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
| 
