The Draft Flood and Water Management Bill - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by the Home Builders Federation (DFWMB 32)

  1.  The Home Builders Federation (HBF) welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Select Committee in relation to the Draft Flood and Water Management Bill. The HBF is the main trade association representing the house building industry in England and Wales.

  2.  The Draft Bill focuses on a number of key areas which affect our Industry. Overall, however, we feel that an opportunity has been missed to make these legislative changes a more effective and responsive contribution to ensuring practical outcomes compatible with the development process. We would also express our concerns that although the draft Bill aims to address the Recommendations of the Pitt Review there are certain issues on which the Pitt Review itself lacked an understanding of the Planning and development process.

  3.  The Draft Bill at times lacks sufficient detail in terms of moving the Pitt Review Recommendations forward and transposing them into effective legislative provisions. In particular, in promoting the need for Sustainable Development the Draft Bill should have taken a more holistic, joined-up approach to the management of surface water on new developments—it should have also sought to incorporate issues associated with the transfer of private sewers.

  4.  The current consultation fails to take on board the Planning principles of PPS25 in terms of the more effective management of surface water drainage. In many respects it does not provide an over-arching legislative framework, inclusive of guidance, and which links SUDS, surface water sewers and the control of surface water flooding. Moreover, it does not seem mindful of what is going to take place in the future with the transfer of private sewers on new build. Even the funding regimes that exist at present and primarily the duty placed on Water & Sewerage Companies (WaSC) to deal with surface water emanating from properties is conspicuous by its absence. It is also interesting to note that the Pitt Review failed to get to grips with the WaSC duty to "effectually drain". From our perspective this is an issue which is easily explained and of which House Builders have contributed over £1.0 billion to WaSC since 1991 in the guise of infrastructure charges. These funds should have been used to improve the existing sewerage infrastructure to meet the needs of a plan-led planning system but this has not been the case. It does at times seem that the commercial responsibilities of WaSC are conveniently overlooked and the companies are accorded a position that enables them to gain commercial advantage. It is a continuing frustration to our Industry that WaSC are given the privileged position of being statutory consultees where they can also derive commercial advantage from their monopoly position. Our Industry has many examples where this takes place.

  5.  In relation to the National Standards for SUDS we are fully supportive but the scope of these Standards needs to be much wider than expressed in the Draft Bill. The National Standards must be a mandatory requirement encapsulating all aspects of SUDS from Planning through to their adoption. They also must be part of an overarching strategy to manage surface water which emanates from new developments and be accompanied by some form of mandatory guidance. SUDS are important, but only one aspect of managing surface water, where the aim is to deal both with the norm and to manage exceedance events. Unfortunately the Draft Bill and the consultation does not recognise the basic conundrum that faces developers in the absence of a suitable overarching strategy for surface water management.

  6.  Our concern is substantiated by the fact that the consultation narrative in many places is incorrect and does not reflect the reality of what happens in the real world. To say that the slow take up of SUDS is due to the ability of Developers to evoke the right to connect is totally untrue. The main reason SUDS is not being taken up by the Developer is because it is not possible to get someone to take responsibility to adopt them or the terms associated with adoption are commercially so onerous to the point that project viability can be seriously compromised.

  7.  In this respect, the industry is fully aware of the future changes Government intends to make in relation to the Transfer of Private Sewers and the impact it will have on new build. However, we have some major concerns over the changes to Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA) being the correct legal mechaism to instigate adherence to the mandatory build standards. If we had some certainty that this was just for foul sewers this would probably work. However, with the National Standards for SUDS and the possibility of sewers connecting into SUDS we see confusion taking place in having to deal with the SUDS Approving Body and the WaSC for foul and storm sewers. It is also difficult to understand why the mandatory build standards for sewers have not been incorporated into the Act under an ammendment to Section 104 WIA, reflecting the Government's principle for the National Standards for SUDS as a form of Regulation. This would then allow changes to Section 105 WIA giving developers the right to appeal against the WaSC application of the mandatory build standards if ever a dispute occured. These legal changes are important because for new build in the future developers will not be allowed to build sewers under Agreement as part of Section 104 WIA. We would express some major concerns that such legislative changes have not been sufficiently thought through by Government.

  8.  We would also highlight the fact that the majority of sites will require some form of storm water outfall as 65% of England and Wales's sub-soils are clays which are impermeable. Conversely, the UK is blessed with indigenous rock formations that are permeable but which are also highly susceptible to dissolution. The choice of SuDS therefore needs to give due consideration to such matters, similarly, underlying groundwater quality, particularly so if we are not to breach our wider EC Groundwater Directive responsibilities. The fixation at times of people on the right to connect may in the past have been a legitimate argument when required to accommodate storm water which exceeded a 1 in 30 year event. However on discharges less than that, the right to connect should be absolute because the WaSC have a duty to effectually drain developments. The reason why issues on this matter have occurred over the last twenty years is because the WaSC sought to save costs by not upgrading, or installing new infrastructure.

  9.  Putting aside the lack of detail set out in the Consultation and Draft Bill, we would openly state that delivery of new homes will be seriously affected without there being a clear direction shown in how management of surface water can take place, building on the principles of PPS25. A hierarchy approach to this issue may in theory be advantageous but it is void of practical and economic considerations. To manage surface water on new developments in a sustainable way it is imperative to assess the social, environmental and economic issues. Our Members have many examples where the hierarchy approach has resulted in exorbitant costs and disruption to take a storm sewer to a watercourse or ditch, when a sewer adjacent to the site was receiving surface water from the previous development. Yet the Planning Authority when approached by the WaSC will place a Planning Condition on the development to take the surface water to a ditch or river. If the aim of the Draft Bill is to facilitate the management of surface water prior to it being presented to a Planning Committee this Draft Bill falls a long way short in achieving that objective. The lack of detail places doubt on whether the Draft Bill will be effective.

  10.  Lastly with regard to the SUDS Approving Body (SAB) the HBF would support the need to have this overarching authority. Such an approach makes a great deal of common sense subject to the SAB being resourced adequately not only in relation to funding but also in having the correct skill base. (Hydrology, hydrogeology, soil geo-chemistry, the hydraulic design of sewers and environmental law, will be key components of the necessary experience that will be required by the SAB).

  11.  In essence the proposal for the SAB reverts back to the pre-1989 concept of local management of surface water, albeit in the future, this SAB will be a Unitary Authority or County Council. It would be true to say that although the Draft Bill looks to promote all stakeholders working in partnership we would express some reservations about the interaction between the Planning Authority and County Council's which emanates from our past and present experiences. This is a reason why concise legislation and mandatory standards on how surface water must be managed is needed to give clear direction supported by the National Standards for SUDS. Furthermore, a clear steer in terms of which body is responsible for what would also greatly assist a successful new system.

  12.  We hope the Select Committee finds our comments of help in producing its response to the Draft Flood and Water Bill and we would be available to discuss any aspect of this written evidence with Members of the Select Committee over the coming weeks.

House Builders Federation

June 2009







 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 30 September 2009