
So what is the answer? Is it yes or no?
Mr Woolas: The answer is yes,
that in our submissions to the Treasury we were of course aware
of the policy developments and aware of the pilots that we are
undertaking.
Q1049 Sir Peter Soulsby:
In the evidence we have had so far, we have had a lot of enthusiasm
expressed for what are described as `sustainable drainage systems'.
Mr Woolas: Did you say "enthusiasm"?
Q1050 Sir Peter Soulsby:
Enthusiasm, yes. We have also had considerable concern expressed
that there is a lack of clarity about responsibility for maintaining
them once they are developed. I wonder if you could give us some
indication as to the degree of enthusiasm you share for so-called
`SUDS' and whether the issue of responsibility for their maintenance
is something that you are addressing.
Mr Woolas: I am a complete convert
and anorak for this.
Q1051 Sir Peter Soulsby:
I heard you mention your roses and guessed you might be!
Mr Woolas: Please do not think
I am teaching my grandma to suck eggs, but the situation is really
serious, that we will face in parts of the country severe water
stress, we will face, as we did two years ago in the South East,
potential droughts, and the climate change implications as weather
patterns move from north Africa through continental Europe to
north Europe mean that we will have much more rain in the winter
and much less water in the summer, crudely put, and there may
be exceptions to that. I mentioned the Victorians earlier on and
the problem in the modern world is almost that the Victorians
were too good, that they built an infrastructure that has lasted
which takes surface water and puts it into rivers and not into
the land. Now, as a temperate, north-Atlantic climate, we have
put up with that for centuries, but with climate change we cannot
and that is why we are enthusiastic about SUDS.
Q1052 Sir Peter Soulsby:
It has been suggested to us that responsibility for maintaining
systems once developed was far from clear, I think it was one
of the Pitt recommendations, and that that actually is severely
inhibiting their development which, quite rightly, they are enthusiastic
about.
Mr Woolas: It does, and one of
the questions that I think your evidence has been looking at is
that, as well as the need to co-ordinate the maintenance, there
is also a need to have consistency of policy. There are parts
of the country, for example, in agricultural areas, where drainage
has been subservient to agriculture and one reaches a border and
the drainage system becomes subservient to an urban area, and
there are different policies even within that. That does not necessarily
make sense and this is the debate we have been having, as you
have, with the internal drainage boards, where they exist, but
also between water companies and local authorities as well, and
two-tier areas present an even greater complexity. Again, to answer
your question, I think very enthusiastic, and it is certainly
an area that we have looked at in depth and again it is an area
that will be commented upon tomorrow.
Q1053 Sir Peter Soulsby:
You mentioned earlier, or you reminded us earlier, that your responsibility
of course in this context is England. It was suggested to us,
I think, by Thames Water that they do things differently and,
it was suggested, better in Scotland and that the responsibilities
were actually clearer there. Is that your understanding of the
situation? I think they said that local authorities had responsibility
above ground and drainage authorities below ground and, therefore,
everything was sweetness and light north of the border.
Mr Woolas: Well, they have a lot
more rain relatively and they do not quite face the problems we
face, although they may well do in the future. They benefit from,
if I may say in a non-partisan way, a unitary authority structure
that was imposed on them some time ago, but which makes sense
from that point of view, so I would say that the organisational
structures in Scotland and the water resources they have make
it easier, but I still think it is very complex. Other than that,
in perfect honesty, it is not an area that I have looked at in
depth, so, if there are lessons to be learned from the Scotland
situation and indeed Wales, I will read them with great interest.
Q1054 Mr Drew:
Could I pick up one point before I go on to talk about planning
which brings you back to your previous incarnation, and that is
the role of the IDBs. As someone who used to be quite critical
of IDBs, I have begun to realise that certainly in rural areas
they can play a crucial co-ordinating role. The problem is that
they are limited of course in operation, and I never remember
what the height is above sea level, but they only have a limited
purview. Are you looking at whether we can widen their role because
certainly it is galling that you can get one community where the
IDB can be quite effective and yet you go literally a quarter
of a mile further inland and they are not able to function at
all?
Mr Woolas: The answer is yes,
they are. We are looking at the geographical configuration of
them. I attended the annual meeting of the IDB in Peterborough
and spoke in depth with them about that. I think that they rightly
are looking to us for clarity of policy guidance, which reverts
back to the answer to Sir Peter before. There was a fear, I think,
at the end of the summer last year that we would throw the baby
out with the bathwater, if I am allowed a pun, apologies for that,
but I certainly do not intend to do that.
Q1055 Mr Drew:
The added advantage of course is the precept—
Mr Woolas: They have the added
advantage that they bring resources.
Q1056 Mr Drew:—so
it is a cost-free opportunity, dare I say.
Mr Woolas: They levy their fees
and they have incredible local knowledge of the watercourses.
They tend, for very good reasons, to have empathy with the agriculture
sector and the land, and that is very important because one cannot
have a flood defence policy that is pro-urban and anti-rural or
pro-agriculture and anti-urban, but you have to get the water
control right and I think the IDBs bring a real level of expertise
and, finally, they bring incredible commitment, and I am sure
it is pretty much a thankless task, but it is very important.
Q1057 Mr Drew:
Moving on to flooding, as part of this inquiry, you may know,
we went to Lyon to have a look at effectively their sustainable
urban drainage. Besides the organisation which was very impressive,
I think the other thing that struck us was the fact that they
have red zones which means no development in those zones and they
have other zones which clearly have become the opportunity to
be able to disperse water into. Really what we learned was that
their hold on development, even though they have got a much more
dispersed system of government in France than we have in the UK
and given they have greater land space which in that area does
help, their ability to manage that space was impressive. To what
extent, looking at PPS25, have we got to become much more assertive
in deciding where we do not develop? One of the things that I
raised with previous interviewees, and I raise with you, is the
problem that it is not just the measurement of the potential flooding
in the area where the development takes place, but the consequence
of that flooding further down the valley or further down the flood
plain. Now, is that something that you are talking to DCLG, your
previous Department, about?
Mr Woolas: Very much so. I think
our attitude is that the policy changes that we have made have
been in the right direction, and I think there is a consensus
around that, that there is clearly a learning curve and there
is a need for pushing hard to ensure that the powers are used
properly. The debate around the flood plain, do not develop on
the flood plain which is often used, misses the important point
in the question that David raises. Bringing the expertise again
of the Environment Agency into the equation has benefited the
situation enormously. The expertise of planning officers needs
to grow, and I think it will, but I think we need to push it on
the point that is being made, and the fact that you can have a
development not in a flood-risk area that causes floods in existing
areas is a lesson that is being learned right across the country.
Q1058 Mr Drew:
So in terms of the role of the Environment Agency, agreeing that
that role is enhanced by PPS25, is it not worth now just pushing
that bit further to say that, where the Environment Agency has
clear misgivings about a particular development, they do have
statutory powers? At the moment we have the powers where you,
as the Minister, could call something in, but up until this point
the Environment Agency has been regularly overturned in terms
of advice and quite simply you can get some planning results,
adverse as they are, some years later.
Mr Woolas: It is something that
we have obviously talked to the Environment Agency about, both
the Chief Exec and the Chair, it is something that the Board raised,
it is something colleagues raise and it is something that Sir
Michael addressed himself to in terms of the enforcement. The
picture seems to be that the number of objections that are honoured,
as it were, by planning committees or recognised by planning committees
is on a steep curve upwards, and it started very slowly, so it
is far from ruling out the point that you make. The question of
course is whether the power to ask the Secretary of State to call
it in overweighs in the minds of the planning committee the other
consideration which would be whether the system could cope with
current resources, but the picture seems to be one that is improving
and I think we should have a very open mind and keep that monitored,
and, if I may say, the Sustainable Communities Bill will help
in that regard.
Q1059 Mr Drew:
I am sure it will and we will be working on that in due course.
Finally, while we are on the Pitt Review, the recommendation that
flood risks should appear in home improvement packs, has the Government
accepted that or is it thinking about it or has it got misgivings
about it?
Mr Woolas: It is thinking about
it. Again, part of our strategy is to call upon the public, and
the statement in principle which is with the Association of British
Insurers is of course very, very important indeed. Our policy
goal of being able to improve, at household level, resilience
and protective measures is important, and clearly the point that
is being made could be argued to help towards that. In official
language, it is under active consideration, I think is the phrase
that we would use.
|
