Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-325)
HUW IRRANCA-DAVIES
MP, MR MARTIN
HURST AND
MR SIMON
HEWITT
17 JUNE 2009
Q320 Paddy Tipping: Maybe you or
Martin would take me through the logic of the argument because
I am not convinced about this.
Mr Hurst: You need to recognise
that the term SUDS covers a multitude of things, by no means all
of which and possibly not even half of which are the kind of underground
assets that you might think about as being water company expertise.
For example, there may be connecting elements which will be permeable
roads, permeable paving through planning permission, swales, attenuation
ponds, et cetera, many of which would be completely outside water
company expertise, quite frankly, so the idea that local government
should be the lead party for adopting and maintaining the SUDS
does seem logical and the idea of a water company, for example,
trying to maintain a local authority road which happens to have
a permeable surface is not immediately obvious, let us put it
that way.
Huw Irranca-Davies: We certainly
expect that many of these SUDS will be above ground rather than
underground container systems, so they will be swales or attenuation
ponds, et cetera, where amenity is also a real issue, so there
is a logic to saying that local authorities are the best ones
equipped to actually deal with that that because it straddles
not only SUDS but also the amenity value of that particular part
of the environment.
Q321 Paddy Tipping: Tell us about
skills and resources. First of all, have local authorities got
the skills and, secondly, my impression is that, as always, local
authorities are saying you are asking us to pick up a new commitment
without the resources.
Huw Irranca-Davies: You are absolutely
right and I am glad to say that one of the facets of this was
that it was well-aired in our discussions with local authorities
and others. What we will be doing is setting national standards
for the approval and adoption of SUDS and these will set out standards
for the maintenance of SUDS which local authorities will use then
in carrying out their adoption role. We will also provide guidance
to local authorities on this. It is our intention that local authorities
in their role as the approval bodies for SUDS can also if they
wish to—and this does come back to partnership as well—delegate
the responsibility for the maintenance of SUDS if they so choose.
They could delegate for example to water and sewerage companies
if they had the necessary skills to do it or they could use consultants
if those were not in-house. There are a couple of other facets
as well. We are currently undertaking the skills review analysis
with local authorities—not of local authorities but with
local authorities—to meet both the SUDS and also the surface
water management plan proposals and where there are gaps to identify
how the skill levels can actually be increased. There are many
aspects of this Bill that we have already begun. We have begun
to increase skills in flood risk management within local authorities.
We funded 27 places on the Environment Agency's foundation degree
in flood management which starts this autumn. We are also working
with operating authorities on apprenticeships which we expect
to start in 2010, so we are not waiting, we are actually getting
on with this because we recognise that there will be some capability
issues.
Q322 Paddy Tipping: Let me give you
an example in my own area. There is a private company that has
built a housing development which has got a very attractive SUDS
scheme associated with it and it has amenity value. They are responsible
for its maintenance but the company has gone bust and nobody is
maintaining it, so what is going to happen in the future?
Mr Hurst: One of the big advantages
of local authorities adopting the SUDS is that it will get round
that particular problem. Typically when a developer has developed
a site and sold the housing on, the developer's interest in the
site is reduced and if it is a big liability it is very sharply
reduced. The advantage of adoption is that for new developments
at least and new SUDS they will be taken forward in a properly
maintained fashion because otherwise they will deteriorate and
can end up doing more damage than good.
Q323 Paddy Tipping: So the developer
will pay a capitalised sum to the local authority for them to
take it on in the future?
Mr Hurst: The local authority
can enter into a section 106 deal with a developer. That is up
to the local authority; it is not something we would want to prescribe.
Q324 David Lepper: About the skills
training that you mentioned, they are quite good numbers there
but are they spread across England and Wales? Has there been a
concentration? Maybe you do not have that information, but I was
just concerned that every authority who needs to perhaps is taking
the right steps to get the trained people or the extra training
for people that they need?
Huw Irranca-Davies: This is very
much the beginning. I am saying that we are not waiting for this
to get on with it; we know we have to do it. This is the start
and we will see more of the gap analysis—because some local
authorities, I have to say, will have a capability or they will
have local partners who can deliver but for others there will
be a deficit—and this is the start of it straightaway and
then we see this rolling out and identifying, as we are currently
doing, with local authorities where the gaps lie so we can help
them fill those.
Q325 Chairman: Just one final point
on SUDS. Water eventually finds its way somewhere so whilst SUDS
may slow things down in terms of the dissipation of water, ultimately
it might still end up as a water company responsibility because
the water ends in a water course and it ends up being somebody
else's responsibility. Have you received any representations from
any of the major players in this area expressing that kind of
concern particularly about the cost implications regarding SUDS?
Huw Irranca-Davies: No, I do not
think so. Simon, I do not know if you want to add anything to
that, but you are right in what you are saying, Chairman, what
SUDS do in effect is they deal with the water in a far more natural
way in terms of slowing down its process, of dissipating its effect.
Ultimately, it will make its way down into the water courses and
so on but it is the fact that it has been managed better in a
very natural way rather than all of it impacting immediately on
the system to carry it.
Mr Hewitt: As to your narrow question
as to what representations we have seen, we will come back to
you on that, but the general point is that if it is eventually
getting into a water course it is actually in the long term saving
water companies money because it is not then going through the
sewage works and all the rest of it. The point is that you are
using natural forms of drainage to avoid that system and therefore
the burdens upon it. Actually the water companies are gaining
out of this proposal rather than ending up with a burden, is the
typical position.
Chairman: Okay, we have had a good run
round. Thank you very much indeed, Minister, and also to your
two colleagues. If I may just express an observation, it is nice
to see you working as a team. We have had occasions before where
ministers are desperately trying to do the whole thing, and sometimes
these things are very complicated and there is expertise available
and it is to the benefit of the Committee that your two colleagues
have managed to contribute as well as you have done. Thank you
very much indeed. There are some other issues that we will write
to you about. I hope that it will not be too long before we are
able to produce our contribution to your consultation exercise
as we conclude our pre-legislative scrutiny. Thank you very much.
| 
