The draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water

Written evidence submitted by Water UK (WWnps 04)

Executive Summary

1. Water UK represent s a l l UK water and wastewater suppliers at national and European level. We provide a positive framework for the industry to eng age with government , regulators, other organisations and the public.

2. Water UK is delighted to give evidence to the Efra Select Committee on Defra’s consultation on the draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water. We have focussed on Part 2 and have responded to the questions as set out in the consultation document.

3. Overall, Water UK believes the draft NPS has considerable merit, however, there are some areas of concern . For example :

* We believe the assumptions mad e about the benefits of the alternatives to large scale waste water treatment are overly optimistic and not supported by the evidence base.

* There is a risk that the cr iteria for "good design", a s set out in 5.5 , may compromise the vital requirements of functionality, accessibility and safe operation, and disproportionately increase customer costs.

* Meeting t he odour impact exposure standard , as laid out in 6.3.7, is likely to be disproportionate to the benefit.

* The draft Waste Water National Policy Statement does not recognise that the cost of waste water infrastructure development falls directly on customers. The IPC should be required to give consideration to the impact of infrastructure development on customer bills.

WATER UK ’S EVIDENCE ON DEFRA’S CONSULTATION ON THE NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT ON WASTE WATER

We have used the structure of the questions as set out in the Consultation Document pp16-18

Question 6.1. Do you think this draft Waste Water NPS clearly establishes the need for such infrastructure for those considering nationally significant projects in this area?

The draft waste water NPS recognises the importance of waste water treatment infrastructure for public health and the environment. It clearly sets out the key drivers for investment in new and improved infrastructure. The statements of government’s policy objectives help clarify the national strategy relating to waste water. However, it lacks a clear statement of the regulatory imperative that is almost always the principal driver for such projects.

Question 6.2. Do you think the draft Waste Water NPS adequately sets out for the Infrastructure Planning Commission the key assessment principles to inform the assessment of future waste water development applications?

The draft Waste Water NPS contains a lot of useful policy content. Existing national policy does not provide support for the benefits that new wastewater infrastructure brings. In considering individual projects, the focus is often on short term construction impacts rather than the permanent benefits.

Question 6.3. Do you think the draft Waste Water NPS adequately sets out for the Infrastructure Planning Commission on how they should consider alternatives when it comes to particular projects?

The assumptions made in the benefits from the alternatives in section 2.4, pertaining to alternatives to new large scale waste water capacity, are overly optimistic and are not supported by an evidence base.

For example it is assumed in 2.4.2 that a reduction in household water consumption could lead to a reduction in flow discharged to the sewerage system of 10%. Sewerage companies think this unlikely.

Similarly, the use of Sustainable Drainage and separate sewer systems, which the industry fully supports, will take a long time to become the de-facto system in common operation. We welcome recognition in 2.4.12 that upgrading existing drainage systems to current standards is unlikely to be cost beneficial.

We support the conclusion in 2.4.4 on cost incentives for trade effluent, but consider the need for new waste water infrastructure will continue in most circumstances.

Question 6.4. Do you think the draft Waste Water NPS gives appropriate guidance to decision makers on how they should assess the need to consider ‘Good Design’ for waste water infrastructure?

Waste water infrastructure is not inherently attractive and its design reflects its functionality, accessibility and safe operation. Good design will seek to maximise the use of existing infrastructure and avoid the need for unnecessary pumping. Therefore, locations for siting new infrastructure can be limited when sustainability issues are properly considered.

There is a risk that a requirement for good aesthetic and functional design may compromise these requirements and increase costs to customers disproportionately.

We support the requirement in paragraph 5.5.4 for the IPC to take account of the ultimate purpose of the infrastructure. We suggest it should also consider the cost benefit of design requirements and customers’ willingness to pay.

We have concerns with the requirement in paragraph 6.4.22 for essential wastewater infrastructure [that has to be located in flood risk areas] to remain operational when floods occur. This appears to be a misinterpretation of Planning Policy Statement 25.

The physical nature of wastewater collection and treatment leads to the low lying location of many wastewater treatment works and Pumping Stations. In addition, the conveyance systems are in open communication, making it unrealistic that they remain fully operational during flooding events. Such a requirement would have significant cost implications that would outweigh resulting benefits.

We consider it to be more important for operations to commence as soon as possible after flooding has subsided. Therefore, it is suggested that this policy should be changed to "….be designed to be resilient to the effects of flooding."

Question 6.5. It is a requirement of the Planning Act that an NPS must include an explanation of how the policy set out in the statement takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. Do you think the draft Waste Water NPS adequately fulfils this requirement?

Yes, section 5.6 provides comprehensive guidance on the need to consider climate change and adaptation measures for new infrastructure. However, i n some cases it will be very difficult to reinstate, restore or enhance biodiversity on a site following construction . Other nearby habitats might be separate from the construction scheme but offer better potential .

Question 6.6. Have all the potential environmental impacts of waste water development, and options for their mitigation, been identified in the Assessment Principles and Generic Impacts chapter of the draft Waste Water National Policy Statement?

They have , but we challenge the standards proposed in Section 6 Generic Impacts. In paragraph 6.3.7 an odour standard of 1.5 ou /m3 is proposed . The cost of meeting this standard is likely to be disproportional to the benefit. We suggest the standard to be adopted should be open to discussion and based on cost benefit analysis and customers ’ willingness to pay.

In most cases a standard of 1.5 ouE.m-3 could only be achieved by locating works remotely from sensitive receptors, or by process enclosure and odour treatment. Our experience shows that enclosure causes significant operational difficulties, and the associated costs are disproportionate to the benefits.

There are five reasons for our concern with this section of the policy:

· The H4 guidance is still draft. The industry has made representations on the guidance and further consultation will be required before it is approved in final form.

· The draft H4 guidance is for Environmental Permitting and only applies to certain sludge treatment facilities, not effluent treatment plant where odour levels are significantly lower.

· The proposal standard contradicts Defra’s Odour Guidance for Local Authorities.

· Additional costs would have to be sought with the agreement of Ofwat.

· If funding is approved by Ofwat, there remain concerns about the operational capability of treating effluent within closed spaces.

We would therefore advocate an approach that assesses projects against a range of odour standards, agreed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration relevant industry guidance, practicability and effectiveness.

Question 6.7. Do you think the draft Waste Water National Policy Statement considers all the significant potential impacts of waste water development? If not, what do you think is missing and why?

The draft Waste Water National Policy Statement does not recognise that the cost of waste water infrastructure development falls directly on customers. The IPC should be required to give consideration to the impact of infrastructure development on customer bills and whether customers support any increase in bills that result from its delivery.

Question 6.8. Do you think that the two schemes outlined by the draft Waste Water National Policy Statement capture the level of need for nationally significant infrastructure in this area? If not, what further schemes should be included?

Some companies feel the concept of establishing a threshold for national significant infrastructure by population equivalent may exclude infrastructure development of national significance that falls below the threshold although we understand the Secretary of State will have the power to call in certain developments.

However, others believe the planning system has effectively delivered many schemes of this nature without delay. There is a danger that the IPC could unnecessarily slow down important projects.

In general terms, if these projects have been determined as Nationally Significant then the applicant needs to demonstrate a n awareness of the issu es and undertake a reasonable or acceptable level of mitigation, but the IPC and other regulatory bodies need to recognise there are other legal drivers necessitating the construction of these projects within a particular timescale.

Questions posed by the Efra Select Committee

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 Infrastructure Planning Commission and other planners can assess future waste water infrastructure planning applications?

Overall they do. However the industry would like the IPC or other planning authorities to be subject to a requirement to consider cost benefit or the impact on customer bills.

January 2011