Written evidence submitted by the Environment
Agency
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee
for National Policy Statements (NPSs) and accompanying Appraisals
of Sustainability (AoS), and for all applications that will be
made to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) for Development
Consent Orders.
1.2 We are the Government's environmental regulator
for the water industry and will be responsible for issuing environmental
permits and other consents for projects seeking IPC consent.
1.3 We are a statutory consultee for Scoping
Opinions for the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) that
will accompany most IPC pre-applications, and for any related
Environmental Statements (ES) that will accompany the full applications.
We are the competent authority for the Water Resources EIA Regulations.
1.4 We are the competent authority for the implementation
of the Water Framework Directive WFD. The Directive aims to protect
and improve the water environment. The NPS will help to achieve
WFD objectives.
1.5 We welcome the advice the draft NPSs give
the IPC on how to assess applications for nationally significant
infrastructure projects (NSIPs) and the advice they give applicants
on the need for pre-application consultation with us.
1.6 The draft Waste Water NPS sets out a policy
framework for considering applications for development consents
for waste water NSIPs. Defra has identified two projects which
have been assessed as required to meet the need for new waste
water infrastructure. These are the Thames Tunnel and a sewage
treatment works scheme at Deephams, North London.
1.7 As one of Defra's Non Departmental Public
Bodies (NDPB) we are working closely with them on the development
of the Waste Water NPS. Our Thames Region is working with Thames
Water on the two projects identified in the draft NPS.
1.8 We welcome the generic requirement for local
planning authorities to have regard to NPSs when preparing their
plans at a local level and we would urge local planning authorities
to afford considerable weight to the wastewater NPS when making
decisions on planning applications for developments that fall
below the Development Consent Order thresholds. Whilst the focus
of all NPSs is rightly on the nationally important infrastructure
projects, the clear statements and interpretations of Government
Policy in the NPSs and AoSs are relevant to the smaller schemes
that are subject to local authority determination.
2.0 NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
2.1 The National Environment Programme (NEP)
as mentioned in the Waste Water NPS is a programme of actions
which water companies need to complete to meet their environmental
obligations under the water companies' five yearly price review
periods. It includes actions to improve the quality of water that
is discharged from sewage treatment to either rivers or the sea,
prevent chemicals from entering groundwater and ensure that abstraction
of water does not adversely impact on habitats which are protected
by law.
2.2 The NEP is based on Government Guidance (the
Statement of Obligations published by Defra in December 2007).
Over 96% of the NEP for the water company investment period 2010
to 2015 (PR09) is based on statutory obligations, which are derived
from European and national legislation. For example European legislation
such as the WFD, Urban Waste Water Directive, the Bathing Waters
Directive and the Habitats Directive. The other requirements are
made up of measures related to Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP)
and local priorities.
2.3 We draw up the NEP, using the government
guidance and working closely with individual water companies and
other government bodies such as Natural England, the Countryside
Council for Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
2.4 We have worked hard to ensure that every
environmental improvement included in the NEP is one which is
necessary, will address a known problem and is based on evidence
that action is required. This should ensure that any necessary
increases in bills are kept to a minimum as companies will only
be taking action where this is vital.
2.5 To ensure this we have taken a strong, evidence
based approach to developing the NEP. For example, to identify
a Water Quality (WQ) improvement scheme and include it for action
in the PR09 NEP, we have used the following criteria:
— a failure
of a priority WQ objective (for example the Urban Wastewater Treatment
Directive); or
— there
are other requirements as a result of designation or other measures
under a Directive such as the Fresh Water Fish Directive; or
— a proposed
increase in the discharge flow limit that would result in failure
of a WQ objective; and
— there
is a link to a water company discharge.
2.6 For Water Resources our final proposals only
included items that are "certain", that is:
— Habitats
Directive schemes where a "definite" sustainability
change (this is where the required reduction in the volume of
water that can be abstracted is known through investigation and
options appraisal) was identified to the water company as part
of the Water Resource Management Planning process at the end of
August 2008.
— Options
Appraisals that have been confirmed by an Investigation.
— Investigations
where we are able to provide reasonable justification of the link
between the water company abstraction and site condition.
2.7 Where there is insufficient evidence to require
a scheme within the NEP but there is evidence of the potential
impact of water company activities on the environment we have
required an investigation within the NEP.
2.8 We believe that water companies should pay
for investigations into the impacts of their assets because we
would expect a well run company to understand and manage its impact
on the environment.
2.9 In addition, the advantage of an investigation
is that it will allow confirmation that a water company is, or
is not, having an impact on a certain issue or area. Where it
is having an impact, the better understanding of the impact should
allow the development of a more cost effective solution.
2.10 We expect water companies to include 100%
of the NEP in their final business plans. We work with Ofwat to
agree the programme with them; they then ensure that companies
are funded to meet their environmental obligations. This will
ensure that the companies meet their statutory obligations and
that the environment is improved. We have discussed all the NEP
measures with water companies to ensure that they are aware of,
and understand the obligations. This should have enabled them
to present the most cost effective solution to meet these requirements.
2.11 We also work with government and water companies
on deciding when these improvements have to take place. They are
normally spread across the five-year Asset Management Plan (AMP)
period, ensuring, where legislation allows, that the costs are
spread over the five year period, or occasionally longer.
2.12 Both of the two NSIPs included in the Wastewater
NPS are NEP schemes, (Thames Tideway Tunnels and Deephams).
2.13 The work for Thames Tideway Tunnels relates
to fulfilling the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive. Completion date is March 2020.
2.14 Work at Deephams STW relates to a number
of drivers. Phosphorus reduction is required under the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive. Improvements with ammonia removal are
associated with the Fresh Water Fish Directive and Water Framework
Directive (WFD). Improvements for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and dissolved oxygen (DO) are required under the WFD for both
final effluent and storm tank discharge arrangements. Final overall
completion date for the improvements is March 2017.
3.0 LIASON WITH
OFWAT
3.1 Since privatisation in 1989, increases in
water industry prices have been determined in reviews conducted
by the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat). In November
2009, Ofwat set limits on prices for the period 2010 to 2015.
3.2 The Environment Agency advises on all parts
of water companies' business plans which affect the current and
future natural environment.
3.3 Our priorities for PR09 were, and for the
resultant water company Asset Management Plans (AMP5) (2010 to
2015) are:
— aresilient
water and sewerage infrastructure;
— delivery
of the NEP which meets statutory obligations;
— the
right balance of water supply and demand by use of the twin track
approach, where sufficient reductions in demand management are
funded alongside the development of new resources; and
— that
climate change adaptation and mitigation are adequately taken
into account within the long term plans of the water companies.
3.4 We welcome the moves that Ofwat, Defra and
WAG have made to improve transparency and clarity within the periodic
review process. These included:
— Setting
the 2009 Periodic Review within a 25 year context. Each water
company has developed a Strategic Direction Statement (SDS) which
sets out priorities for the next five years of funding within
a twenty five year view. This helps to ensure that companies are
explicitly considering the longer term needs and requirements
of their customers and the environment as well as the shorter
term action which is required.
— Early
publication of guidance by Defra and WAG. This set out clearly
the requirements on water companies and regulators, giving greater
certainty to water companies of their responsibilities. It has
enabled the Environment Agency to identify those areas where action
is required within the National Environment Programme (NEP) early
in the process, thus giving the companies sufficient time to identify
the most cost effective solution to meet these requirements.
— The
establishment of the Senior Co-ordinators and Chief Executive
Groups representing Ofwat, Defra, WAG, Consumer Council for Water,
the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Drinking Water
Inspectorate. This has enabled close working between all parties
at a national level and ensured early action to address issues
as they arose.
— Commissioning
of joint customer research between those listed above and Water
UK, which sought to establish a clear and shared understanding
of the views of customers on the priorities for the water industry
and associated investment.
— Formation
of local liaison groups for each water company involving the Environment
Agency, Consumer Council for Water, Natural England and Ofwat.
These have enabled close working between all parties at a local
level, substantial debate on the specifics of water company proposals
and ensured early action to address issues as they arose.
— The
publication of Ofwat's view on companies' draft business plans
(DBPs) in December 2008. The companies were given the opportunity
to address any challenges made and provide more robust evidence
to support the proposals and costs in their final business plans
(FBPs). We believe that the plans that were delivered are more
robust as a result.
3.5 We have identified the following areas where
further improvements to transparency could be delivered, and are
working with Ofwat and water companies to address them:
— The
presentation of the information available in the public domain
on companies' business plans. A clearer consistent presentation
of all supporting information within the public summaries, to
aid understanding, would be welcomed. A common understanding of
the proposals within future plans would allow a better informed
public debate.
— Ofwat
has required companies to do a cost benefit analysis of all components
of their proposed investment programme. We understand the benefit
of water companies' plans maximising the benefits and minimising
the costs for customers. As nearly all the environmental improvements
we require are statutory we have worked with Ofwat to ensure that
companies have chosen the most costeffective options to
meet these statutory improvements.
— There
is a mismatch in timetables between the processes for Periodic
Reviews, Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management
Plans (RBMPs) and Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs). Although
all parties are working to manage the processes and their interaction,
it will be highly beneficial to find a way of aligning these in
the future.
— We
are concerned that we are not seeing a good use of water resources
in the South-East mainly because water companies are not sharing
and planning in an integrated way. We have formed a Water Resources
in the SE Group to help coordinate integrated water resource planning
but we have not seen the outputs from this work reflected in current
WRMPs to date.
4.0 PLANNING
FUNCTIONS
4.1 The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee
in the planning process for NSIPs, and in the review of any associated
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultation.
4.2 In order to manage applications effectively
as they come forward we have set up an IPC Co-ordination Group
to co-ordinate our work on IPC projects. This includes representatives
from across the Environment Agency's functions.
4.3 The group acts as the principal point of
contact between the IPC and the Environment Agency. After the
IPC transfers it functions under the Planning Inspectorate the
group will continue to work with the Major Infrastructure Planning
Unit on these projects.
The IPC Co-ordination Group:
— ensures
there is consistency between our planning and permitting regimes;
— monitors
progress with applications to the IPC, together with workloads,
staffing and resources;
— delivers
internal training, develops good practice and provides other written
support tools as required; and
— ensures
consistency in our responses to documents received for comment
from the IPC.
4.4 When individual proposals are received from
the IPC the consultation will be dealt with by Environment Agency
Area Planning Liaison teams in the usual manner of providing advice
and guidance on the proposals. As well as providing a single point
of contact, in more complex cases we may appoint a project manager
and team to handle consultations.
4.5 The promoter of a particular proposal has
a duty to consult Local Authorities, statutory consultees and
affected members of the public prior to submitting their application
to the IPC. This includes cases where an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) is required.
5.0 REGULATORY
FUNCTIONS
5.1 We are the Government's environmental regulator
for the water industry.
5.2 A key aspect of streamlining the planning
process under the IPC regime is the introduction of a new type
of planning consent called a "Development Consent Order"
(DCO), which allows applicants to apply simultaneously for a range
of permissions and consents previously obtained separately.
5.3 This does not however include permissions
or consents for subsequent regulation of the infrastructure where
they are required, for example, under Environmental Permitting.
These may include bespoke or standard permits or registered exemptions
for:
— Activities
subject to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive.,
eg sludge Incineration
— Activities
subject to the Waste Framework Directive, eg reception at wastewater
treatment works of trade waste in tankers
— Use
of radioactive substances (non-nuclear activities regulated under
Radioactive Substances legislation) eg laboratory chemical or
flow sensors
— Discharges
to surface waters, eg final effluent and storm tank discharges,
and
— Discharges
to groundwaters, eg effluent to soakaway.
5.4 This means applicants must also apply direct
to the Environment Agency for any permits or exemptions that we
authorise, as well as applying to the IPC.
5.5 We encourage potential applicants for DCOs
to engage in early discussions with us, and to make an application
as early as possible for any Environment Agency permit that will
be necessary for the proposed development.
January 2011
| 
