 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Floor and Water Management Bill |
Flood and Water Management Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Mick
Hillyard, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 January 2010(Afternoon)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Flood and Water Management BillSchedule 3Sustainable
Drainage Amendment
proposed (this day): 151, in schedule 3, page 52, leave out
lines 19 and 20 and
insert— ‘(1) The Minister
shall by order provide for the enforcement
of— (a) the requirement
for approval in paragraph 7(1);
and (b) the
duty to maintain in paragraph 21.’.—(Miss
McIntosh.) 1
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: amendment 155, in
schedule 3, page 54, line 36, leave
out ‘becomes responsible for maintaining’ and
insert ‘shall be under a duty to
maintain’. New
clause 13—Ownership and maintenance of sustainable urban
drainage
systems— ‘It
shall be stated which body has to be responsible
for— (a) the ownership,
and (b) maintenance of
sustainable urban drainage
systems.’. New
clause 21—Transfer of sustainable urban drainage
systems— ‘The
Secretary of State may make provision for the transfer of Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems to water and sewerage
companies.’.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I welcome you to the Chair,
Lady Winterton. I look forward to serving under your stewardship on
this final and very important sitting of this well supported
Bill. I
was making my concluding remarks, and I simply wanted to say that the
Bill itself provides 100 per cent. clarity on the arrangements for
approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems in new
developments—ones that have not yet been built. Unitary and
county local authorities will be SuDS approving bodies, and they will
be responsible for both functions. Those with responsibility for
adopting and maintaining SuDS should also lead on approving their
design and construction. That will mean that robust, well designed SuDS
that can be efficiently and effectively maintained are built.
The SAB,
which is also responsible for surface water and is lead local flood
authority, will consider the wider impacts of the development. County
and unitary authorities will be responsible for approving drainage
systems in
new developments. Where planning permission is required, the developer
can apply via the planning authority to streamline the process, but the
decision on drainage lies with the SAB and it will be guided by the
national standards, which will set out connection to the sewer as a
last resort.
Water and
sewerage companies, as well as the Environment Agency, are statutory
consultees to the approving process. Let me be clear: the process holds
significant weight. The SAB is liable for approving any SuDS
application. As a result, it will be subject to judicial review
proceedings should it fail to discharge its duties. It is clearly
strongly in the interests of the approving body to consult effectively
and listen to the advice of the water company regarding sewer capacity.
However, it must equally be emphasised that water and sewerage
companies are under a general duty to provide, maintain and extend the
public sewerage system in their areas.
County and
unitary authorities are also responsible for adopting and maintaining
new SuDS that serve more than one property. Where those SuDS are in
roads, the Highways Authority will maintain them. SuDS are also located
at county and unitary level. Developers welcome that as it sets out
clear arrangements for maintenance and provides an incentive for SuDS
to be built, which is what we all want to
see. Let
me quickly pick up on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member
for Selby. In Scotland, the water company is state-owned, but here they
are private. In Scotland the arrangements are more fragmented, with
local authorities adopting SuDS in roads, and Scottish Water adopting
other SuDS and so on. This measure is much
clearer. Returning
to the Bill, arrangements have also been made to protect private SuDS
by way of designation under schedule 1, and enforcement arrangements
are provided for in schedule 3. Under the Bill, the SAB can also adopt
existing SuDS voluntarily. Such arrangements for approval and adoption
are very clear; they cover all types of new SuDS and are all already
set out in the
Bill. Let
me add some further clarity on adoption functions in order to address
the view of some—but not all—water companies that they
should adopt and maintain SuDS, and to address concerns about who is
accountable. If flooding occurs because a SuDS that the local authority
has adopted has not been maintained properly, the local authority will
be responsible. It will have failed in its duty, and—I hope this
does not happen—it could be sued if damages are caused through
negligence. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent unitary and county
local authorities, in their role as SABs, from transferring their
adoption functions to water and sewerage companies by agreement should
they choose to do so, and that may happen. The SAB would retain
responsibility and liability for the SuDS, and that is right. However,
arrangements for funding in that respect would need to be
agreed. The
Bill also makes provision for the Minister to appoint, by order, a body
other than the unitary or county council to be the SAB under
sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 6 of schedule 3. We have spoken
to the water industry and both it and we are content that the spirit of
what it wants can be delivered via the guidance on the process of
seeking and maintaining approval, which is the subject of Government
amendment 159, accepted this morning. The same applies to the
following group of amendments. We are content that the spirit of what
is wanted can be delivered via the guidance. We will speak to the
industry between now and consideration on Report, so that if there are
any residual issues, amendments can be tabled on Report. The water
industry will be involved in the development of the guidance. As
statutory consultees to the SuDS approval process set out in the Bill,
the SAB must take notice of the advice of water companies. I will
clarify in guidance exactly what that means.
With those
reassurances and clarifications, I hope that the hon. Member for Vale
of York will consider withdrawing the
amendment. Miss
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): I warmly welcome you
to the Chair, Lady Winterton. It is a great pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship. As the Minister said, this is the last lap of the
Committee stage, so it is a particularly important
sitting. Unfortunately,
the Minister has not satisfied us on many aspects. Immediately before
lunch, he referred to his letter of 19 January relating to SuDS and the
automatic right to connect. In particular, we have concerns over new
developments. On the second page, the letter states that it is already
open to planning authorities to impose a planning condition deferring
development or, ultimately, to refuse consent for a new
development. Water
and sewerage companies should be recognised as statutory consultees on
the same basis as the Environment Agency. They should be able to set
conditions to avoid the outfall from SuDS into the sewerage system
causing spillage, as was described by the hon. Member for City of
Durham and other hon. Members. I want the companies to be able to say
that the capacity required for a new development requires changes to
the infrastructure, and for those changes to take place as part of the
planning conditions. Everybody I have spoken to informs me that under
the current provisions, what the Minister is assuring us will happen
will not
happen.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I want simply to reiterate my commitment
that, subject to discussions with the water industry next Tuesday, I
will come back and give time should the hon. Lady or other hon. Members
think amendments are needed subsequently. The water industry should be
able to indicate whether it is reassured or
not.
Miss
McIntosh: I am most grateful. As we learned this morning,
the problem is that the Government’s track record on issuing
guidance is woeful. We are still waiting for the guidance to be issued
on the adoption of private drains and sewers. We are told that that is
on target to be brought in by
2011. Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): On a point of
order, Lady Winterton. Can we confirm whether it would be in order to
table on Report amendments similar to those we are
discussing?
The
Chairman: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that would be
entirely in order. Of course, I cannot give an undertaking about the
selection of such
amendments.
The
Minister’s letter and remarks show that we are still in a bit of
a muddle on this matter, and we seek clarification in the Bill. We do
not want water and sewerage companies just to be consulted on guidance,
but for the guidance to stipulate that they will set conditions. Can
the Minister give us a commitment in Committee that water and sewerage
companies will be in a position to set conditions, so that they can
advise the planning body—the SAB? That goes to the heart of the
Bill. I believe that the developer and the owners of the new houses on
a major new development should pay. Any costs that arise from works to
the infrastructure owned by the water and sewerage
companies—because of the potential for surface water relating to
the major new development to come into the sewerage
system—should under no circumstances fall to existing customers.
Is the Minister prepared to put that commitment on record? He shakes
his head, so I am afraid that he does not satisfy us.
Furthermore,
the Minister just said that the arrangements for funding the SuDS
approval body have yet to be agreed. He has gained a great deal of
celebrity and popularity during the Committee’s proceedings, and
I hope that he is not now playing us for fools. Why should we let this
part of the Bill go without an assurance about what the funding will be
and who will provide it? He knows that the so-called SuDS approving
bodies, namely local authorities, have made representations at every
opportunity, saying that they do not have the necessary
funds.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I say only that I have made my commitment
clear and outlined what we intend to do about the whole range of
funding burdens. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that, if she were in
my post after a general election, she would honour those commitments?
With those assurances, local authorities, water companies and others
would have to have faith in Ministers to fulfil the
commitments.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: We have committed to considering the whole
range of burdens—SuDS, sewers, skills, training, capacity and so
on—and to sitting down formally with the Local Government
Association and others to decide the way
forward.
Miss
McIntosh: My hon. Friends will hear me make this
commitment: my understanding is that we are totally committed to doing
that. We forced the Minister to this point by saying that if he were
not prepared to introduce the Bill, we would introduce it as an
emergency measure if our positions changed. We are seeking his
assurance now so that water company customers know that they will not
pay, that there will not be an extra charge on the local council tax
and that the new developers will pick up the bill.
Another point
of difference is that we believe that the SuDS approval body is not
best placed to maintain SuDS once they have been
approved.
I do not wish
to detain the Committee further. I simply wish to press the amendment
to a vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 22 January 2010 |