Written evidence submitted by the London
Councils
London Councils represents all 32 London boroughs,
the City of London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. We are committed
to fighting for fair resources for London and getting the best
possible deal for London's 33 Councils. We lobby on our members'
behalf, develop policy and do all we can to help boroughs improve
the services they offer. We also run a range of services ourselves
which are designed to make life better for Londoners. As such,
we welcome the opportunity to provide further views and comments
to the EFRA committee inquiry on Defra planning policy for new
waste water projects. These are outlined below:
1. RESPONSES
TO THE
QUESTIONS IN
DEFRA'S
CONSULTATION
(a) 6.2 Do you think the draft Waste Water
NPS adequately sets out for the IPC the key assessment principles
to inform the assessment of future waste water development applications?
The draft Waste Water NPS contains a chapter on factors
for examination and determination of applications. This includes
specific provisions for environmental impact assessments, habitats
regulations assessment, climate change adaptation, pollution control
and other environmental consenting regimes, safety, hazardous
substances, health, common law nuisance and statutory nuisance,
and security considerations.
London Councils has focused its response to the draft
Waste Water NPS on the Thames Tunnel as this is one of only two
projects specifically named in the NPS. In order to ensure that
delivery of this project is as smooth as possible, we believe
that the NPS should set out further assessment principles which
make it clear that the development of the project should be undertaken
in close collaboration with representatives of the affected boroughs
and that further scrutiny of the cost, which is currently estimated
to be in the region of £3.6 billion, be undertaken. This
figure represents more than twice the previously projected costs
and raises significant concerns about value for money for customers.
In our opinion, the best way to ensure that the promoters
of the Thames Tunnel scheme liaise with relevant local authorities
(which is a requirement of all applications going to the IPC)
is via the Thames Tunnel Forum. The role of this forum
is further considered in the response to question 4 below.
(b) 6.3 Do you think the draft Waste Water
NPS adequately sets out for the IPC on how they should consider
alternatives when it comes to particular projects?
The waste water NPS does contain particular
advice on alternatives to new large scale waste water capacity.
The areas of consideration are: firstly, to reduce demand for
waste water infrastructure by reducing domestic and industrial
wastewater loads; secondly, to reduce demand for waste water infrastructure
by diverting surface water from sewerage systems; thirdly, to
separate sewer systems; and lastly, the decentralisation of waste
water treatment infrastructure. Although London Councils believes
that these are appropriate areas of consideration, the NPS explicitly
states that these considerations are beyond the scope of the IPC.
With specific reference to the Thames Tunnel project,
the NPS directs the IPC to undertake its assessment of any application
on the basis that the national need has been demonstrated and
that appropriate strategic alternatives have been considered and
ruled out (Para 4.2.17). It should also be noted that the same
approach is taken to the replacement of the Deephams sewage treatment
works. London Councils notes that some of these alternatives to
the Thames Tunnel were ruled out on the basis of relative cost
which would have been based on the previous cost estimates for
the delivery of the preferred option. As the cost has now been
significantly revised, we believe that it is inappropriate for
the NPS to restrict the IPC's consideration of plausible alternatives
in the way originally proposed.
(c) 6.7 Do you think the draft Waste Water
NPS considers all the significant potential impacts of waste water
development? If not, what do you think is missing and why?
London Councils believes that the most significant
question to be addressed here is whether the NPS is able to and
should be expected to address the local impacts of a project such
as the Thames Tunnel.
In its present form, the draft waste water NPS requires
an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken and also contains
a section on generic impacts which considers the following issues:
water quality and resources; odour; flood risk; biodiversity and
geological conservation; coastal change; landscape and visual
impacts; land use; noise and vibration; historic environment;
air quality and emissions; dust, artificial light, smoke, steam
and insect infestation; traffic and transport impacts; waste management;
and socio-economic factors.
London Councils supports the inclusion of these impacts.
There should, however, also be consideration of the cost impacts
of the preferred option via an updated impact assessment including
a comparative cost/benefit analysis alongside the alternative
options.
2. Do the general planning principles set
out in the proposed Waste Water NPS form a coherent, appropriate,
proportionate and practical framework within which the IPC and
other planners can assess future waste water infrastructure planning
applications?
Generally speaking, London Councils would agree that
the general planning principles in the proposed waste water NPS
are coherent and do provide a framework for assessing future planning
applications. However, we do not agree that the principles are
appropriate and proportionate for a number of reasons. Firstly,
under the conditions laid out in the NPS, the IPC is unable to
refuse the application for delivering the Thames Tunnel on the
basis of need or more suitable alternatives; secondly, the IPC
is unable to refuse the application as it is already in the water
company asset management plan; and thirdly, as the Environment
Agency is supportive of the project, the IPC is further locked
into a position (Para 2.5.2).
Key principle 1: If the
development proposal is in accordance with this NPS, then the
IPC should operate on the basis that consent should be given,
except to the extent that any of the exceptions set out in the
Planning Act apply.
With specific regards to the first key principle
and with reference to the guidance on the IPC website on
national policy statements, it would appear that this principle
simply reiterates current guidance. The website explicitly states
that the IPC "…make our [sic] decisions or recommendations
within the framework provided by NPSs". It is also worth
noting that under the Localism Bill, this process remains broadly
similar.
Key principle 2: The IPC
should take into account the national and local benefits (environmental,
social and economic) including the contribution to the need for
waste water infrastructure, job creation and any long-term or
wider benefits. These may be identified in this NPS, in the application
or elsewhere.
Whilst London Councils agrees that this principle
is coherent, we do not believe that it is appropriate or that
it constitutes a practical framework as it does not include any
consideration of the local disbenefits which would normally be
considered through the planning process. As the scheme will be
paid for by London's residents and other Thames Water customers,
and because many of the scheme's impacts will be local in nature,
London Councils believes that the IPC should further consider
these and other negative impacts when making decisions over environmental,
social and economic factors. We believe that in order to ensure
that future waste water planning applications can be assessed
to a high standard, boroughs should be provided with the resources
to ensure that they are able to assess local impacts adequately.
Such provision is necessary as boroughs will not receive any planning
fees if the decision goes directly to the IPC as it will bypass
the way in which boroughs normally consider major applications
(and associated planning fees).
The other concerns that should be considered are
the potential for an increase in the amount of traffic as a result
of removing spoil, the social cost of the potential blight from
long term construction work, and the environmental cost in terms
of the carbon footprint of the construction and ongoing maintenance
of the proposed scheme. A further list of factors for consideration
can be found in the response to question 3 below. Further information
should also be provided (in addition to that on the IPC website)
on how developers should undertake Statements of Community Consultation.
Information should also be provided on how statements in the draft
waste water NPS, such as "local landscape designations should
not be used in themselves as reasons to refuse consent, as this
may unduly restrict acceptable development" (6.7.11) and
"these [nature conservation designations]…should not
be used in themselves as reasons to refuse consent" (6.5.12)
reflect the advise in PPS1 and PPS9 respectively. In the case
of PPS9, paragraph 1 (vi) sets out the relevant sequential test.
3. Are the sustainability and environmental
criteria outlined in the draft Waste Water NPS and associated
documents appropriate, proportionate and practical?
Factors for examination and determination of applications
will include an Environmental Impact Assessment. The EIA will
seek to gauge the impact of an application on: people's health,
flora and fauna, soil, water, air, climate, the landscape, material
assets and cultural heritage. The nature of impact ie direct,
indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium, long-term, permanent
and temporary, positive and negative will also be examined.
In addition to the EIA, the following sustainability
and environmental criteria are also components of the NPS:
— Habitats
Regulations Assessment.
— Strategic
alternatives to the planned project.
— "Good
design" for water infrastructure.
— Climate
change adaption.
— Pollution
control and other environmental consenting regimes.
— Safety
(liaison with Health and Safety Executive).
— Hazardous
Substances.
— Health.
The components outlined above, appear appropriate
and comprehensive.
4. Have issues or principles been left out
which should have been included in the draft Waste Water NPS?
London Councils has previously indicated "in
principle" support for the Thames Tunnel scheme as this option
was regarded as being the most viable based on the preceding studies.
However, since then, costs have been revised significantly and
public attitudes may also have changed to some of the previously
considered alternatives which were previously discarded as being
potentially too disruptive for the public. London Councils believes
that the planning principles set out in the NPS should be reconsidered
as at present, they restrict the IPC's ability to take a current
view of these issues.
London Councils would also like to emphasise our
belief that development of the project should be undertaken in
close collaboration with representatives of the affected boroughs
and that the Thames Tunnel Forum be retained as a key consultative
body. The advantage of such a move is that it enables engagement
to take place with a wide range of stakeholders (including local
authorities) and thus minimises the potential for problems.
Finally, London Councils believes that further scrutiny
of the cost of the project should be carried out and that a delivery
timetable should be put in place. The current cost is estimated
to be in the region of £3.6bn which represents more than
twice the previously projected costs and raises significant concerns
about value for money for customers.
To conclude, London Councils is pleased to have been
given the opportunity to contribute to the EFRA select committee
inquiry on Defra planning policy for new waste water projects.
We would also be pleased to provide further input or clarification
to this process if required by the committee.
January 2011
| 
