3 The need for waste water infrastructure
development
17. Whilst not required by the Planning Act, the
Government has made a commitment that an NPS would include consideration
of 'national need' for new infrastructure. The guide Infrastructure
Planning: How will it work? How can I have my say? states
that:
NPSs will establish the national need and set
out policy for infrastructure; explain how they take account of
the Government's relevant social, economic and environmental policies;
and show how they contribute to tackling climate change.[37]
18. The IPC considered that the clarity with which
the need for infrastructure in general is set out is "fundamental
to the utility of the NPS in the work of the examining authority
and the decision maker".[38]
However, some witnesses considered that the draft NPS does not
sufficiently demonstrate the generic need for new infrastructure.
For example, Water UK, representing water and sewerage companies,
criticised the draft NPS for failing to include a "clear
statement of the regulatory imperative that is almost always the
principal driver for such projects".[39]
19. Rather than setting out in full the environmental
or other drivers for new projects, the draft NPS defines proof
of need by application of two straightforward criteria. Paragraph
2.5.2 of the draft NPS states that the Government considers that
the need for new waste water treatment infrastructure will have
been demonstrated if:
The Environment Agency has concluded that the
infrastructure is necessary for environmental reasons and included
it in its National Environment Programme [NEP] and/or
Ofwat has concluded that investment in the infrastructure
is justified on economic grounds (including social and environmental
costs and benefits) and included it in the latest water company
Asset Management Plan (AMP).[40]
Both the projects discussed in the draft NPS (the
Thames Tunnel and the Deephams scheme) are included in the EA's
NEP. The NPS provides no detail on the process leading to the
inclusion of the projects in the National Environment Programme,
nor does it explain how the Asset Management Plan process operates
beyond stating that Ofwat examines the economic justification
for schemes in response to environmental or other drivers (such
as population growth, urbanisation or replacement of ageing infrastructure)
and that projects approved by Ofwat during its periodic price
reviews are included in the Asset Management Plan.[41]
Ofwat disputed the use of inclusion in the AMP as proof of need.
It told us that, while it examines and challenges the necessity
of the companies' overall programmes, it does not "generally
approve specific schemes". It emphasised that it is for water
and sewerage companies to decide the most efficient and appropriate
way to met their objectives and targets, stating that "just
because a scheme is listed in a company's AMP, it should not be
assumed that we have agreed that it must be done or that we specifically
approve of the approach that a company favours".[42]
20. The regulator considered that a misinterpretation
of its role by the NPS would be unhelpful and could prevent the
IPC from "applying its own rigorous scrutiny to schemes".[43]
Ofwat also stated that it would expect the IPC to "examine
and challenge (if necessary) the supporting evidence" for
the need for a project.[44]
Regina Finn, Chief Executive of Ofwat, told us that the NPS "needs
to be clearer that it is not a tick-box exercise" and that
"setting a framework rather than an absolute criterion would
be better".[45]
21. The Environment Agency did not take issue with
the use of inclusion in its NEP as proof of need for a project.
It stated that it takes a "strong, evidence-based approach"
to developing the NEP and that it expected water companies to
include "100% of the NEP in their final business plans".[46]
Nevertheless, Thames Water considered that a reliance only on
inclusion in the NEP or AMP was too simplistic and that there
could be situations where infrastructure is "deemed to be
necessary" but is not included within the NEP.[47]
22. The Minister told us that, while Ofwat did not
look at each individual project and assess it in relation to need,
it did look at a water company's "holistic plan". He
conceded that the precise wording might not be right but argued
that the overall point as set out in the draft NPS was correct.[48]
23. We endorse Ofwat's views and consider that it
is inappropriate for the NPS to use inclusion in an Asset Management
Plan to prove a project's need since it is clear that the criterion
has been adopted on the incorrect assumption that inclusion in
an AMP equates to regulatory approval of the specific project.
We recommend that the NPS be amended to remove inclusion in
an Asset Management Plan as a criterion for proving need for a
project.
24. Inclusion within the Environment Agency's
National Environment Programme is less contentious a criterion
for determining need. However, the NPS should set out clearly
the process by which projects are accepted for inclusion in the
Programme and are thereby deemed to be needed on environmental
grounds.
Alternatives to new infrastructure
25. The draft NPS considers alternative methods of
meeting demand which could obviate the need to invest in nationally
significant waste water projects.[49]
Key methods include reducing domestic and industrial waste water
production, for example by improving water efficiency; greater
use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDs); building sewers separate
from surface water drains; and decentralising waste water treatment
infrastructure. The draft NPS concludes that these measures will
mitigate the need for new infrastructure to some extent but that
"the need for new waste water infrastructure projects will
remain in some circumstances." The document notes that such
need will increase in response to climate change, population growth
or more stringent environmental standards.[50]
26. Water UK criticised the section on alternatives
in the draft NPS for being "overly optimistic" in its
assumptions about the contribution alternative approaches could
make to managing waste water without the need to invest in new
infrastructure.[51] It
considered that, for example, SUDs will take a "long time
to become the de-facto system in common operation". Southern
Water Services also noted that the optimism expressed in the alternatives
section was not supported by an evidence base and, in the company's
experience, measures taken by households to reduce water usage
did not significantly reduce sewerage system flows.[52]
27. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea noted
the potential contribution that approaches such as SUDs could
make to reducing the need for new infrastructure and stated that
"alternatives therefore need to be considered in some depth
and a robust justification given as to why they are not feasible".[53]
The council considered that the NPS needed to "go further
in that respect".[54]
The EA told us that retrofitting sustainable water management
infrastructure in heavily urbanised areas would be "enormously
challenging" but that pressures such as population growth,
climate change and necessarily tight environmental standards would
combine to encourage reduced reliance on the use of combined sewers
to remove waste water.[55]
28. The Minister accepted that sustainable drainage
had a role to play in new developments but that retrofitting such
systems would be "massively expensive" and it would
be "impossible" for it to be undertaken to the extent
necessary in London.[56]
29. The draft NPS provides minimal information on
the evidence basis for its broad conclusions about the impact
of alternative methods on the likely future need for waste water
infrastructure projects. The EA noted that Defra was working on
a project to assess the costs of SUDs retrofitting, but this work
is not referred to in the draft NPS.[57]
Defra's Deputy Director for Water, John Bourne, said that there
was sufficient information on SUDS in the public domain so that
the NPS itself would not need to include this information.[58]
30. The absence of a detailed evidence base makes
it hard to assess whether the draft NPS's conclusions on the potential
for SUDs to contribute to reducing waste water are either over
or under-stated. We recommend that Defra revises the NPS to
set out in detail the basis of its assessment for the potential
of alternative approaches to mitigate the need for new infrastructure,
such as the increased use of sustainable drainage systems and
water efficiency measures to reduce the production of waste water.
31. It is vital that Defra gathers full information
on the extent to which it would be possible to adopt SUDs more
widely, especially through retrofitting systems to existing developments,
not only to inform the conclusions of the NPS but also to ensure
the effective development of all of the Government's sustainable
flood and water management policies.
32. We recommend that Defra undertakes within
12 months a full assessment of the potential national impact of
widespread adoption of SUDs and water efficiency programmes for
existing as well as new housing stock on future waste water infrastructure
needs and that this be taken into account in any future revisions
of the Waste Water NPS.
37 Department for Communities and Local Government,
Infrastructure Planning, How will it work? How can I
have my say? September 2009. Back
38
Ev w1 Back
39
Ev w7 Back
40
Draft NPS, p 13. Back
41
Draft NPS, p 7. Back
42
Ev 42 Back
43
As above. Back
44
Ev 45 Back
45
Q 10 Back
46
Ev 49 Back
47
Thames Water Plc, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation,
February 2011. Back
48
Q 168 Back
49
Draft NPS pp 10-13, para 2.4. Back
50
Draft NPS, p 13. Back
51
Ev w6 Back
52
Southern Water Services, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation,
February 2011. Back
53
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Submission to Defra
NPS Consultation, February 2011. Back
54
As above. Back
55
Ev 52 Back
56
Q 172 Back
57
Ev 52 Back
58
Q 173 Back
| 
