The draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water

Written evidence submitted by the Greater London Authority (WWnps 06)

The Committee has set out four questions that it seeks to address during the course of its inquiry:

Q1 Responses to the questions in Defra’s consultation.

1.1 The Mayor’s response to the consultation and specific comments on the draft National Policy Statement are attached at Appendix 1. The Executive Summary is as follows:

· The Mayor of London welcomes the publication of the National Policy Statement for Waste Water and the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry.

· The role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or its proposed replacement body, does give rise to concerns over local accountability. In the case of the only two projects identified in the Policy Statement, which are both within London, the Mayor would want to ensure that proper consideration is given to the range of impacts on local communities. Whilst there is a clear desire to speed up the planning process and reduce uncertainty for key infrastructure projects, there is also a good deal of concern that local impacts will be overlooked. The draft NPS does little to give re-assurance to those concerns.

· London’s population has grown by nearly 1 million over the past 20 years and is

expected to grow by nearly a further million over the next 20 years to 2031. It is essential that London has reliable sewerage infrastructure to meet the demand of the population and the environmental requirements of the coming years.

· Much of the NPS is generally acceptable and in line with general planning guidance (eg PPS) or with normal planning practice. However some points have been raised in the specific comments section below where clarification or alteration is required. The most serious examples relate to issues where there is not enough provision to consider local concerns regarding the impacts of these nationally important proposals.

Q2 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?

2.1 Generally yes, but there are some concerns.

2.2 Paragraph 5.1.1 lists two key principles for the IPC to follow when determining applications. The Mayor feels that a third principle should be added. That would be that "The construction and operation of any development consented should be carried out in a way that takes reasonable steps to minimise its impacts on it local communities and setting." It would appear that this is Defra’s intention, given the extensive coverage of impacts in Chapter 6, however, this is not given enough weight in Chapter 5 and may lead to a view that the IPC would be overly biased toward the granting of consent.

2.3 More specifically, the NPS appears to let developers off lightly when it comes to design. Indeed the NPS refers to architecture, when in planning, the term "design" is more useful. This is because design refers to the location, orientation, architecture, materials and landscaping of the scheme. Using all of these tools can enable developers of waste water infrastructure to have a minimal or positive impact on the setting. The NPS appears to accept too readily that such infrastructure will be negative and little can be done about it-see paragraph 5.5.3.

2.4 The Mayor has two concerns in relation to one of the two specified projects in the NPS, namely Deephams Sewage Treatment Works. In the first instance there is either confusion or misinformation about the options available to upgrade the works. In paragraph it appears that there are options to rebuild on the existing site or to examine alternative sites. Whereas in paragraph and section it appears clear that replacement on the current site is not appropriate and that there may be a particular site in mind. In order to be responsive to local requirements the IPC must be able to consider alternative locations for the provision of such works.

2.5 Secondly, the Mayor is concerned to ensure that the upgraded Deephams STW is designed to cope with a growing population. In his response to the consultation the Mayor will identify that London is growing significantly. The four London boroughs that form the main catchment of Deephams are expected to grow by 168 000 between 2006–2031 to have a population of 1 233 000, and probably further beyond that. The NPS states that Deephams will be designed for a growth of 15,400 population equivalent to 885 400. The Mayor wishes to be assured that the planned upgrade/replacement is sufficient for the long term.

Q3 Are the sustainability and environmental criteria outlined in the draft Waste Water NPS and associated documents appropriate, proportionate and practical ?

3.1 Generally yes although it is surprising that noise appears to be the main environmental issue for Deephams STW (paragraph 3.1.8) whereas, we would expect odour to be the most significant issue. See also comments on design in relation to Q2 above.

Q4 Have issues or principles been left out which should have been included in the draft Waste Water NPS ?

4.1 The NPS appears to place too much weight on itself as a consultation document. It states (paragraph 2.6.6) that it should act as public consultation on both the Thames Tunnel and Deephams STWs. It would seem unlikely that all but the most dedicated and well informed interest groups would comment on this document. The likelihood of many local communities affected by these schemes making a response to this consultation is low.

Appendix 1 – Response to Defra Consultation

Executive Summary

1.1 The Mayor of London welcomes the publication of the National Policy Statement for Waste Water and the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry.

1.2 The role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or its proposed replacement body, does give rise to concerns over local accountability. In the case of the only two projects identified in the Policy Statement, which are both within London, the Mayor would want to ensure that proper consideration is given to the range of impacts on local communities. Whilst there is a clear desire to speed up the planning process and reduce uncertainty for key infrastructure projects, there is also a good deal of concern that local impacts will be overlooked. The draft NPS does little to give re-assurance to those concerns.

1.3 London’s population has grown by nearly 1 million over the past 20 years and is expected to grow by nearly a further million over the next 20 years to 2031. It is essential that London has reliable sewerage infrastructure to meet the demand of the population and the environmental requirements of the coming years.

1.4 Much of the NPS is generally acceptable and in line with general planning guidance (eg PPS) or with normal planning practice. However some points have been raised in the specific comments section below where clarification or alteration is required. The most serious examples relate to issues where there is not enough provision to consider local concerns regarding the impacts of these nationally important proposals.

Specific Comments on the draft National Policy Statement

1.5 Page 6, paragraph 1.5.3

This states that "Failure to adopt the NPS would result in failure by the UK Government to meet obligations in the UWWT Directive". Whilst not being fully conversant with the Government’s case for stating this, (the Imperative Reasons for Over-riding Public Interest), this would seem to be an overstatement of a point, after all not having an NPS does not mean that poor decisions will be made, it just means that decisions will not have a single source of policy advice to follow.

1.6 Pages 11-12, paragraph 2.4.7–2.4.12

The Mayor of London’s London Plan fully supports the use of SuDS, indeed the 2004 London Plan informed the Government’s approach in making this a requirement in all reasonable cases. However, the impacts of reducing surface water flows will take decades to make a major difference and in the mean time investment will be needed in both sewerage collection systems and sewage treatment works. In the long term further separation of rainwater from sewage systems may be important  and should not be discouraged.

1.7 Page 14, paragraph 2.6.2 and Page 18, paragraph 3.2.11

These set out that an aim of the improvements at Deephams STW is to increase capacity by 2% or a population equivalent of 15,400. This is of major concern as London’s population is growing significantly more quickly than that.

1.8 The Mayor wishes to be assured that the planned expansion at Deephams Sewage Treatment Works is adequate for the long term – at least until 2031. London’s population is projected to grow by approximately 1 million between 2006 - 2031. Deephams STW is understood to serve parts of the London Boroughs of Barnet, Enfield, Haringey and Waltham Forest and some areas outside London in Hertfordshire and Essex. The population growth estimates for these boroughs is 168,000, as shown in the table below, these figures are part of the figures that were used for London as a whole to inform the Mayor’s draft replacement London Plan:

1.9 This significant growth in the relevant north London Boroughs does not appear to match the planned scale of growth in the Deephams STW facility. The new facility must be planned and designed to cope with the population growth expected and be capable of being expanded to meet further growth beyond 2031.

2.0 Paragraph 2.6.6, bullet 3

It is not likely that consultation responses on this NPS will come from a particularly wide spectrum of responders, especially amongst members of local communities. Therefore it is not acceptable to state that this NPS represents anything other than token consultation on the two specific projects referred to.

2.1 Page 15, paragraph 3.1.2

This states that the improvement of Deephams STW "is likely to require significant new treatment facilties on the existing site or on another site, the location of which is yet to be confirmed." However the last line of paragraph 3.2.11 states that it "will require relocation of the STW to a new site". Furthermore, paragraphs 3.3.1 – 3.3.8 make it clear that alternatives to a new STW on a new site have been examined and rejected.

2.2 This appears to limit the IPC scope for decision making. It does not seem right that such alternatives are ruled out so early on. The IPC should have the ability to consider alternatives and should certainly be open to others, particularly local planning authorities, making representations regarding alternatives.

2.3 Even if such alternatives can be ruled out at this stage, it is certainly wrong and indeed misleading for the NPS to indicate in some paras that locational decisions are yet to be made.

2.4 Page 16, paragraph 3.1.8

This states that noise is the main potential adverse effect. This does not seem immediately obvious. The main concern at most STWs is odour, followed by impacts on receiving watercourses, in general STW appear to operate relatively quietly.

2.5 Page 16, paragraph 3.1.9

It is unclear to what extent Deephams STW effects water quality in the Thames. It is understood to be a major impact on Salmon Brook and a significant impact on the River Lee, but the extent to which it effects the Thames must be questioned.

2.6 Page 21, section 4

The Mayor supports the NPS in setting out its approach to the Thames Tunnel, even though this is not currently subject to referral to the IPC.

2.7 The NPS could lead the way in clarifying the name of the project. The use of the term Thames Tunnel is potentially confusing as the Thames Tunnel is the name given to the existing Tunnel under the Thames between Rotherhithe and Wapping that now carries the East London Railway line.

2.8 It would be more useful to use a term such as Thames Tideway Tunnel or Thames Tideway Sewer Tunnel to distinguish this project from the 150 year old existing Thames Tunnel.

2.9 Pages 22-23, paragraph 4.1.9 – 4.1.10

The current preferred proposal for the Thames Tunnel directly effects 14 London boroughs as opposed to the 13 mentioned, the missing one being LB Ealing.

3.0 Page 26, paragraph 4.2.10-4.2.11

The Mayor of London’s London Plan fully supports the use of SuDS, indeed the 2004 London Plan informed the Government’s approach in making this a requirement in all reasonable cases.

3.1 The last line of paragraph 4.2.11 states that retrofitting would not provide sufficient reductions in CSO spill frequency to meet the objectives, this is inaccurate. SuDS could provide sufficient capacity but would take a long time, probably several decades to provide it. Therefore this statement should be amended to reflect the time aspect.

3.2 Page 28, paragraph 5.1.1 i)

This statement does not make reference to the need to ensure that National Infrastructure is constructed and operated in a way that reduces impacts on local communities to an acceptable level. Therefore it provides too much emphasis on allowing development. This is the crux of the concerns that local people and democratically elected politicians feel with the IPC or its replacement body.

3.3 Given that Chapter 6 of the NPS covers generic impacts, and does so reasonably comprehensively, it is clear that the IPC is expected to consider these impacts. Therefore this paragraph should be altered to make it clear that the IPC will expect to see all reasonable steps taken to minimise the impacts on local communities.

3.4 Page 30, paragraph 5.5.3

This relates to the use of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. It is particularly weak as it concedes that there may be no or limited choice in physical appearance of some infrastructure. This gives rise to a concern that developers, who are mainly privatised water companies, will not try hard enough to design infrastructure to minimise its visual and other impacts. Good design is about more than architecture, it concerns the layout, siting, choice of materials, lighting etc as well as the building/structure itself.

3.5 This paragraph should be substantially re-drafted to reflect more commonly used planning terms in relation to good design and place an emphasis on developers to achieve good design that minimises its impacts and where possible enhances its setting.

3.6 Page 41, paragraph 6.3.8

The inclusion of the consideration of plant failure in the odour impact assessment is welcomed. Experience shows that this is often the cause of the worst odour impacts and that these may last over periods of many days. However, the term "major" plant failure is not helpful, as it will leave open as a matter of judgement what constitutes a major failure.

3.7 Page 42, paragraph 6.4.1

By their nature most major STWs are located by larger rivers or the sea to enable the discharge of effluent. Therefore many such works are in areas of flood risk. This point should be made in this introductory paragraph to the Flood Risk section.

January 2011