Written evidence submitted by Thames Water
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— We
strongly welcome the aims of the draft National Policy Statement
for Waste Water ("the draft NPS") and its intention
to give substantial weight to the need for the provision of wastewater
infrastructure.
— The
NPS would benefit from a clearer statement of the need for the
Deephams upgrade and Thames Tunnel projects and, in particular,
the legislative requirements for both projects and, in the latter
case, the potential for enforcement action if it is not delivered
to the required timescale.
— We
think that the substantial weight that should be attached to the
need for the Deephams upgrade and the Thames Tunnel projects should
be more clearly stated in the draft NPS, in order to assist the
decision-maker in balancing the benefits of the projects against
any impacts.
— The
NPS should make clear that its policies will also be material
considerations for waste water infrastructure projects not deemed
to be nationally significant. This will ensure consistency in
decision-making and allow the benefits of waste water infrastructure
to be recognized across the full range of project sizes.
— We
have a number of other detailed points on the draft NPS which
we will make in our full written response to the Defra consultation,
although we would be happy to discuss these should the committee
wish to do so.
Overall view
1. We strongly welcome the aim of the draft NPS
in its intention to set a clear national planning policy framework
for waste water infrastructure within which the need and benefits
of such infrastructure can be properly weighed against any impacts.
The explicit recognition of the Deephams upgrade and Thames Tunnel
projects within the draft NPS is particularly helpful.
Need
2. It is a specific duty of the decision maker
under the Planning Act 2008 to weigh the need for, and benefits
of, a project against any adverse impacts. Fully establishing
the need for, and benefits of, new waste water infrastructure
is clearly central to the role of the NPS.[1]
3. In the case of the Thames Tunnel, the Government
has asked Thames Water to develop the project and has raised the
prospect of enforcement action if it fails to do so.[2]
The European Commission is continuing infraction proceedings against
the UK Government alleging non-compliance with the Urban Wastewater
Treatment Directive and an adverse outcome could make the UK subject
to substantial penalties. The Government is currently seeking
delivery of the project by 2020, a timetable being monitored by
the European Commission. In the case of Deephams, the project
enables the River Lee to meet the requirements of the Freshwater
Fish Directive.
4. We believe a clearer and more robust statement
of the need for these projects and, in particular, the legal requirements
driving that need, together with the consequences of a failure
to meet those requirements, should be included in the NPS in order
to ensure that they are properly considered by the decision-maker.
Other National Policy Statements—such as those for energy—have
included more detailed statements of need and the substantial
weight to be attached to meeting such need. If the legislative
drivers for the Deephams upgrade and Thames Tunnel projects are
not clearly articulated, there is a real risk that the need for
the projects will not be properly reflected in the decision-maker's
assessment.
5. Regarding both Deephams and the Thames Tunnel,
we welcome the clear statements provided on the alternatives that
have been considered. We also welcome the clear statements that
the solutions proposed are the most appropriate for meeting the
need in the required timescale. We consider, however, that there
should be a greater emphasis placed on the benefits that the projects
will provide including improved water quality, aesthetics, health
of recreational users and the sustainability of the aquatic environment
in the Thames Tideway and River Lee. Both projects will also contribute
towards achieving the UK's Water Framework Directive objective
to attain good ecological potential in the tidal Thames. These
factors should be fully reflected in section 5 of the NPS.
6. The NPS must set out clearly the conclusions
that the need for the identified projects has been satisfactorily
demonstrated, that substantial weight is to be accorded to meeting
that need, and that the need is best met by the identified projects
(i.e. the Deephams upgrade and the Thames Tunnel). It is important
that clearer statements are given on the timescales by which these
needs are to be met. For example, in relation to the Thames Tunnel,
the NPS should make it clear that the project should be delivered
by 2020, or as soon as possible thereafter.
Scope and application
7. The scope and application of the NPS is clearly
important if it is to provide an effective policy framework. Other
National Policy Statements make clear that the NPS is likely to
be a material consideration for applications that fall under the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This reflects guidance[3]
from the Department for Communities and Local Government that
an NPS could set out policy considerations relevant to the delivery
of projects under the Town and Country Planning Act as well as
those deemed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP)
and handled under the Planning Act 2008.
8. Projects that would benefit from such an approach
include schemes to reduce the risk of sewer flooding affecting
homes and businesses; increasing renewable energy generation from
sewage treatment by-products and enhanced treatment capacity at
sewage works to meet population growth or tighter discharge consent
standards.
9. Such projects can have very localised and
short-term adverse impacts. It is clearly important that these
impacts are considered fully as part of the planning process—but
we believe that such impacts should be seen in the broader policy
context of providing essential waste water infrastructure. We
would like to see this point addressed explicitly in sections
one and five of the NPS.
10. Consistent with this appropriate focus on
the broader policy context, the generic guidance should be consistent
with existing policies or guidance and should focus on matters
of strategic importance, rather than specifying details that would
be better addressed at a local level.
Route to planning consent
11. Waste water projects can be deemed NSIP either
by meeting the thresholds set out in Section 14 of the Planning
Act 2008 ("the Act"), or through a Ministerial Direction
under Section 35 of the Act. In a Written Statement of 16 November
2010 the Secretary of State made it clear that her intention is
"…to bring the [Thames] tunnel within the direct scope
of the Planning Act 2008 by amending the thresholds in Section
14(3), Part 3 of the 2008 Act." [Hansard Reference: House
of Commons 16 November 2010 Column 38WS.] This is not properly
reflected within the draft NPS which anticipates that the Thames
Tunnel project will be the subject matter of a direction under
section 35.
12. The NPS should properly reflect the Ministerial
Statement on this point in order to provide clarity to stakeholders.
Other issues
13. We have a number of more detailed matters
we wish to raise but consider that these can be addressed more
appropriately in our full consultation response to Defra. We have
confined our evidence to this committee to the particularly important
matters associated with the need for the two identified projects
and the clarification of the scope of the NPS relating to projects
not regarded as nationally significant. Nevertheless, we would
be happy to discuss other matters should the committee wish to
do so.
January 2011
1 Consultation document on a Draft National Policy
Statement for Waste Water; p 11. Back
2
Regulatory Impact Assessment-Sewage Collection and Treatment for
London - March 2007; paragraph 8.3. Back
3
Letter from Communities and Local Government Chief Planner Steve
Quartermain to Chief Planning Officers-9 November 2009. Back
| 
