MEMORANDUM
SUBMITTED BY
YORKSHIRE WATER
(DFWMB 05)
INTRODUCTION
We welcome and support the draft Bill as a means
of recognising and joining up the many different agencies involved
in water and flood management. We welcome the broad range of topics
covered in the draft Bill, however, our ability to comment at
this time is limited given the need for further detail on many
of the issues included.
WELCOME PROPOSALS
Since the floods of 2007 Yorkshire Water has
worked with local authorities across the region on flood boards
and strategic drainage partnerships. With direct experience of
this model, we appreciate efforts in the draft Bill to provide
structure and clarity on such issues and to promote multi-agency
working. We specifically welcome the following proposals in the
draft Bill:
1. We welcome the proposal on misconnection of
sewers (clause 253) which would see sewerage companies having
the power to tackle misconnections directly instead of through
local authorities.
2. The removal of the automatic right to
connect surface water to sewers (clause 233) is a welcome and
important development given the stress that this puts on sewerage
companies' assets.
AREAS OF
CONCERN
Although we welcome the main principles of the
draft Bill, Yorkshire Water has concerns regarding the practicalities
of implementing many of the proposals:
3. We note that there is potential for a significant
increase in both capital and operational costs for water companies.
We recognise that SUDs, reservoir safety and the DWI are areas
of essential work which must be properly funded. To ensure adequate
funding we suggest that this is timed to coincide with future
price review periods. One example of the many increased operating
costs mentioned in the draft Bill is the proposal that the DWI
be funded through charges levied on water companies which we estimate
in Yorkshire would be in the region of circa £300k per year.
We would welcome a debate around the use of a charging model which
would incentivise companies to outperform.
4. We would welcome clarity on the timescales
foreseen with regard to the implementation of the draft Bill.
Although the proposals are sound we seek clarification on timings
as these could have serious implications on a smooth implementation.
We note the need to transpose the Floods Directive but are concerned
that other points should not be rushed through without proper
consultation.
5. We are concerned about implications for
the sourcing of new resources and skills which would be necessary
to implement many of the proposed changes, for example; the water
industry already has concerns regarding the availability of qualified
panel engineers and we are surprised that neither the Consultation
document nor the draft bill addresses the issue of promoting succession
planning within this specialised field.
6. With regard to surface water management
plans submitted by developers as part of their development proposals,
it is noted that there is a duty on the approving authority to
consult a sewerage undertaker but there is no obligation on the
authority then to follow that undertakers' recommendations. We
believe that there should be an express obligation to have regard
to any recommendations made by a relevant undertaker particularly
in light of the proposal that there would be an automatic right
to connect residual flows from an approved SUDS to the public
sewerage system. We would like clarity on what the consultation
mechanism will be. If it is via the town and country planning
system, then the relevant legislation will have to be amended
to make the sewerage undertakers a statutory consultee in the
development control process
7. We look forward to greater clarity on the
proposal for a duty on water companies to supply information;
we have no objections to supplying information to other agencies
in the interests of effective local partnerships however information
provided should be predicated on accepted principles, standards
and sound science.
AREAS FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION
We feel there are many areas in the draft Bill
which lack sufficient detail or substance and it is therefore
difficult to envisage the water industry's role at this stage.
We feel that the following areas will be key for Yorkshire Water
and look forward to seeing more clarity around these issues:
8. Subject to comments above, we support the
draft Bill's strong emphasis on Sustainable Drainage Systems.
SUDS are a drainage tool that must be employed in future surface
water management but we have concerns about the proposed powers
and obligations (transfer of all SUDs) that would be passed to
local authorities. We also seek more details on the funding of
SUDS and about the right of appeal.
9. Although the Reservoirs Act 1975 has
served Yorkshire Water well, we do support a move to the risk-based
approach. Given that this would represent a significant change,
we feel the consultation is not sufficiently detailed to be able
to respond at this stage. The leap from the Reservoirs Act 1975
to a risk-based approach requires a more comprehensive transition
and we look forward to learning full details of this.
10. The widening of the scope of hosepipe
bans which will enable water companies to take earlier action
to conserve water may be a useful addition (clause 254) but requires
further thought in its application and wider consultation.
11. We note the inclusion of a number of
issues within the Government's consultation document which are
not covered by the draft Bill provisions. We are surprised that
this includes abstraction licences. We believe that this is a
highly complex issue requiring further and detailed consultation
as part of the ongoing scrutiny of the draft Bill. We note the
consultation on this subject in June and look forward to taking
part as the cost implications are fundamental to the value of
the business. Policy options for time limiting licences should
include a full assessment of the impact on water resource assets
and returns, and any consequent reduction in water undertaker
asset values.
12. Yorkshire Water would also like clarity
on how the recommendations of the Walker Review on charging and
the Cave Review on competition will be fed into the Bill.
CONCLUSION
Yorkshire Water welcomes the opportunity to
contribute to this consultation and fully supports proposals within
the draft Bill which will allow water companies greater flexibilities
in preventing and dealing with flooding incidents and wider water
management issues. We are happy to provide further, more detailed
written evidence on any of the issues and concerns raised above
as well as our work with local authorities in, for example, Leeds
and Hull during the course of the inquiry. We also look forward
to outlining our position in the oral evidence session on 8 June.
May 2009
| 
